Questions for Conservative X
Psycho Dave
Please explain which specific policies led you to conclude this. Be
specific. No generalizations. Please explain what effect each of the
policies you cite had.
(2) When confronted with the fact that the last 4 Republican
administrations left gigantic deficits, while Democratic
administrations were left to cut budgets and reduce the deficits left
by Republicans, you said "Hmm, even though they do that, they don't
impede on business and they don't rip me off out of my money, so i'm
going to go with them being fiscally conservative."
Please explain how Republican deficits do not cost you anything. Who
has to pay for those deficits? Are Democrats the only ones who ever
raise taxes?
(3) On the issue of censorship, you said "We need to protect children's
frail minds from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge
into degeneracy."
Please show me psychological or otherwise scientific study, which
concludes that children's minds are "Frail", and that exposure to light
amounts of nudity or "dirty words" results in degeneracy.
Also, please show me examples of countries which were "plunged into
degeneracy" when they failed to censor dirty words and/or nudity.
(4) You claimed "And I do agree with free speech, as long as it's not
against american morals and traditions."
What American morals and traditions are you referring to? Is it wrong
to make fun of cowboys or criticize the President? Please be specific
about what you consider to be "American traditions which nobody should
be against."
(5) You said "Are you telling me the UN found no evidence of WMDs? I
specifically remember people saying that he did not let them in certain
areas. Were they right not on that?"
Do you think that evidence of recnet WMDs were found in Iraq? If so,
please name the report, and show me precisely in the report where the
evidence is listed.
(6) You claimed that the mews media is liberally biassed. You were able
to name about 4 liberal pundits, and a couple of people who are not and
never have been pundits, but who might be liberal outside of their tv
show. However, as I pointed out, the ratio of conservative pundits to
liberal ones is about 10 or more to 1. If you believe there are an
equal amount of liberal and conservative pundits on the networks,
please name all the liberal pundits. By Pundit, I of course mean a
person whose program is their bully pulpit to make political
pronouncements and issue political commentary.
LoreAlmighty
latest trolls, but for the past few days I've been trying to make this
damn thread, and google groups keeps failing on me, so I'll ask it
here:
What is Anti-Globalization? I get a lot of weird responses when I ask
about it. Some say it's hippies who hate technology. Some say it's
leftist who don't like neoliberalism. Can
someone help me out?
Psycho Dave
global corporate domination. They are against the World Bank and the
world Trade organization, because these organizations work together
with far-right politicians and big companies like Bechtel and
Haliburton (surprised?) to get various governments to privatize
everything and break down all forms of business regulations which
protect consumers from corporate abuse.
The WTO and World Bank have already enslaved many 3rd world countries
by having the world bank give them loans in exchange for unfair trade
agreements. Jamaica, for example, borrowed money and in exchange for
giving them more time to pay off the loan, they made a deal which
effectively makes it pointless for Jamaicans to grow their own crops.
Foreign food is pumped in, and it is sold cheaper than locally-grown
food. This makes local farmers unable to profit from their crops, and
it makes it pointless to grow anything there.
The anti-globalization movement seeks to end corporate world
domaination, and protect democracy and human rights, which the WTO and
corporations threaten.
theext...@gmail.com
nations. NAFTA has helped mexico, and strengthed ties between Canada
and the United States. There is no proof globalization has enslaved
countries like Jamaica. Liberal media and agendist are against it for
impractical reasons. They hate cooperation between nations.
theext...@gmail.com
Conservative_X
> (1) "The GOP has done a lot to be fiscally as possible as it can be."
> Please explain which specific policies led you to conclude this. Be
> specific. No generalizations. Please explain what effect each of the
> policies you cite had.
Ok, I have one off the top of my head. During the 04 election race,
Bush did NOT use tax dollars for his campaign funding. Saving
american's millions of dollars. If you want me to name more, I will do
so.
> (2) When confronted with the fact that the last 4 Republican
> administrations left gigantic deficits, while Democratic
> administrations were left to cut budgets and reduce the deficits left
> by Republicans, you said "Hmm, even though they do that, they don't
> impede on business and they don't rip me off out of my money, so i'm
> going to go with them being fiscally conservative."
>
> Please explain how Republican deficits do not cost you anything. Who
> has to pay for those deficits? Are Democrats the only ones who ever
> raise taxes?
They don't cost me anything because they believe and practice economic
conservatism. They make sure they don't steal my hard earned money. Who
ever hast to pay these deficits? Well, they're so miniscule who cares?.
Yes, and democrats are the only ones who ever raise taxes.
> (3) On the issue of censorship, you said "We need to protect children's
> frail minds from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge
> into degeneracy."
>
> Please show me psychological or otherwise scientific study, which
> concludes that children's minds are "Frail", and that exposure to light
> amounts of nudity or "dirty words" results in degeneracy.
Hmm, you're going to have to take a raincheck on that, i'm going to
have to do some research on it, give me a little wile and I'll come up
with some credible sources.
