FWIW, I seem to recall that moment, as well. Additionally, he was pushing for continued "smart sanctions" (Iraqis be damned and damned indefinitely) as the "alternative solution" to war.
Hopefully the post after yours clarifies for you. And if you're curious about 'smart sanctions', groverat has a nice link to a U.N. site about them. Hell, he liked them so much he even agreed that they'd work.
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
They aren't strawmen if people were really actually making those arguements that were mentioned. People were saying that the US was lying and wasn't really in baghdad(cuz the US always lies), people were saying that the Iraqi resistance was proof of their actual love of Saddam (tonton I think), people continue to say that the US will plant evidence of WMD, though their best opportunity would have been during the height of hostilities when everyong was busy watching the fighting (der kopf, SJO etc I think). It is not a strawman arguement to bring these up, as they have been used by people in the anti-war movement. As I think you yourself once said, the antiwar movement is not a a group of people sharing the exact same ideas, but oppose for a variety of reasons. And likewise, the presented various arguements, regardless of plausability, and none were argued against by other antiwar people.
Groverat is also on record saying that the sanctions could have been improved to the point of not causing such an absurdly large humanitarian crisis.
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
So, you and grove seemingly agree. Hell must have frozen over.
No leftist equivalent to Rush exists, Fellowship. The left counters the hate-speech of the right with humor. It's more like you posting a link from a respected conservative site like the The Weekly Standard.
1. Because Rush wasn't created to "fill a void", like this new enterprise is trying to do. No leftist equivalent exists, but many have tried. They traditionally haven't done well outside of the major coastal markets. Specifically, the Bay Area of Frisco and New York. But the field is wide open, and anyone with talent, something to say and something the people want to hear has an open, honest shot. It's not the fault of Rush, Sean, G. Gordon, Neil, Michael, Laura, etc. that more left-leaning shows or hosts haven't made that big of a splash.
2. First, Rush does more with humor and responding to various sound clips of Daschle, Kennedy or war protesters than he's EVER said anything REMOTELY able to be tagged "hate speech". You'd know that if you ever listened to the man (but I know you want, so it's easier to do what Al Franken and everyone else does and immediately/automatically label him as anything horrible).
3. The most dour, UNfunny, most-in-need-of-a-joy-buzzer group of people in the world are those currently running the Democratic party, the hopped-up anti-war bunch and various other sections of left-leaning groups and associations! They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American. In the past year or so, I've had many conversations with my Democrat/liberal buddies and co-workers and the bulk of them have said at one point, "man, I don't think I like where we're going..." in referring to how off-putting and alienated they feel as the party seems to be moving farther to the left.
You're totally right about the left not having a Limbaugh-status counterpart. And you know what? I think that's a VERY telling little nugget. You may not like it and it might drive you nuts, but if there was a market and demand for a left-leaning Rush type of person, he or she would be on the air and making a killing in the ratings.
You can't force this stuff or will it to be. That's not how it works and it always fails when it's artificially created or put together.
I honestly don't think most people - left OR right - truly feel that there is a void or any sort of lack of liberal, left-leaning voice or opinion in the media today. On television especially, you have to search quite hard to find conservative/right-of-center friendly content and viewpoints. Fox News? The Family Channel? The various religious networks? Maybe a few others? A few shows like "Seventh Heaven" "Touched by an Angel" maybe. Not many though.
Basically it's one industry (talk radio) that someone who is of the right-leaning persuasion can kinda tune into and feel like "okay, I'm not going to be offended or have my intelligence insulted or my heroes or beliefs demeaned".
That's a powerful thing. But, as I said, there's nothing keeping a left-leaning powerhouse commentator/humorist from making his or her mark. Other than lack of demand, I guess.
They aren't strawmen if people were really actually making those arguements that were mentioned.
Yeah, but the point pscates was making ended up having been made by 1) his uncle and 2) the former Iraqi Information Minister. As far as I know neither one's opinion played any part here, and pscates hadn't made that clear when he originally posted. He attributed the belief to 'anti-war' folks, and judging by the context that would be anti-war folks posting here.
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed. The original sanctions in the intentions and planning were meant to be as effective as any new once that would have come out, they were supposed to put pressure on Saddam and limit his ability to thrive. They failed because of implementation problems caused by Saddam's ability to manipulate and confuse the issues. 'Improved' sanctions would likely have achieved the same reaction and the same results.
bunge if you don't want some straw let me say this to you and SPJ:
I saw many folks in the streets that were "anti-war" or so they claimed hold signs that read: "Bush is Hitler"
I will say I will choose Fox News over that mentality ANY DAY!
I take in all points of view but at the end of the day I make up my own mind.
