Hmmm Hypocrisy all Around [Archive]

View Full Version : Hmmm Hypocrisy all Around

irishgrl

01-08-2005, 10:24 AM

link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010905Z.shtml)

The Other Tsunami
By John Pilger
The New Statesman

10 January 2005 Issue
While the sea may have killed tens of thousands, western policies kill millions every year. Yet even amid disaster, a new politics of community and morality is emerging.

The west's crusaders, the United States and Britain, are giving less to help the tsunami victims than the cost of a Stealth bomber or a week's bloody occupation of Iraq. The bill for George Bush's coming inauguration party would rebuild much of the coastline of Sri Lanka. Bush and Blair increased their first driblets of "aid" only when it became clear that people all over the world were spontaneously giving millions and that a public relations problem beckoned. The Blair government's current "generous" contribution is one-sixteenth of the £800m it spent on bombing Iraq before the invasion and barely one-twentieth of a £1bn gift, known as a soft loan, to the Indonesian military so that it could acquire Hawk fighter-bombers.

On 24 November, one month before the tsunami struck, the Blair government gave its backing to an arms fair in Jakarta, "designed to meet an urgent need for the [Indonesian] armed forces to review its defence capabilities", reported the Jakarta Post. The Indonesian military, responsible for genocide in East Timor, has killed more than 20,000 civilians and "insurgents" in Aceh. Among the exhibitors at the arms fair was Rolls-Royce, manufacturer of engines for the Hawks, which, along with British-supplied Scorpion armoured vehicles, machine-guns and ammunition, were terrorising and killing people in Aceh up to the day the tsunami devastated the province.

The Australian government, currently covering itself in glory for its modest response to the historic disaster befallen its Asian neighbours, has secretly trained Indonesia's Kopassus special forces, whose atrocities in Aceh are well documented. This is in keeping with Australia's 40-year support for oppression in Indonesia, notably its devotion to the dictator Suharto while his troops slaughtered a third of the population of East Timor. The government of John Howard - notorious for its imprisonment of child asylum-seekers - is at present defying international maritime law by denying East Timor its due of oil and gas royalties worth some $8bn. Without this revenue, East Timor, the world's poorest country, cannot build schools, hospitals and roads or provide work for its young people, 90 per cent of whom are unemployed.

The hypocrisy, narcissism and dissembling propaganda of the rulers of the world and their sidekicks are in full cry. Superlatives abound as to their humanitarian intent while the division of humanity into worthy and unworthy victims dominates the news. The victims of a great natural disaster are worthy (though for how long is uncertain) while the victims of man-made imperial disasters are unworthy and very often unmentionable. Somehow, reporters cannot bring themselves to report what has been going on in Aceh, supported by "our" government. This one-way moral mirror allows us to ignore a trail of destruction and carnage that is another tsunami.

Consider the plight of Afghanistan, where clean water is unknown and death in childbirth common. At the Labour Party conference in 2001, Tony Blair announced his famous crusade to "reorder the world" with the pledge: "To the Afghan people, we make this commitment . . . We will not walk away . . . we will work with you to make sure [a way is found] out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence." The Blair government was on the verge of taking part in the conquest of Afghanistan, in which as many as 25,000 civilians died. In all the great humanitarian crises in living memory, no country suffered more and none has been helped less. Just 3 per cent of all international aid spent in Afghanistan has been for reconstruction, 84 per cent is for the US-led military "coalition" and the rest is crumbs for emergency aid. What is often presented as reconstruction revenue is private investment, such as the $35m that will finance a proposed five-star hotel, mostly for foreigners. An adviser to the minister of rural affairs in Kabul told me his government had received less than 20 per cent of the aid promised to Afghan-istan. "We don't even have enough money to pay wages, let alone plan reconstruction," he said.

The reason, unspoken of course, is that Afghans are the unworthiest of victims. When US helicopter gunships repeatedly machine-gunned a remote farming village, killing as many as 93 civilians, a Pentagon official was moved to say, "The people there are dead because we wanted them dead."