> Also, please show me examples of countries which were "plunged into
> degeneracy" when they failed to censor dirty words and/or nudity.
Europe. Europe is pretty much a raging fag land with pedophilic
incestoral orgies.
> (4) You claimed "And I do agree with free speech, as long as it's not
> against american morals and traditions."
>
> What American morals and traditions are you referring to? Is it wrong
> to make fun of cowboys or criticize the President? Please be specific
> about what you consider to be "American traditions which nobody should
> be against."
What is wrong with cowboys? I consider them a good part of american
history, don't you?
And no, people should not be able to criticize the president during war
time.
> (5) You said "Are you telling me the UN found no evidence of WMDs? I
> specifically remember people saying that he did not let them in certain
> areas. Were they right not on that?"
>
> Do you think that evidence of recnet WMDs were found in Iraq? If so,
> please name the report, and show me precisely in the report where the
> evidence is listed.
That's an mixed bag. No, we haven't found them, but he probably just
moved them in big trucks to Syria. But remember, he didn't let us look
everywhere.
> (6) You claimed that the mews media is liberally biassed. You were able
> to name about 4 liberal pundits, and a couple of people who are not and
> never have been pundits, but who might be liberal outside of their tv
> show. However, as I pointed out, the ratio of conservative pundits to
> liberal ones is about 10 or more to 1. If you believe there are an
> equal amount of liberal and conservative pundits on the networks,
> please name all the liberal pundits. By Pundit, I of course mean a
> person whose program is their bully pulpit to make political
> pronouncements and issue political commentary.
Ok, I'll write up a list for you. But in the meantime, maybe you should
think of these names.
Bill Maher
Penn Jillette
Arianna huffington
Phil Donahue
BARBARA EHRENREICH
E.J. Dionne
DONALD KAUL
BOB HERBERT
There is a small list I got in just a minute. Expect to see a LOT more
real soon.
Psycho Dave
> Psycho Dave wrote:
> > (1) "The GOP has done a lot to be fiscally as possible as it can be."
> > Please explain which specific policies led you to conclude this. Be
> > specific. No generalizations. Please explain what effect each of the
> > policies you cite had.
>
> Ok, I have one off the top of my head. During the 04 election race,
> Bush did NOT use tax dollars for his campaign funding. Saving
> american's millions of dollars. If you want me to name more, I will do
> so.
Are you just making that shit up or what? Pleae show me a reference
that says that. I did a search, and found a site that explains where
all the candidates get their money from. It's here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp
It has NO MENTION of your claim at all. It goes to great lengths to
point out the funding of both Kerry and Bush's campaigns, and is pretty
fair. Don't give me a made up answer without finding a source to cite.
I ask for SPECIFICS, and you give me vague generizations.
> > (2) When confronted with the fact that the last 4 Republican
> > administrations left gigantic deficits, while Democratic
> > administrations were left to cut budgets and reduce the deficits left
> > by Republicans, you said "Hmm, even though they do that, they don't
> > impede on business and they don't rip me off out of my money, so i'm
> > going to go with them being fiscally conservative."
> >
> > Please explain how Republican deficits do not cost you anything. Who
> > has to pay for those deficits? Are Democrats the only ones who ever
> > raise taxes?
>
> They don't cost me anything because they believe and practice economic
> conservatism. They make sure they don't steal my hard earned money. Who
> ever hast to pay these deficits? Well, they're so miniscule who cares?.
> Yes, and democrats are the only ones who ever raise taxes.
That is a very childish and poorly-thought out answer. To say that the
deficits are "miniscule" is utterly retarded. Do you know what the
federal budget is this year in dollar amounts? What was the federal
budget in 1975? in 1989? in 2000?
This year's federal budget is 524 billion dollars. Do you think that 3
trillion (Reagan's deficit) and 8 trillion (Bush's projected deficit)
is miniscule?
Let's say you had a yearly income of $52,400. Suppose you used all your
credit cards to spend $157,200,000. Can you realistically pay back all
that money with that income, in your lifetime, without increasing your
yearly income or seriously cutting your cost of living? It's 300 times
what you earn per year! What's worse is that you will accrue interest
on that, so you will owe more and more each month it's not paid up.
Your answer is a non-answer. You say "who cares?". and blow off any
actual thinking
And if democrats are the only ones who ever raise taxes, why did
Reagan, Bush (Remember his "Read My Lips" speech?) and W. Bush all
raise taxes? George W. Bush has raised taxes -- he gave a huge tax
break to the rich, but what was under-reported was the fact that the
same tax plan cuts funds to states and cities, making it neccesary for
them to get money elsewhere. The only way they can do that is through
taxes or cutting services. Either way, if you are middle class, you got
a tax hike because it's most likely that your state or local government
raised property taxes, processing fees, gas tax, or other taxes.
There's an old saying that goes "What is out of sight is out of mind."
That describes your attitude perfectly. If you aren't aware of a fact
or two, they don't exist.