I think what pscates said a few posts up is accurate about the voice of the left. They all have their chances in the marketplace and if for once they "the left voice" can articulate a viewpoint that people want to identify with then by all means what is holding them up?
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed. The original sanctions in the intentions and planning were meant to be as effective as any new once that would have come out, they were supposed to put pressure on Saddam and limit his ability to thrive. They failed because of implementation problems caused by Saddam's ability to manipulate and confuse the issues. 'Improved' sanctions would likely have achieved the same reaction and the same results.
I agree with this 100% I hate that sanctions even have to exist in the first place. Sanctions do not help the people of a given population they in fact harm the people. I understand the logic of sanctions in view of the fact we do not live in an ideal world. However in the case of Iraq I can not stress enough that I am VERY gratified for the Iraqi people. They are due a peaceful country with prosperiety and liberty.
What an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent reply. Thanks for the input.
Thanks Tulkas:
For a side note I will also say I watch the CBC and NWI (News World International) of Canada and I truly respect the professional journalism from Canada.
I do not only watch Fox. I also enjoy watching Mosaic on World Link. Mosaic is a news program that shows what each of the middle eastern news agencies airs on their broadcasts. It is translated into English if the broadcast is not already in English.
1. Because Rush wasn't created to "fill a void", like this new enterprise is trying to do. No leftist equivalent exists, but many have tried. They traditionally haven't done well outside of the major coastal markets. Specifically, the Bay Area of Frisco and New York. But the field is wide open, and anyone with talent, something to say and something the people want to hear has an open, honest shot. It's not the fault of Rush, Sean, G. Gordon, Neil, Michael, Laura, etc. that more left-leaning shows or hosts haven't made that big of a splash.
2. First, Rush does more with humor and responding to various sound clips of Daschle, Kennedy or war protesters than he's EVER said anything REMOTELY able to be tagged "hate speech". You'd know that if you ever listened to the man (but I know you want, so it's easier to do what Al Franken and everyone else does and immediately/automatically label him as anything horrible).
3. The most dour, UNfunny, most-in-need-of-a-joy-buzzer group of people in the world are those currently running the Democratic party, the hopped-up anti-war bunch and various other sections of left-leaning groups and associations! They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American. In the past year or so, I've had many conversations with my Democrat/liberal buddies and co-workers and the bulk of them have said at one point, "man, I don't think I like where we're going..." in referring to how off-putting and alienated they feel as the party seems to be moving farther to the left.
You're totally right about the left not having a Limbaugh-status counterpart. And you know what? I think that's a VERY telling little nugget. You may not like it and it might drive you nuts, but if there was a market and demand for a left-leaning Rush type of person, he or she would be on the air and making a killing in the ratings.
You can't force this stuff or will it to be. That's not how it works and it always fails when it's artificially created or put together.
I honestly don't think most people - left OR right - truly feel that there is a void or any sort of lack of liberal, left-leaning voice or opinion in the media today. On television especially, you have to search quite hard to find conservative/right-of-center friendly content and viewpoints. Fox News? The Family Channel? The various religious networks? Maybe a few others? A few shows like "Seventh Heaven" "Touched by an Angel" maybe. Not many though.
Basically it's one industry (talk radio) that someone who is of the right-leaning persuasion can kinda tune into and feel like "okay, I'm not going to be offended or have my intelligence insulted or my heroes or beliefs demeaned".
That's a powerful thing. But, as I said, there's nothing keeping a left-leaning powerhouse commentator/humorist from making his or her mark. Other than lack of demand, I guess.
1. Leftists won't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh.
2. I don't know about that.
3. Not really.
4. Yes, they certainly have the means.
5. 40 year unimpeded run? The country has gotten increasingly conservative- that's for sure.
6. The party is not moving leftward. It's ridiculous to claim that a bunch of allegiance pledging, pro-war democrats are pulling the party leftward! Oh boy! The most popular leftist out there, Howard Dean, has qualms about gun control!
7. Well, no the market wouldn't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Leftists aren't like that, Mr. Scates.
8. The media, especially the cable news networks have all become increasingly conservative in moves to "outfox fox." MSNBC replaced their #1 rated show, Donahue, with hate-monger Michael Savage! You don't have to look hard to find a prominent conservative voice. What you're doing is "working the refs"- that is you'll keep saying a liberal media exists so the public believes it to a certain extent and becomes willing to give the right a break. There is no more liberal media- had it ever existed...
I'm actually kinda in a cool, unique position in that I'm on record from 2 or so weeks ago saying, in essence, "hey, if for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people from this barbaric thug, this is a noble and just cause...".