I became acutely aware of this other tsunami when I reported from Cambodia in 1979. Following a decade of American bombing and Pol Pot's barbarities, Cambodia lay as stricken as Aceh is today. Disease beckoned famine and people suffered a collective trauma few could explain. Yet for nine months after the collapse of the Khmer Rouge regime, no effective aid arrived from western governments. Instead, a western- and Chinese-backed UN embargo was imposed on Cambodia, denying virtually the entire machinery of recovery and assistance. The problem for the Cambodians was that their liberators, the Vietnamese, had come from the wrong side of the cold war, having recently expelled the Americans from their homeland. That made them unworthy victims, and expendable.

A similar, largely unreported siege was forced on Iraq during the 1990s and intensified during the Anglo-American "liberation". Last September, Unicef reported that malnutrition among Iraqi children had doubled under the occupation. Infant mortality is now at the level of Burundi, higher than in Haiti and Uganda. There is crippling poverty and a chronic shortage of medicines. Cases of cancer are rising rapidly, especially breast cancer; radioactive pollution is widespread. More than 700 schools are bomb-damaged. Of the billions said to have been allocated for reconstruction in Iraq, just $29m has been spent, most of it on mercenaries guarding foreigners. Little of this is news in the west.

This other tsunami is worldwide, causing 24,000 deaths every day from poverty and debt and division that are the products of a supercult called neoliberalism. This was acknowledged by the United Nations in 1990 when it called a conference in Paris of the richest states with the aim of implementing a "programme of action" to rescue the world's poorest nations. A decade later, virtually every commitment made by western governments had been broken, making Gordon Brown's waffle about the G8 "sharing Britain's dream" of ending poverty as just that: waffle. Very few western governments have honoured the United Nations "baseline" and allotted a miserable 0.7 per cent or more of their national income to overseas aid. Britain gives just 0.34 per cent, making its "Department for International Development" a black joke. The US gives 0.14 per cent, the lowest of any industrial state.

Largely unseen and unimagined by westerners, millions of people know their lives have been declared expendable. When tariffs and food and fuel subsidies are eliminated under an IMF diktat, small farmers and the landless know they face disaster, which is why suicides among farmers are an epidemic. Only the rich, says the World Trade Organisation, are allowed to protect their home industries and agriculture; only they have the right to subsidise exports of meat, grain and sugar and dump them in poor countries at artificially low prices, thereby destroying livelihoods and lives.

Indonesia, once described by the World Bank as "a model pupil of the global economy", is a case in point. Many of those washed to their deaths in Sumatra on Boxing Day were dispossessed by IMF policies. Indonesia owes an unrepayable debt of $110bn. The World Resources Institute says the toll of this man-made tsunami reaches 13-18 million child deaths worldwide every year; or 12 million children under the age of five, according to a UN Human Development Report. "If 100 million have been killed in the formal wars of the 20th century," wrote the Australian social scientist Michael McKinley, "why are they to be privileged in comprehension over the annual [death] toll of children from structural adjustment programmes since 1982?"

That the system causing this has democracy as its war cry is a mockery which people all over the world increasingly understand. It is this rising awareness, consciousness even, that offers more than hope. Since the crusaders in Washington and London squandered world sympathy for the victims of 11 September 2001 in order to accelerate their campaign of domination, a critical public intelligence has stirred and regards the likes of Blair and Bush as liars and their culpable actions as crimes. The current outpouring of help for the tsunami victims among ordinary people in the west is a spectacular reclaiming of the politics of community, morality and internationalism denied them by governments and corporate propaganda. Listening to tourists returning from stricken countries, consumed with gratitude for the gracious, expansive way some of the poorest of the poor gave them shelter and cared for them, one hears the antithesis of "policies" that care only for the avaricious.

"The most spectacular display of public morality the world has ever seen", was how the writer Arundhati Roy described the anti-war anger that swept across the world almost two years ago. A French study now estimates that 35 million people demonstrated on that February day and says there has never been anything like it; and it was just a beginning.

This is not rhetorical; human renewal is not a phenomenon, rather the continuation of a struggle that may appear at times to have frozen but is a seed beneath the snow. Take Latin America, long declared invisible and expendable in the west. "Latin Americans have been trained in impotence," wrote Eduardo Galeano the other day. "A pedagogy passed down from colonial times, taught by violent soldiers, timorous teachers and frail fatalists, has rooted in our souls the belief that reality is untouchable and that all we can do is swallow in silence the woes each day brings." Galeano was celebrating the rebirth of real democracy in his homeland, Uruguay, where people have voted "against fear", against privatisation and its attendant indecencies. In Venezuela, municipal and state elections in October notched up the ninth democratic victory for the only government in the world sharing its oil wealth with its poorest people. In Chile, the last of the military fascists supported by western governments, notably Thatcher, are being pursued by revitalised democratic forces.