And you're still not giving any concrete specifics which can be
checked.
> > (3) On the issue of censorship, you said "We need to protect children's
> > frail minds from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge
> > into degeneracy."
> >
> > Please show me psychological or otherwise scientific study, which
> > concludes that children's minds are "Frail", and that exposure to light
> > amounts of nudity or "dirty words" results in degeneracy.
>
> Hmm, you're going to have to take a raincheck on that, i'm going to
> have to do some research on it, give me a little wile and I'll come up
> with some credible sources.
Yes, apparently, doing a google search is too technical for you.
>
> > Also, please show me examples of countries which were "plunged into
> > degeneracy" when they failed to censor dirty words and/or nudity.
>
> Europe. Europe is pretty much a raging fag land with pedophilic
> incestoral orgies.
Uh... Okay. What references can you cite to prove that. Do you have any
web-links that show that what you're saying is a fact, or are you just
making shit up, as usual? Your answer
And you still have failed to give any specifics -- just retarded
blow-off lines.
> > (4) You claimed "And I do agree with free speech, as long as it's not
> > against american morals and traditions."
> >
> > What American morals and traditions are you referring to? Is it wrong
> > to make fun of cowboys or criticize the President? Please be specific
> > about what you consider to be "American traditions which nobody should
> > be against."
>
> What is wrong with cowboys? I consider them a good part of american
> history, don't you?
Yeah, in the same sense that the Hell's Angels bike club is a part of
American History.
Cowboys originated as murderous cattle-thieves, who terrorized settlers
and small towns in the lawless west. The term was mistakenly used by
city-folk for decades to refer to anyone who raised cattle on a ranch,
until it became common to refer to all cattle ranchers as cowboys.
However, is it wrong to criticize cowboys (modern or historical) or
their culture?
> And no, people should not be able to criticize the president during war
> time.
Why not? What makes criticism of the president different during
wartime? The only time it was ever illegal to criticise the president
during a war or otherwise, was during the war of 1812 and during WW1,
when hastily-written bills got passed making it a crime. These bills
were made primarily to shut up prominant critics of the presidents at
those times, and were deemed unconstitutional when challenged.
If the Supreme court has found over and over again that criticism of
the president in wartime is constitutionally protected free speech,
what could possibly be wrong with it?
If you read the founding fathers own words, they INTENDED for open
criticism of all parts of the government, reguardless of war or not.
Were the founding fathers all wrong?
> > (5) You said "Are you telling me the UN found no evidence of WMDs? I
> > specifically remember people saying that he did not let them in certain
> > areas. Were they right not on that?"
> >
> > Do you think that evidence of recnet WMDs were found in Iraq? If so,
> > please name the report, and show me precisely in the report where the
> > evidence is listed.
>
> That's an mixed bag. No, we haven't found them, but he probably just
> moved them in big trucks to Syria. But remember, he didn't let us look
> everywhere.
Sure. He probably waves a magic wand and sent them to the moon. He
PROBABLY shoved them up the asses of Iraqi citizens. He PROBABLY did
lots of probable things, but there is no evidence pointing to any of
that.
Why Syria? Was he ever allied with Syria? Please show me evidence that
there was such a cooperative link between the two countries, such that
they often let each other store weapons in each others' countries.
> > (6) You claimed that the mews media is liberally biassed. You were able
> > to name about 4 liberal pundits, and a couple of people who are not and
> > never have been pundits, but who might be liberal outside of their tv
> > show. However, as I pointed out, the ratio of conservative pundits to
> > liberal ones is about 10 or more to 1. If you believe there are an
> > equal amount of liberal and conservative pundits on the networks,
> > please name all the liberal pundits. By Pundit, I of course mean a
> > person whose program is their bully pulpit to make political
> > pronouncements and issue political commentary.
>
> Ok, I'll write up a list for you. But in the meantime, maybe you should
> think of these names.
>
> Bill Maher
> Penn Jillette
Penn Jillette is a Libertarian.
> Arianna huffington
> Phil Donahue
Phil Donahue has not had a TV or radio program running on the air since
the year 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donohue#Donahue_on_MSNBC
> BARBARA EHRENREICH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ehrenreich
She does not host a radio or TV program, and only rarely publishes
guest articles in a few magazines.
> E.J. Dionne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.J._Dionne
Another person who is not a pundit. He has no programs on TV or radio.
> DONALD KAUL
A retired journalist from the Desmoines Register. He never hosted a TV
or radio Pundit program. Plus, he retired a few years ago!
> BOB HERBERT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Herbert
You're batting 1000, bud. He's the editor of ther New York Times, but
not a pundit.
> There is a small list I got in just a minute. Expect to see a LOT more
> real soon.