Yeah, the discovery of WOMD would be cool (and they'll, of course, be found). But, to me, that's kinda icing on the cake.
What a beautiful, historic country over there. And the city of Baghdad itself is gorgeous. I keep seeing it on TV and all it's buildings, mosques, town squares, parks, etc. It's a shame a place like that has been tainted by the presence and regime of such a psychopath all this time.
I was telling my Dad the other day that eventually Baghdad will be a place people actually seek out to go, especially many Christians and Biblical scholars and historians (Fellowship can explain why better than I can ).
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
From that I have not wavered. I posted 3-4 weeks ago that I couldn't wait to see the citizens, once they were sure Saddam was no longer a threat, react with joy. For the most part, that day was today. So that probably explains the happy, chirpy mood I've been in since this morning.
That's what I was waiting for, and I got to see it.
Yes, lots of work to be done and we're not finished yet, but to think of all that's been done in three weeks. Simply amazing, actually.
I'm actually kinda in a cool, unique position in that I'm on record from 2 or so weeks ago saying, in essence, "hey, if for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people from this barbaric thug, this is a noble and just cause...".
Yeah, the discovery of WOMD would be cool (and they'll, of course, be found). But, to me, that's kinda icing on the cake.
What a beautiful, historic country over there. And the city of Baghdad itself is gorgeous. I keep seeing it on TV and all it's buildings, mosques, town squares, parks, etc. It's a shame a place like that has been tainted by the presence and regime of such a psychopath all this time.
I was telling my Dad the other day that eventually Baghdad will be a place people actually seek out to go, especially many Christians and Biblical scholars and historians (Fellowship can explain why better than I can ).
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
From that I have not wavered. I posted 3-4 weeks ago that I couldn't wait to see the citizens, once they were sure Saddam was no longer a threat, react with joy. For the most part, that day was today. So that probably explains the happy, chirpy mood I've been in since this morning.
That's what I was waiting for, and I got to see it.
Yes, lots of work to be done and we're not finished yet, but to think of all that's been done in three weeks. Simply amazing, actually.
Beautiful pscates!!!! I share your feelings here.
Let me share the link to World Link and the middle eastern show "Mosaic" which shows the views in the middle east.
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed.
Well history, the U.N. and groverat all disagree with you.
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
But this ignores the millions dying under an oppressive regime in North Korea. Too difficult a battle? Then it also ignores the million dying in Africa that would require less money and less military to save.
If the cause is humanitarian, why Iraq? That makes no sense. It's not the easiest battle, it's not the cheapest battle and it's not the most needy cause. Needy? Yes. Most needy? No. Best ROI? No. For the people? Evidently not, unless Iraqi people are considered better than Africans.
You'll admit this wasn't for WMD. The humanitarian cause could have been partially fixed with intelligent sanctions, leaving only a political crisis to deal with. The numbers dying in the past few years from the political situation are probably no greater than China, per capita. So, why the fuss? Why do you celebrate Iraqi liberation in the face of African, Asian and other Mid Eastern oppression?
Well history, the U.N. and groverat all disagree with you.
History doesn't disagree with me. Historically, sanctions have failed in Iraq, not because they were weak or unintelligent (as any sanctions can be), but because they were able to be manipulated by Saddam. He was also able to play the UN when it came to 'working' the sanctions. If history is to be our guide, then history shows sanctions didn't work, history can't show that new sanctions would have worked. The UN would disagree, because the UN doesn't learn from their mistakes of the past and was unwilling to take real action to resolve Iraq's situation. Grove may disagree with me, but I think he is pragmatic enough to realize that, while 'intelligent' sanctions might have shown modest improvements in results in the short term, they would likely have suffered the same fate of the original sanctions.
What?!? Let me guess: are they too high-minded and dignified? Bullcrap...they'd LOVE to have someone who came on everyday for three hours and played soundclips of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Charlton Heston, etc. saying silly things and responding to it! Hell, they could devote an entire hour to Bush mangling words or sentences. You people LOVE that stuff! Someone passionate and articulate who defends and promotes liberal values and principles and "sticks it to" various blowhard right-wingers and conservatives, pointing out conservative hypocrisy and stuff like that? Someone like Al Franken, only funny? Horseshit, Shawn. Liberals would eat it up! I don't know what you're talking about. In any case, do you suddenly speak for all Leftists? How do you know what they would or wouldn't accept? If you think a liberal talk show host or network would succeed with a bunch of stuffy, tweed jacket-wearing, beard-scratching intellectuals sitting around acting all dour, bitter and "serious" (quoting Senate bills and reading op-ed pieces from the Boston Globe and New York Times) and deriding/mocking the institutions and traditions that most Americans believe in and hold dear, you're more delusional than I thought.