These forces are part of a movement against inequality and poverty and war that has arisen in the past six years and is more diverse, more enterprising, more internationalist and more tolerant of difference than anything in my lifetime. It is a movement unburdened by a western liberalism that believes it represents a superior form of life; the wisest know this is colonialism by another name. The wisest also know that just as the conquest of Iraq is unravelling, so a whole system of domination and impoverishment can unravel, too.

Looks like America is not the ONLY Nation committing atrocities.

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 10:58 AM

I LOVE the comparisons to the inagauration. Give me a break - that is so apples an oranges and unfair. I mean suffering, disease, and pestilence has existed throughout the history of the US - yet every four years there is the inagauration. So, if we berate W, let's hear some of the same high powered criticism levels at the last 40 or so. Yet, that never happens, ah the hypocritical far left (and right for that matter) :rolleyes:

AND even if Wwould skip his inagauration, live in a tent, give all of his money to charity, and personally do 25 hours of charity work every day - you people would STILL bitch that he did not do enough :laugh:

But, I agree - govt. in general sucks and is unfair.

irishgrl

01-08-2005, 12:53 PM

That America is not the ONLY nation who interferes in world situations for their own benefit. If you are already aware, Kudos to you. As an American I get oh so TIRED of hearing all the smear directed at America ONLY. I dont agree with the garbage our Government does, but hey. They didnt consult me first :shrug:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:14 PM

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:19 PM

. . . They didnt consult me first :shrug:

If they did, our economy would not be recovering, 2004 would not have the greatest job gain since 1999, and Georgia and other states would not have experienced a bump in tax revenue, to wit (emphasis supplied) :

Tax revenue soars, blunts budget ax
Surge in economy eases the squeeze on state spending

By JAMES SALZER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/08/05

State revenue shot up 24.7 percent for December — $273 million more than was collected in the same month a year earlier, the Georgia Department of Revenue reported Friday.

Halfway through the fiscal year that began July 1, revenue is up 12.9 percent, with strong income and sales tax takes leading the way. That's much healthier than the 6 percent increase state officials expected for the year.

For the first six months, collections are up $812 million. The total includes a few extra days of collections over last year, due to state accounting changes.

"The Midwest had a white Christmas. Georgia had a green Christmas this year," Tommy Hills, the state's chief financial officer, told reporters.

Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor said the improved economy should give the state government some breathing room after $1.7 billion in spending cuts over the last two years.

"Hopefully this positive news does not mean another round of pork, but instead a set of strong priorities like eliminating the backlog on rape kits at the GBI, adequately funding k-12 education so we can reduce class size, and adequately funding higher education, so students on HOPE aren't hit with steep tuition increases," Taylor said.

Gov. Sonny Perdue has preached fiscal austerity since taking office in January 2003. But in the past week, Perdue proposed spending $257 million for Georgia schools, plus a $148.7 million pay raise for teachers and state employees.

The governor said cuts toMedicaid, the state's health care program for the poor and disabled, won't be as deep as anticipated. He also intends to hire 46 driver's license examiners to reduce long lines at Department of Motor Vehicle locations.

Medicaid provides health care to about 1.4 million Georgians, and more than 1.8 million Georgians attend state-supported schools and colleges. Spending for both has been severely reduced, and another round of painful cuts next year had been anticipated.

Even with the spurt of revenue growth, Perdue is likely to try to cut more than $100 million from state health care programs. And he is not expected to restore about $400 million pared from spending on schools during the last two years.

The new, robust revenue figures have some wondering why spending cuts will be needed at all.

"We should not be cutting the health and social service programs that are so important to the people of this state, especially children and the elderly," said Linda Lowe, a public health care advocate. "It is very questionable. We need to get our priorities straight: families, children and the elderly."