You don't seem to understand what a pundit is. Let me help you out. A
Pundit is a talking head who dispenses their opinions on various
issues, on a TV or radio program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_%28expert%29
You listed 3 actual pundits. I'll even let you have Al Franken and
Genine Gerafalo, even though you didn't name them. So that's 5 actual
pundits. Here is a CURRENT list of Actual Conservative Pundits by
comparison:
Rush Limbaugh
Dr. James Dobson
Pat Robertson (He regularly dispenses punditry on his 700 club)
Michelle Malkin
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Neil Cavuto
Phil McLaughlin
Nick Scarborough
Frank Sesno (late night CNN Pundit)
Chuck Colson (former Watergate felon, EX-Con)
Cal Thomas
Paul Jacob
Chuck Muth
Kaye Daly
Tom Adkins
AnnaZ
Tony Perkins
Bethanie Swendsen
Beverly LaHaye
G. Gordon Liddy (Yup, another watergate felon, ex-con, and general
lunatic has his own show!)
Doug Stephan
Michael Reagan
Greg Knapp
Alan Nathan
Steve Brown
Todd Feinburg
Ben Furguson
Randy Tobler
William Sackett
Don Kroah
Janet Parshall
Neal Boortz
Dr. Laura
Michael Medved
Steve Gill
Laura Ingraham
Milton Rosenberg
Victor Boc
Dennis Prager
Lars Larson
Bob Larson
Michael Savage
Glenn Beck
Larry Elder
Ken Hamblin
Anthony Harper
This is just a sampling of nationally-syndicated Talk shows. If we went
into the local-only market, the results would be much larger.
Surveys have been done, and out of all the nationally syndicated talk
shows on radio, 45% openly identify their hosts as conservative, and
only 18% are liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio
Now let's compare that the the Liberal Rdio Talk shows:
Bill Maher
Arianna Huffington
Al Franken
Genine Gerafalo
Ed Schultz
Alan Colmes (yeah, I only objected to your saying that his prescence on
FOX was as a pundit)
Lionel (alias Michael William LeBron)
Thom Hartmann
Bill Press
Stephanie Miller
Jim Hightower
Alan Dershowitz
This is just a list of RADIO pundits. I am still compiling a list of
TV-only pundits. There are virtualyl no Liberal Punditry programs on
Television, apart from Bill Maher, who is a libertarian, but I like
him, so I'll count him as one.
This is the basic difference between you, along with most conservative
drones like you, and Me, along with other liberals -- You cannot deal
with facts. You don't know how to find facts, and you don't know how to
properly research facts. You deal with sweeping generalizations of your
opinions, and come up with non-answers to specific questions, because
you don't know answers, and have to make everything up as you go along.
Conservative_X
> >Are you just making that shit up or what? Pleae show me a reference
> >that says that. I did a search, and found a site that explains where
> >all the candidates get their money from. It's here:
> >http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp
> >It has NO MENTION of your claim at all. It goes to great lengths to
> >point out the funding of both Kerry and Bush's campaigns, and is pretty
> >fair. Don't give me a made up answer without finding a source to cite.
> >I ask for SPECIFICS, and you give me vague generizations.
"both candidates rejected public matching funds during the primaries"
THERE! STRAIGHT FROM THE SITE YOU GAVE ME. HAHAHHAAHAH! YOU LOSE!
> > That is a very childish and poorly-thought out answer. To say that the
> > deficits are "miniscule" is utterly retarded. Do you know what the
> > federal budget is this year in dollar amounts? What was the federal
> > budget in 1975? in 1989? in 2000?
2000-$1.8 trillion
I couldn't find 1975's budget, or 1989's. But what's your point?
> > This year's federal budget is 524 billion dollars. Do you think that 3
> > trillion (Reagan's deficit) and 8 trillion (Bush's projected deficit)
> > is miniscule?
I do.
> > Let's say you had a yearly income of $52,400. Suppose you used all your
> > credit cards to spend $157,200,000. Can you realistically pay back all
> > that money with that income, in your lifetime, without increasing your
> > yearly income or seriously cutting your cost of living? It's 300 times
> > what you earn per year! What's worse is that you will accrue interest
> > on that, so you will owe more and more each month it's not paid up.
That was a terrible analogy. All the problems practically solve
themselves.
> > Your answer is a non-answer. You say "who cares?". and blow off any
> > actual thinking.
You blow off any actual thinking by putting terrible analogies.
> >And if democrats are the only ones who ever raise taxes, why did
> >Reagan, Bush (Remember his "Read My Lips" speech?) and W. Bush all
> >raise taxes?
Prove that.
> >George W. Bush has raised taxes -- he gave a huge tax
> >break to the rich, but what was under-reported was the fact that the
> >same tax plan cuts funds to states and cities, making it neccesary for
> >them to get money elsewhere. The only way they can do that is through
> >taxes or cutting services. Either way, if you are middle class, you got
> >a tax hike because it's most likely that your state or local government
> >raised property taxes, processing fees, gas tax, or other taxes.
Can I see some evidence for this? You ask for evidence for me, but
never offer me any. Please show me evidence for this?
> >There's an old saying that goes "What is out of sight is out of mind."