Quote:
2. I don't know about that.
If you're saying that because you don't/haven't listened to the show, then I appreciate and respect your honesty. If you're saying it in a doubting way (implying that Rush is all about "hate speech") then you're really out to lunch and have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure which you meant, so I'm covering both bases here.
Quote:
3. Not really.
Oh, Daschle, Pelosi, Kennedy, Begalla, Hollywood, etc. AREN'T in need of a sense of humor and a "lighten up" pill? We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Quote:
4. Yes, they certainly have the means.
Well I'm relieved to see that you're not completely out in left field (no pun intended) or feel the need to disagree with EVERYTHING I say. Congrats...we agree: liberals have the means and access to do their thing. It isn't mine or Rush's fault that no one seems to give two damns.
Quote:
5. 40 year unimpeded run? The country has gotten increasingly conservative- that's for sure.
Didn't they pretty much have Congress up until 1994? Wasn't that why the "Republican revolution" of that year was such a big story? I seem to remember that was the case. Several high-profile (and popular) Democrat Presidents too, of course. As far as the country getting "increasingly conservative", maybe. The plain folk. "Flyover country" denizens, I guess. The ones who can't afford to go join protest rallies and boycott marches at the drop of a hat, I guess. Don't tell me you think Hollywood and the universities have gone all right-wing! Please.
Quote:
6. The party is not moving leftward. It's ridiculous to claim that a bunch of allegiance pledging, pro-war democrats are pulling the party leftward! Oh boy! The most popular leftist out there, Howard Dean, has qualms about gun control!
I think Ms. Pelosi herself is helping orchestrate such a strategy. Check your playsheet and notes. Where, exactly, is this bunch of "pro-war" Democrats? Not the party leadership. Not the ones with true power and status that everyone sees. Yes, they may - after the fact and after it's started - "come on board" and show their support for the good of the troops or whatever. But they all made it quite clear where they stood. Jumping on the gravy train when things are going good (after denouncing and hindering said gravy train for months) rings a bit hollow to most rational people. Maybe some schmo from Idaho or something that no one knows. And don't toss in that "allegiance pledging" thing, as if to pre-empt a strike by me implying that somehow Democrats aren't "patriotic". Nobody, least of all me, never said they weren't. And I'd be willing to bet a handsome sum that Mr. Dean is about the ONLY prominent Democrat who has those particular qualms. Hardly representative of the party as a whole. Kind of like saying some well-known Republican was against tax cuts and making it sound like he represents the GOP viewpoint.
Quote:
7. Well, no the market wouldn't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Leftists aren't like that, Mr. Scates.
Allow me to state a passionate "bullshit" right here. See number one above for a more detailed answer.
Quote:
8. The media, especially the cable news networks have all become increasingly conservative in moves to "outfox fox." MSNBC replaced their #1 rated show, Donahue, with hate-monger Michael Savage! You don't have to look hard to find a prominent conservative voice. What you're doing is "working the refs"- that is you'll keep saying a liberal media exists so the public believes it to a certain extent and becomes willing to give the right a break. There is no more liberal media- had it ever existed...
Now you're just drunk, Shawn. Put the bottle down.
Okay, MAYBE in the past year or so, CNN and MSNBC have not liked getting their collective asses beaten by that Fox News whippersnapper. So they toss off that dinosaur Donahue in favor of Savage. But again, WHERE WAS THE AUDIENCE??? He's a legend, for crying out loud...he INVENTED the whole damn genre!!! Wasn't he supposed to come in and "show the others how it was done"? Yeah, he did a real bang-up job. Saying Donahue's show was #1 on MSNBC doesn't mean THAT much because it got about 1/3 or so of the audience O'Reilly does on any given night. That's like being the nicest smelling cow dropping in a field of cow droppings. Hardly matters. O'Reilly demolished Chung AND Donahue, both of have WAY more face-recognition and longstanding roots/ties in TV. Even I don't dig on Savage (he's a bitter, cranky fart-knocker), but that's not my call to make. Write MSNBC if you think it sucks.
So what's that...one year? You're honestly going to say that Fox, by itself, (and a few months of bandwagon-jumping by the other two networks) constitue a true huge "shift to the right"? What about the decades that CNN and others went unchallenged or had no alternative?
You guys just don't like it because people respond to talk radio and Fox News. You don't have the grip and influence you've enjoyed for decades and you actually have to compete and go up against other voices which are, at the moment, quite popular and doing well in every measurable category.
Are you doing intern work for Eric Alterman? Research, "fact finding" and so forth? Is that where you got this notion?