The priority for Perdue and the Republican majority in the Legislature will likely be on rebuilding state reserves, which fell from $700 million to about $50 million in two years. The reserves needs to be rebuilt, they say, to maintain the state's AAA bond rating, which is vital to a state that pays $1 billion a year to repay money it borrows.

Hills cautioned that Georgia's revenue growth may not continue at the same rate. The state collects about 55 percent of its taxes in the second half of the fiscal year, he said, so much of the anticipated funds haven't been collected yet.

Rajeev Dhawan, director of Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University, called the surge in revenue "a pleasant surprise."

"I think the likelihood of substantial [spending cuts] is lower," he said. "The issue is whether the cuts turn into increased spending."

Dhawan said he wouldn't expect that to happen — if at all — until the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

A key sign of an improving economy is the state's income tax collections — up 32.4 percent for December, and 12.1 percent for the first half of the year. Income taxes bring in more revenue than any other state tax.

"Georgia is late, really, in cashing in on the [improving] growth rate in the economy," Hills said. "We have been waiting for two years for this growth."

The revenue numbers were announced three days before lawmakers return for the 2005 session of the General Assembly.

While Perdue has been freeing up millions in recent weeks for delayed construction projects, Senate Appropriations Chairman Jack Hill (R-Reidsville) said he believes the days of heavy state spending on legislative pork are gone.

"I don't think anybody is making any promises," Hill said. "I don't really see the return of special projects."

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/0105/08revenue.html

_________________________________________________

I just could not resist that :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:19 PM

however in America they are covered up and politicians aren't held accountable for their actions

You get a cookie for that one. Hit nail on head. :xoxo:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:23 PM

Now in a sense I may have sounded too critical of the general American public, if so I take it back to an extent, I believe the media is shocking (I have Fox News on my Pay-TV at home and all I can say is ech). However the population needs to realise this in GENERAL (you guys seem fairly well educated in it) and understand the media can feed you lies.

We constantly villify our politicians, no politician in our nation is indispensable, hell we've sacked our Prime Minister before (head of government) and just in 2003 forced our governor general (head of state) to resign!

We know we have done wrong but we acknowledge it and are aware of it and I think that makes a huge difference.

Tynan

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:23 PM

Our government recognises our wrong doings and we accept them, however in America they are covered up and politicians aren't held accountable for their actions, I don't see this as hypocrisy what so ever, sure if we said what we say about American intereference without knowing what the Australian government has done fair enough, we also had a very important input in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, however we know full well our shortcomings, it is constantly spread across the media, we are aware of it, it isn't glorified and people get sacked over it, and the ones that are responsible are sacked, not scape goats.

Tynan

Your govt. officially came out and listed every bad act it has done. You all have voted out every politician you deem did a bad act :shrug: If so, great and I am happy for you all (I am being serious not a smart a$$)

America's is as well. The media here screamed about the war in Iraq. They reported all of the autrocities. They showed, to the govt.'s chagrain, the torturing at the prison. What are they supposed to do, show the bullets ripping into the Iraqi's :shrug: Show the Muslim extremists beheading innocent people. No, they should not show that - reporting it is enough and they do that :shrug:

Americans, and I submit alot of the rest of the Western, for the mostr part world just do not care. They just as well see all Middle Easterners dead and BOTH sides have dirty hands in that.

Anyway, that is how I see it and I ain't about to get into a five page repeat bitch fest with anyone :cool:

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:24 PM

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:25 PM

I blame you. You gave us Rupert Murdoch. :laugh:

AMEN BROTHER JOSH - AMEN :xoxo:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:26 PM

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:28 PM

I don't think its a bitch fest, personally regardlless of others opinions I am interested in them, I found it amazing to find the American perspective on these issues and am greatful there are enlightened people I can learn from.

For the record I am involved in politics in Australia, and am aiming to get in to parliament, I am a member of the Labor party which has socialist roots and is currently in opposition.

Tynan

Tynan for PM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will have to have a rally for you here on The Ledge!!!!!!!!!!

Also, though I quoted you prior to my response, not all of that was directed at you :cool: :angel:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:28 PM

I blame you. You gave us Rupert Murdoch.

I would be more angry at Canada they gave you Celine Dion and Bryan Adams hehe (Sorry south park joke).