> >That describes your attitude perfectly. If you aren't aware of a fact
> >or two, they don't exist.
Yeah, right. And a saying describes you. "Your lack of faith will be
your undoing". And it will be your undoing.
> >And you're still not giving any concrete specifics which can be
> >checked.
Yes I have.
> > Uh... Okay. What references can you cite to prove that. Do you have any
> > web-links that show that what you're saying is a fact, or are you just
> > making shit up, as usual? Your answer
No, I don't have any yet. I'll just heard this from friends that went
there. You say they say it's a clean countries, but i've heard much
different. I'll do some research in it.
> > And you still have failed to give any specifics -- just retarded
> > blow-off lines.
How irironic.
> >Yeah, in the same sense that the Hell's Angels bike club is a part of
> >American History.
> >Cowboys originated as murderous cattle-thieves, who terrorized settlers
> >and small towns in the lawless west. The term was mistakenly used by
> >city-folk for decades to refer to anyone who raised cattle on a ranch,
> >until it became common to refer to all cattle ranchers as cowboys.
HUH? I've never heard this about cowboys. PROVE IT!
> >However, is it wrong to criticize cowboys (modern or historical) or
> >their culture?
It's wrong to critcize any part of american history and culture. Take
the war with the barbarian native americans. Good american men died
defeating those barbarian bastards, yet people say it was a bad thing.
That is wrong, and they should be silenced.
> >Why not? What makes criticism of the president different during
> >wartime? The only time it was ever illegal to criticise the president
> >during a war or otherwise, was during the war of 1812 and during WW1,
> >when hastily-written bills got passed making it a crime. These bills
> >were made primarily to shut up prominant critics of the presidents at
> >those times, and were deemed unconstitutional when challenged.
> >If the Supreme court has found over and over again that criticism of
> >the president in wartime is constitutionally protected free speech,
> >what could possibly be wrong with it?
It's wrong because it's dangerous during war times. It can distabailize
the nation. Who cares if the Supreme court found over and over again
that it is protected. To hell with them!
> >If you read the founding fathers own words, they INTENDED for open
> >criticism of all parts of the government, reguardless of war or not.
> >Were the founding fathers all wrong?
If they really said that, which I doubt (please show me). Then yes.
> >Why Syria? Was he ever allied with Syria? Please show me evidence that
> >there was such a cooperative link between the two countries, such that
> >they often let each other store weapons in each others' countries.
They were both of the same politcal party. I mean, Saddam and the
leaders of Syria. They were both Baath controlled countries. Haven't
you listened to what people's reasons for defending the war? Please
listen more.
> Penn Jillette
Penn Jillette is a Libertarian.
So? That is a liberal isn't it?
> Pat Robertson (He regularly dispenses punditry on his 700 club)
> NO HE DOESN'T! He's a religous leader. Not a pundit.
> G. Gordon Liddy (Yup, another watergate felon, ex-con, and general
> lunatic has his own show!)
How he is a lunatic?
>Dr. Laura
Isn't she a psychologist not a pundit?
>Larry Elder
He's a libertarian, aka LIBERAL!
Conservative_X
Liberal Pundits
Sometimes it seems the only pundits and colunists that the mythical
"liberal media" run are ultra-conservatives like Cal Thomas, William
Safire, and George Will. However, there are good liberal-oriented
colunists out there. A great way to read some of these colunists is to
subscribe to Liberal Opinion Week, which is a weekly reprint of columns
and editorial cartoons. You can call them at 1-800-338-9335. Here is a
list of some liberal pundits. If you have an addition, please let me
know. Special thanks to Jessica for starting this list.
NORMAN SOLOMON
Write the award-winning Media Beat column, exposing conservative bias
in the media. His syndicated column appears in many newspapers,
including Liberal Opinion Week.
BARBARA EHRENREICH
Whenever you read Barbara Ehrenreich, you'll be guaranteed to think of
issues as you've never saw them before. Always ready to dispute
conventional wisdom, her essays can be found in Time and The Nation.
ANTHONY LEWIS
A brilliant and passionate liberal, Lewis writes about domestic and
international affairs for The New York Times.
BOB HERBERT
Herbert's columns, which are in The New York Times, mainly focus on
domestic affairs. He is especially committed to defending the poor and
minorities.
DONALD KAUL
Syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Write him at Tribune
Media Services, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611.
One of my favorites, and doesn't hesitate to call himself a liberal.
E.J. Dionne
A true progressive liberal, Dionne write for the Washington Post and is
nationally syndicated. He is known for his sharp analysis of domestic
issues.
FRANK RICH
A former theater critic, Rich writes often about political and cultural
issues.
Albert R. Hunt
The token liberal of the Wall Street Journal. He writes about once per
week on the next-to-last page of section 1, on the page following the
most unliberal of editorial pages.
CALVIN TRILLIN
The droll humorist writes a weekly essay for Time and cool political
poetry for The Nation.