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
FWIW, I seem to recall that moment, as well. Additionally, he was pushing for continued "smart sanctions" (Iraqis be damned and damned indefinitely) as the "alternative solution" to war.
Hopefully the post after yours clarifies for you. And if you're curious about 'smart sanctions', groverat has a nice link to a U.N. site about them. Hell, he liked them so much he even agreed that they'd work.
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
They aren't strawmen if people were really actually making those arguements that were mentioned. People were saying that the US was lying and wasn't really in baghdad(cuz the US always lies), people were saying that the Iraqi resistance was proof of their actual love of Saddam (tonton I think), people continue to say that the US will plant evidence of WMD, though their best opportunity would have been during the height of hostilities when everyong was busy watching the fighting (der kopf, SJO etc I think). It is not a strawman arguement to bring these up, as they have been used by people in the anti-war movement. As I think you yourself once said, the antiwar movement is not a a group of people sharing the exact same ideas, but oppose for a variety of reasons. And likewise, the presented various arguements, regardless of plausability, and none were argued against by other antiwar people.
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by bunge
Groverat is also on record saying that the sanctions could have been improved to the point of not causing such an absurdly large humanitarian crisis.
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
So, you and grove seemingly agree. Hell must have frozen over.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
No leftist equivalent to Rush exists, Fellowship. The left counters the hate-speech of the right with humor. It's more like you posting a link from a respected conservative site like the The Weekly Standard.
1. Because Rush wasn't created to "fill a void", like this new enterprise is trying to do. No leftist equivalent exists, but many have tried. They traditionally haven't done well outside of the major coastal markets. Specifically, the Bay Area of Frisco and New York. But the field is wide open, and anyone with talent, something to say and something the people want to hear has an open, honest shot. It's not the fault of Rush, Sean, G. Gordon, Neil, Michael, Laura, etc. that more left-leaning shows or hosts haven't made that big of a splash.
2. First, Rush does more with humor and responding to various sound clips of Daschle, Kennedy or war protesters than he's EVER said anything REMOTELY able to be tagged "hate speech". You'd know that if you ever listened to the man (but I know you want, so it's easier to do what Al Franken and everyone else does and immediately/automatically label him as anything horrible).
3. The most dour, UNfunny, most-in-need-of-a-joy-buzzer group of people in the world are those currently running the Democratic party, the hopped-up anti-war bunch and various other sections of left-leaning groups and associations! They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American. In the past year or so, I've had many conversations with my Democrat/liberal buddies and co-workers and the bulk of them have said at one point, "man, I don't think I like where we're going..." in referring to how off-putting and alienated they feel as the party seems to be moving farther to the left.
You're totally right about the left not having a Limbaugh-status counterpart. And you know what? I think that's a VERY telling little nugget. You may not like it and it might drive you nuts, but if there was a market and demand for a left-leaning Rush type of person, he or she would be on the air and making a killing in the ratings.
You can't force this stuff or will it to be. That's not how it works and it always fails when it's artificially created or put together.
I honestly don't think most people - left OR right - truly feel that there is a void or any sort of lack of liberal, left-leaning voice or opinion in the media today. On television especially, you have to search quite hard to find conservative/right-of-center friendly content and viewpoints. Fox News? The Family Channel? The various religious networks? Maybe a few others? A few shows like "Seventh Heaven" "Touched by an Angel" maybe. Not many though.
Basically it's one industry (talk radio) that someone who is of the right-leaning persuasion can kinda tune into and feel like "okay, I'm not going to be offended or have my intelligence insulted or my heroes or beliefs demeaned".
That's a powerful thing. But, as I said, there's nothing keeping a left-leaning powerhouse commentator/humorist from making his or her mark. Other than lack of demand, I guess.
Originally posted by Tulkas
So, you and grove seemingly agree. Hell must have frozen over.
No kidding!
Originally posted by Tulkas
They aren't strawmen if people were really actually making those arguements that were mentioned.
Yeah, but the point pscates was making ended up having been made by 1) his uncle and 2) the former Iraqi Information Minister. As far as I know neither one's opinion played any part here, and pscates hadn't made that clear when he originally posted. He attributed the belief to 'anti-war' folks, and judging by the context that would be anti-war folks posting here.
That's why I call it a straw man.
Originally posted by bunge
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed. The original sanctions in the intentions and planning were meant to be as effective as any new once that would have come out, they were supposed to put pressure on Saddam and limit his ability to thrive. They failed because of implementation problems caused by Saddam's ability to manipulate and confuse the issues. 'Improved' sanctions would likely have achieved the same reaction and the same results.
I saw many folks in the streets that were "anti-war" or so they claimed hold signs that read: "Bush is Hitler"
I will say I will choose Fox News over that mentality ANY DAY!
I take in all points of view but at the end of the day I make up my own mind.
I think what pscates said a few posts up is accurate about the voice of the left. They all have their chances in the marketplace and if for once they "the left voice" can articulate a viewpoint that people want to identify with then by all means what is holding them up?
Fellowship
Originally posted by Tulkas
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed. The original sanctions in the intentions and planning were meant to be as effective as any new once that would have come out, they were supposed to put pressure on Saddam and limit his ability to thrive. They failed because of implementation problems caused by Saddam's ability to manipulate and confuse the issues. 'Improved' sanctions would likely have achieved the same reaction and the same results.
I agree with this 100% I hate that sanctions even have to exist in the first place. Sanctions do not help the people of a given population they in fact harm the people. I understand the logic of sanctions in view of the fact we do not live in an ideal world. However in the case of Iraq I can not stress enough that I am VERY gratified for the Iraqi people. They are due a peaceful country with prosperiety and liberty.
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil.
Fellowship is a monkey.
What an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent reply. Thanks for the input.
Originally posted by Tulkas
What an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent reply. Thanks for the input.
Thanks Tulkas:
For a side note I will also say I watch the CBC and NWI (News World International) of Canada and I truly respect the professional journalism from Canada.
I do not only watch Fox. I also enjoy watching Mosaic on World Link. Mosaic is a news program that shows what each of the middle eastern news agencies airs on their broadcasts. It is translated into English if the broadcast is not already in English.
Fellowship
Originally posted by pscates
1. Because Rush wasn't created to "fill a void", like this new enterprise is trying to do. No leftist equivalent exists, but many have tried. They traditionally haven't done well outside of the major coastal markets. Specifically, the Bay Area of Frisco and New York. But the field is wide open, and anyone with talent, something to say and something the people want to hear has an open, honest shot. It's not the fault of Rush, Sean, G. Gordon, Neil, Michael, Laura, etc. that more left-leaning shows or hosts haven't made that big of a splash.
2. First, Rush does more with humor and responding to various sound clips of Daschle, Kennedy or war protesters than he's EVER said anything REMOTELY able to be tagged "hate speech". You'd know that if you ever listened to the man (but I know you want, so it's easier to do what Al Franken and everyone else does and immediately/automatically label him as anything horrible).
3. The most dour, UNfunny, most-in-need-of-a-joy-buzzer group of people in the world are those currently running the Democratic party, the hopped-up anti-war bunch and various other sections of left-leaning groups and associations! They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American. In the past year or so, I've had many conversations with my Democrat/liberal buddies and co-workers and the bulk of them have said at one point, "man, I don't think I like where we're going..." in referring to how off-putting and alienated they feel as the party seems to be moving farther to the left.
You're totally right about the left not having a Limbaugh-status counterpart. And you know what? I think that's a VERY telling little nugget. You may not like it and it might drive you nuts, but if there was a market and demand for a left-leaning Rush type of person, he or she would be on the air and making a killing in the ratings.
You can't force this stuff or will it to be. That's not how it works and it always fails when it's artificially created or put together.
I honestly don't think most people - left OR right - truly feel that there is a void or any sort of lack of liberal, left-leaning voice or opinion in the media today. On television especially, you have to search quite hard to find conservative/right-of-center friendly content and viewpoints. Fox News? The Family Channel? The various religious networks? Maybe a few others? A few shows like "Seventh Heaven" "Touched by an Angel" maybe. Not many though.
Basically it's one industry (talk radio) that someone who is of the right-leaning persuasion can kinda tune into and feel like "okay, I'm not going to be offended or have my intelligence insulted or my heroes or beliefs demeaned".
That's a powerful thing. But, as I said, there's nothing keeping a left-leaning powerhouse commentator/humorist from making his or her mark. Other than lack of demand, I guess.
1. Leftists won't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh.
2. I don't know about that.
3. Not really.
4. Yes, they certainly have the means.
5. 40 year unimpeded run? The country has gotten increasingly conservative- that's for sure.
6. The party is not moving leftward. It's ridiculous to claim that a bunch of allegiance pledging, pro-war democrats are pulling the party leftward! Oh boy! The most popular leftist out there, Howard Dean, has qualms about gun control!
7. Well, no the market wouldn't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Leftists aren't like that, Mr. Scates.
8. The media, especially the cable news networks have all become increasingly conservative in moves to "outfox fox." MSNBC replaced their #1 rated show, Donahue, with hate-monger Michael Savage! You don't have to look hard to find a prominent conservative voice. What you're doing is "working the refs"- that is you'll keep saying a liberal media exists so the public believes it to a certain extent and becomes willing to give the right a break. There is no more liberal media- had it ever existed...