CLARENCE PAGE
The most adorable member of The McLaughlin Group writes for the Chicago
Tribune.
MICHAEL KINSLEY
Kinsley writes for Time magazine but he also has a brand-spanking new
cyber-magazine, Slate (up in June).
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
The British leftist writes acerbic commentary for The Nation and Vanity
Fair.
KATHA POLLITT
The award-winning essayist brings a feminist perspective to issues. She
writes for The Nation and The New Yorker.
ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Another British leftist who writes for The Nation and the Los Angeles
Times.
ERIC ALTERMAN
He writes about the right wing for The Nation and Mother Jones.
ROBERT SCHEER
His columns can be seen in the Los Angeles Times.
MOLLY IVINS
The humorist from Texas writes three columns a week for the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram and a monthly column for The Progressive. She can also be
seen on "60 Minutes" every week.
ELLEN GOODMAN
One of the most popular columnists in the nation, Goodman is excellent
on women's issues and other social commentary.
RICHARD COHEN
Cohen writes for The Washington Post.
COLMAN McCARTHY
McCarthy brings a left-wing perspective to The Washington Post.
LARS-ERIK NELSON
Nelson's columns, which run in the New York Daily News, cover politics
in Washington.
Psycho Dave
> > Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> > >Are you just making that shit up or what? Pleae show me a reference
> > >that says that. I did a search, and found a site that explains where
> > >all the candidates get their money from. It's here:
>
> > >http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp
>
> > >It has NO MENTION of your claim at all. It goes to great lengths to
> > >point out the funding of both Kerry and Bush's campaigns, and is pretty
> > >fair. Don't give me a made up answer without finding a source to cite.
>
> > >I ask for SPECIFICS, and you give me vague generizations.
>
> "both candidates rejected public matching funds during the primaries"
>
> THERE! STRAIGHT FROM THE SITE YOU GAVE ME. HAHAHHAAHAH! YOU LOSE!
>
Why don't you quote the rest of the sentence?
It says "Although both candidates rejected public matching funds during
the primaries, they accepted general election public funds, which
totaled $74.6 million."
Basically, you had to inproperly edit what they wrote to support your
claim that Bush "was fiscally conservative" because "he rejected
federal matching funds" during his election. Federal matching funds are
held in a special account, and if not used, it stays right there, so
not using them doesn't save anything from the annual budget; it just
accumulates for the next election. The public never gets it back in any
way. What's more is that the general election fund is much larger than
the federal matching funds.
The fact that you had to quote the sentence out of context proves that
you are a lying scumbag, and you are a waste of time. If you're just
going to lie your ass off, I'm not interested in any discussion with
you.
> > > That is a very childish and poorly-thought out answer. To say that the
> > > deficits are "miniscule" is utterly retarded. Do you know what the
> > > federal budget is this year in dollar amounts? What was the federal
> > > budget in 1975? in 1989? in 2000?
>
> 2000-$1.8 trillion
>
> I couldn't find 1975's budget, or 1989's. But what's your point?
>
> > > This year's federal budget is 524 billion dollars. Do you think that 3
> > > trillion (Reagan's deficit) and 8 trillion (Bush's projected deficit)
> > > is miniscule?
>
> I do.
>
> > > Let's say you had a yearly income of $52,400. Suppose you used all your
> > > credit cards to spend $157,200,000. Can you realistically pay back all
> > > that money with that income, in your lifetime, without increasing your
> > > yearly income or seriously cutting your cost of living? It's 300 times
> > > what you earn per year! What's worse is that you will accrue interest
> > > on that, so you will owe more and more each month it's not paid up.
>
> That was a terrible analogy. All the problems practically solve
> themselves.
Please explain how.
> > > Your answer is a non-answer. You say "who cares?". and blow off any
> > > actual thinking.
>
> You blow off any actual thinking by putting terrible analogies.
Please explain why my ananlogy was terrible? All I did was convert the
numbers down to smaller numbers, so that your tiny mind could better
understand them.
> > >And if democrats are the only ones who ever raise taxes, why did
> > >Reagan, Bush (Remember his "Read My Lips" speech?) and W. Bush all
> > >raise taxes?
>
> Prove that.
"In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by
$37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline
tax by another $3.3 billion."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
"As Ronald Reagan's vice president in the 1980s, Bush endorsed Reagan's
policy that tax increases were undesirable but sometimes necessary.
Over the course of his time in office, Reagan approved a total of
thirteen tax increases, including one of the largest in history in
1982, while also cutting taxes on a number of occasions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes
"Eventually taxes were raised in the new budget. In September, Bush
released a new budget proposal, backed by the congressional leadership,
which notably included an immediate five-cent per gallon increase on
the federal gasoline tax, and a phased increase of even higher fuel
taxes in subsequent years. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes
"The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week
tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds, despite Mr.
Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase.
Under the new law, teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income will
now be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates.
Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent
will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10
percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/washington/21tax.html?ex=1305864000&en=7c846b7715cc960a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/21/42557/8849
I should point out that so far, you have not provided a single similar
link to back up any of your claims so far. If you continue to respond
by NOT providing any backup for your claims, I will not discuss
anything with oyu any more, because I'm wasting my time doing all the
work for you, you lazy shit.
> > >George W. Bush has raised taxes -- he gave a huge tax
> > >break to the rich, but what was under-reported was the fact that the
> > >same tax plan cuts funds to states and cities, making it neccesary for
> > >them to get money elsewhere. The only way they can do that is through
> > >taxes or cutting services. Either way, if you are middle class, you got
> > >a tax hike because it's most likely that your state or local government
> > >raised property taxes, processing fees, gas tax, or other taxes.
>
> Can I see some evidence for this? You ask for evidence for me, but
> never offer me any. Please show me evidence for this?
Horse-shit. I've provided plenty of links to relevent articles that
back up my position. You are either ignoring them, or you cannot
comprehend them.
"All across the country, states, counties, and cities are being forced
to raise taxes and increase fees - even as they cut back many
services to the bone - to pay for the new responsibilities imposed on
them by things like Homeland Security and Bush's No Child Left Behind
Act for which the President hasn't bothered to provide enough funds.
Because Bush cuts federal taxes, lawmakers at the state and local level
have to raise them. In some places, the increased taxes and fees will
no doubt outweigh Bush's tax cut, and all kinds of people (except the
wealthy) will actually see their total taxes go up. "
http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=42
This article catalogs all of the results of the George W. Bush tax
cuts, and how much they are costing us. .
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
> > >And you're still not giving any concrete specifics which can be
> > >checked.
>
> Yes I have.
>
> > > Uh... Okay. What references can you cite to prove that. Do you have any
> > > web-links that show that what you're saying is a fact, or are you just
> > > making shit up, as usual? Your answer
>
> No, I don't have any yet. I'll just heard this from friends that went
> there. You say they say it's a clean countries, but i've heard much
> different. I'll do some research in it.
If this is how you check your facts, and your primary means of
providing references to back up your claims, then you are a complete
retard.
>
> > > And you still have failed to give any specifics -- just retarded
> > > blow-off lines.
>
> How irironic.
Please explain. I somehow don't think you know what irony is, much less
what irony is in the above. .
> > >Yeah, in the same sense that the Hell's Angels bike club is a part of
> > >American History.
> > >Cowboys originated as murderous cattle-thieves, who terrorized settlers
> > >and small towns in the lawless west. The term was mistakenly used by
> > >city-folk for decades to refer to anyone who raised cattle on a ranch,
> > >until it became common to refer to all cattle ranchers as cowboys.
>
> HUH? I've never heard this about cowboys. PROVE IT!
>
You really are a fucking retard who never read any fucking US History,
have you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Clanton
Prior to Ike Clanton, most cattle workers were referred to as
"Buckaroos" or "Vaquero" (in the southwest). The Popularity of the
legend of Wyatt Earp, and his infamous shootout at the O.K. Corral
brought more public familiarity with the term cow-boy. Buckaroos who
took on low-paid extra help often called their apprentices cow-boys,
too, and many of them earned a repuation for reckless behavior.
Eventually, Buckaroo became a forgotten term, and cowboy took over as
the name of cattle workers.
> > >However, is it wrong to criticize cowboys (modern or historical) or
> > >their culture?
>
> It's wrong to critcize any part of american history and culture. Take
> the war with the barbarian native americans. Good american men died
> defeating those barbarian bastards, yet people say it was a bad thing.
> That is wrong, and they should be silenced.
So we should never talk about historical incidents where the US
Government ripped off Indian tribes by ignoring treaties made with
them? Should we never speak of the acts of genocide committed by people
like Gen. George Custer, who literally saw it as his goal to kill every
last indian in the country, and who went on a murderous rampage in the
Dakotas? Should we never speak of deliberate acts of fraud committed
government agents?
One particular act was recently on my mind, and that was the deliberate
fraud against Texas Indian tribes by Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, The
Christian Coalition, and Ralph Reed. Should we not talk about
deliberate fraud and extortion against Native Americans, even if it's a
relevent news issue?
What about parts of documented American history, where deliberate acts
of Genocide by settlers and government occurred?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide
Are you going to suggest we re-write or censor unpleasant history when
it focuses on the bad behaviors of Americans or the American
government?
> > >Why not? What makes criticism of the president different during
> > >wartime? The only time it was ever illegal to criticise the president
> > >during a war or otherwise, was during the war of 1812 and during WW1,
> > >when hastily-written bills got passed making it a crime. These bills
> > >were made primarily to shut up prominant critics of the presidents at
> > >those times, and were deemed unconstitutional when challenged.
> > >If the Supreme court has found over and over again that criticism of
> > >the president in wartime is constitutionally protected free speech,
> > >what could possibly be wrong with it?