Yeah, the discovery of WOMD would be cool (and they'll, of course, be found). But, to me, that's kinda icing on the cake.
What a beautiful, historic country over there. And the city of Baghdad itself is gorgeous. I keep seeing it on TV and all it's buildings, mosques, town squares, parks, etc. It's a shame a place like that has been tainted by the presence and regime of such a psychopath all this time.
I was telling my Dad the other day that eventually Baghdad will be a place people actually seek out to go, especially many Christians and Biblical scholars and historians (Fellowship can explain why better than I can
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
From that I have not wavered. I posted 3-4 weeks ago that I couldn't wait to see the citizens, once they were sure Saddam was no longer a threat, react with joy. For the most part, that day was today. So that probably explains the happy, chirpy mood I've been in since this morning.
That's what I was waiting for, and I got to see it.
Yes, lots of work to be done and we're not finished yet, but to think of all that's been done in three weeks. Simply amazing, actually.
Originally posted by pscates
I'm actually kinda in a cool, unique position in that I'm on record from 2 or so weeks ago saying, in essence, "hey, if for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people from this barbaric thug, this is a noble and just cause...".
Yeah, the discovery of WOMD would be cool (and they'll, of course, be found). But, to me, that's kinda icing on the cake.
What a beautiful, historic country over there. And the city of Baghdad itself is gorgeous. I keep seeing it on TV and all it's buildings, mosques, town squares, parks, etc. It's a shame a place like that has been tainted by the presence and regime of such a psychopath all this time.
I was telling my Dad the other day that eventually Baghdad will be a place people actually seek out to go, especially many Christians and Biblical scholars and historians (Fellowship can explain why better than I can
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
From that I have not wavered. I posted 3-4 weeks ago that I couldn't wait to see the citizens, once they were sure Saddam was no longer a threat, react with joy. For the most part, that day was today. So that probably explains the happy, chirpy mood I've been in since this morning.
That's what I was waiting for, and I got to see it.
Yes, lots of work to be done and we're not finished yet, but to think of all that's been done in three weeks. Simply amazing, actually.
Beautiful pscates!!!! I share your feelings here.
Let me share the link to World Link and the middle eastern show "Mosaic" which shows the views in the middle east.
I am very encouraged
World Link and Mosaic
Watch this quicktime stream link of Mosaic:
News Stream of Mosaic
Fellowship
Originally posted by Tulkas
Myself, I don't think 'improved' sanctions would have worked any better and would have in fact failed for the same reasons the original sanctions failed.
Well history, the U.N. and groverat all disagree with you.
Originally posted by pscates
So yeah, it is about the people, in so many ways. The more horrible stories I heard about torture and mistreatment and oppression, the angrier and more sad I became. Nobody with a heart or a conscience wants to imagine people living that way. If our actions these past few weeks ultimately result in a country where its citizens can truly experience and savor the feeling of freedom, openness and prosperity, then this has indeed been "worth it".
But this ignores the millions dying under an oppressive regime in North Korea. Too difficult a battle? Then it also ignores the million dying in Africa that would require less money and less military to save.
If the cause is humanitarian, why Iraq? That makes no sense. It's not the easiest battle, it's not the cheapest battle and it's not the most needy cause. Needy? Yes. Most needy? No. Best ROI? No. For the people? Evidently not, unless Iraqi people are considered better than Africans.
You'll admit this wasn't for WMD. The humanitarian cause could have been partially fixed with intelligent sanctions, leaving only a political crisis to deal with. The numbers dying in the past few years from the political situation are probably no greater than China, per capita. So, why the fuss? Why do you celebrate Iraqi liberation in the face of African, Asian and other Mid Eastern oppression?
The end of opression is ALWAYS worth celebratings.
Sheesh.
Originally posted by bunge
Well history, the U.N. and groverat all disagree with you.
History doesn't disagree with me. Historically, sanctions have failed in Iraq, not because they were weak or unintelligent (as any sanctions can be), but because they were able to be manipulated by Saddam. He was also able to play the UN when it came to 'working' the sanctions. If history is to be our guide, then history shows sanctions didn't work, history can't show that new sanctions would have worked. The UN would disagree, because the UN doesn't learn from their mistakes of the past and was unwilling to take real action to resolve Iraq's situation. Grove may disagree with me, but I think he is pragmatic enough to realize that, while 'intelligent' sanctions might have shown modest improvements in results in the short term, they would likely have suffered the same fate of the original sanctions.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
1. Leftists won't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh.
What?!? Let me guess: are they too high-minded and dignified? Bullcrap...they'd LOVE to have someone who came on everyday for three hours and played soundclips of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Charlton Heston, etc. saying silly things and responding to it! Hell, they could devote an entire hour to Bush mangling words or sentences. You people LOVE that stuff! Someone passionate and articulate who defends and promotes liberal values and principles and "sticks it to" various blowhard right-wingers and conservatives, pointing out conservative hypocrisy and stuff like that? Someone like Al Franken, only funny? Horseshit, Shawn. Liberals would eat it up! I don't know what you're talking about. In any case, do you suddenly speak for all Leftists? How do you know what they would or wouldn't accept? If you think a liberal talk show host or network would succeed with a bunch of stuffy, tweed jacket-wearing, beard-scratching intellectuals sitting around acting all dour, bitter and "serious" (quoting Senate bills and reading op-ed pieces from the Boston Globe and New York Times) and deriding/mocking the institutions and traditions that most Americans believe in and hold dear, you're more delusional than I thought.
2. I don't know about that.
If you're saying that because you don't/haven't listened to the show, then I appreciate and respect your honesty. If you're saying it in a doubting way (implying that Rush is all about "hate speech") then you're really out to lunch and have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure which you meant, so I'm covering both bases here.
3. Not really.
Oh, Daschle, Pelosi, Kennedy, Begalla, Hollywood, etc. AREN'T in need of a sense of humor and a "lighten up" pill? We'll just have to disagree on this one.
4. Yes, they certainly have the means.
Well I'm relieved to see that you're not completely out in left field (no pun intended) or feel the need to disagree with EVERYTHING I say. Congrats...we agree: liberals have the means and access to do their thing. It isn't mine or Rush's fault that no one seems to give two damns.
5. 40 year unimpeded run? The country has gotten increasingly conservative- that's for sure.
Didn't they pretty much have Congress up until 1994? Wasn't that why the "Republican revolution" of that year was such a big story? I seem to remember that was the case. Several high-profile (and popular) Democrat Presidents too, of course. As far as the country getting "increasingly conservative", maybe. The plain folk. "Flyover country" denizens, I guess. The ones who can't afford to go join protest rallies and boycott marches at the drop of a hat, I guess. Don't tell me you think Hollywood and the universities have gone all right-wing! Please.
6. The party is not moving leftward. It's ridiculous to claim that a bunch of allegiance pledging, pro-war democrats are pulling the party leftward! Oh boy! The most popular leftist out there, Howard Dean, has qualms about gun control!
7. Well, no the market wouldn't accept a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Leftists aren't like that, Mr. Scates.
Allow me to state a passionate "bullshit" right here. See number one above for a more detailed answer.
8. The media, especially the cable news networks have all become increasingly conservative in moves to "outfox fox." MSNBC replaced their #1 rated show, Donahue, with hate-monger Michael Savage! You don't have to look hard to find a prominent conservative voice. What you're doing is "working the refs"- that is you'll keep saying a liberal media exists so the public believes it to a certain extent and becomes willing to give the right a break. There is no more liberal media- had it ever existed...
Now you're just drunk, Shawn. Put the bottle down.
Okay, MAYBE in the past year or so, CNN and MSNBC have not liked getting their collective asses beaten by that Fox News whippersnapper. So they toss off that dinosaur Donahue in favor of Savage. But again, WHERE WAS THE AUDIENCE??? He's a legend, for crying out loud...he INVENTED the whole damn genre!!! Wasn't he supposed to come in and "show the others how it was done"? Yeah, he did a real bang-up job. Saying Donahue's show was #1 on MSNBC doesn't mean THAT much because it got about 1/3 or so of the audience O'Reilly does on any given night. That's like being the nicest smelling cow dropping in a field of cow droppings. Hardly matters. O'Reilly demolished Chung AND Donahue, both of have WAY more face-recognition and longstanding roots/ties in TV. Even I don't dig on Savage (he's a bitter, cranky fart-knocker), but that's not my call to make. Write MSNBC if you think it sucks.
So what's that...one year? You're honestly going to say that Fox, by itself, (and a few months of bandwagon-jumping by the other two networks) constitue a true huge "shift to the right"? What about the decades that CNN and others went unchallenged or had no alternative?
You guys just don't like it because people respond to talk radio and Fox News. You don't have the grip and influence you've enjoyed for decades and you actually have to compete and go up against other voices which are, at the moment, quite popular and doing well in every measurable category.
Are you doing intern work for Eric Alterman? Research, "fact finding" and so forth? Is that where you got this notion?