>
> It's wrong because it's dangerous during war times. It can distabailize
> the nation.
When has this ever happened? We've had many wars before when the
president was openly criticized for policies related to those wars, and
we weren't destabilized. A Perfect example was WW1. Woodrow Wilson was
criticized for entering the war when we didn't have to (The Germans
were in retreat at the time). We remained stable during and after. It
was actually prohibition in the 1920s and the stock market crash of
1929 that destabilized the country more than anything WW1 ever did.
Nixon was openly criticized during the Vietnam war, and the massive
protests did not destabilize the nation. We did not see civil war or a
breakdown of society.
> Who cares if the Supreme court found over and over again
> that it is protected. To hell with them!
Well, then, you obviously don't care about the constitution, or about
the role of the 3 branches of government, and probably have a poor
understanding of it all.
Do you think states should be allowed to pass laws which violate the
Constitution of the United States of America? If you do, then you are
un-Amercan.
> > >If you read the founding fathers own words, they INTENDED for open
> > >criticism of all parts of the government, reguardless of war or not.
> > >Were the founding fathers all wrong?
>
> If they really said that, which I doubt (please show me). Then yes.
I will have to refer you to the Constitution of the United States Of
America. There are thousands of sources online. Please check the Bill
of Rights.
If you do not understand how the constitution provides for freedom of
dissent, then you need to go back to fucking high School and slap the
principal for letting you graduate, because nobody should get out of
High School without understand the First Amendment to the US
Constitution!
Thomas Jefferson said 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.'
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined
by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the
Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's
phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of
religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not
appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers,"
"interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing
well-established constitutional principles.
Please read up on the first Amendment and it's history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment
> > >Why Syria? Was he ever allied with Syria? Please show me evidence that
> > >there was such a cooperative link between the two countries, such that
> > >they often let each other store weapons in each others' countries.
>
> They were both of the same politcal party. I mean, Saddam and the
> leaders of Syria. They were both Baath controlled countries. Haven't
> you listened to what people's reasons for defending the war? Please
> listen more.
So? What specific examples of cooperation between those two states has
existed?
What evidence exists that weapons were ever sent from Iraq to Syria?
Just because the two countries were run by the same political party
does not establish that the relationship you are inferring existed. You
are jumping to comclusions.
>
> > Penn Jillette
>
> Penn Jillette is a Libertarian.
> So? That is a liberal isn't it?
>
A Libertarian is a conservative who is not in love with JEE-ZUS. Their
economic policy is nearly identical to the Republicans, they just don't
think Jesus should be crammed down our throats or up our ass.
> > Pat Robertson (He regularly dispenses punditry on his 700 club)
> > NO HE DOESN'T! He's a religous leader. Not a pundit.
He ran for president twice, and DAILY dispenses his political punditry
on TV and Radio. If you do not believe this, I suggest you watch one
episode of his news segment and tell me that he doesn't dispense his
policical opinion in the same way that Pat Buchanan or Ollie North do.
> > G. Gordon Liddy (Yup, another watergate felon, ex-con, and general
> > lunatic has his own show!)
> How he is a lunatic?
In his autobiography he admits to eating a rat to frighten the other
rats in his home. He also admired Adolph Hitler and was brought up by a
Nazi Nannay who indoctrinated him into Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Liddy
> >Dr. Laura
> Isn't she a psychologist not a pundit?
She dispenses political opinion on a regular basis, and it has fueled
many of the controversies about her program.
> >Larry Elder
>
> He's a libertarian, aka LIBERAL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Elder
He has many views that are clearly the same as you have been promoting
here, as well as many views that are the same as the republican party.
This is because Libertarians are not neccesarily liberal.
You obviously do not know what a Libertarian is. I suggest you read up
on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Libertarian_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29
The Rat
> > Penn Jillette
>
> Penn Jillette is a Libertarian.
>
> So? That is a liberal isn't it?
No, but since you probably can't read past the first two syllables you
wouldn't know that.
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> Here is a list of liberal pundits, they outweight conservative pundits.
You do not understand what a pundit is, after I provided you with the
definition several times.
What are you, Retarded, or something?
A pundit is not an op/ed writer for a newspaper! Many of the people you
listed were from local, as opposed to nationally-syndicated columnists.
Here is what a pundit is again, if you don't get it.
A pundit has a RADIO or TELEVISION program, or who makes FREQUENT
APPEARANCES on either of the two mediums, where they get to express
their views, unopposed, and disseminate their political opinion to a
large audience, usually live, with caller calling in.
Newspaper and magazine columnists and op/ed writers are not the same as
pundits.
And the list that you provided does not outnumber the list of
conservative radio pundits i provided. If you wanted to be totally fair
and honest (which you haven't really been yet, so why should I even
bother) I can look at all of the newspaper and op/ed writers from all
the nation's newspapers and magazines, and add those people to my list
of radio and TV pundits.
Wikipedia says this:
"In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print
media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the
internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be
referred to as talking heads."