Seriously though, we gave him to you but you allowed him to do it. A big battle in Australia at the moment is that there is a huge fight on people being able to own certain media facets and not more than one (or something like that), so we are trying to stop that blatant bias over here....I must say I LOVE watching Bill O'Reilly, I piss myself laughing.

Tynan

Tynan

DeeGeMe

01-08-2005, 07:30 PM

Just for the record, FDR cancelled three of his inagurations (well, the party party anyway). Reasons? The Depression and WWII. Just saying.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:31 PM

Tynan for PM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will have to have a rally for you here on The Ledge!!!!!!!!!!

Also, though I quoted you prior to my response, not all of that was directed at you

The most important thing though is that I hope democracy is preserved as long as possible, that can only happen with an informed public I think, it doesn't matter in what country, a great democracy needs a great education and understanding of the issues.

Tynan

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:33 PM

The media here screamed about the war in Iraq. They reported all of the autrocities.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Puhleeze.

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:33 PM

I would be more angry at Canada they gave you Celine Dion and Bryan Adams hehe (Sorry south park joke).

Seriously though, we gave him to you but you allowed him to do it. A big battle in Australia at the moment is that there is a huge fight on people being able to own certain media facets and not more than one (or something like that), so we are trying to stop that blatant bias over here....I must say I LOVE watching Bill O'Reilly, I piss myself laughing.

Tynan

Tynan

LOL - Bryan "I am rich enough to afford dermabrasion but will NOT do it" Adams :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:

As for BO - he is a characture of himself now - at least to me. Also, he is a sell out. Fox needed to get to no. 1 in the ratings and he helped by spinning not wanting Jesus into the Const. (better said as Govt. sponsored religion :laugh: ) as an attack on an individual's right to practice whatever faith they want or no faith ( :wavey: Dissention ) - they made that seem like that was an attack on God Himself. And, they only give a rat's a$$ about the Evangelical Christian God mind you :mad: But, no one wants to take the time to learn the difference. So, they listen to panderers like BO, Hannity, Rush "pillpopper" Limbaugh, etc. and accept that crap they spew as the truth. Such is life - ain't it grand :rolleyes:

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:34 PM

AMEN BROTHER JOSH - AMEN :xoxo:

:laugh:

Rupert Murdoch makes my skin crawl. Always has. He's scum.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:34 PM

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:36 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Puhleeze.

You are right, it was nevfer reported in any paper whatsoever. The cable news never carried any stories. The NYTimes and just about every ohter major paper here never posted editorials screaming about the war. The 9/11 Commission's report received no press.

Yep - none of that happened - not one word - no pic.s, no text, NOTHING at all :rolleyes:

Again, I ask you, what more could they have done. They reported it and W still got elected. The math there to me means the American people know it, but do not care because they hate ALL Middle Easterners.

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:37 PM

I saw a guy on Bill O'Reilly the other day saying how generous America is for going over to third world countries and employing so many people, ie: thinking sweat shops for nike, etc are a geneorus contribution to the world.

Tynan

O'Reilly isn't exactly a bastion of good journalism. He once stated that 58% of American single mothers were on welfare. He said that America contributes the most tax money in foreign aid. He says he's an independent, but is a registered Republican. He dreams up Peabody awards.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:37 PM

I don't know for a fact (so tell me if I'm wrong...I know you will hehe) but apparently some Defence force guy has been on television saying what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't even illegal, or atleast that is what the report found, I may have heard it somewhere else but I think it was TV.

Tynan

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:38 PM

You are right, it was nevfer reported in any paper whatsoever. The cable news never carried any stories. The NYTimes and just about every ohter major paper here never posted editorials screaming about the war. The 9/11 Commission's report received no press.

Yep - none of that happened - not one word - no pic.s, no text, NOTHING at all :rolleyes:

Again, I ask you, what more could they have done. They reported it and W still got elected. The math there to me means the American people know it, but do not care because they hate ALL Middle Easterners.

I'm not taking the bait. ;) You know as well as I do that the American press failed miserably in reporting this war and everything that went with it. They did such a bad job that they're as responsible for this mess as the Bush administration.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:40 PM

I'm not taking the bait. You know as well as I do that the American press failed miserably in reporting this war and everything that went with it. They did such a bad job that they're as responsible for this mess as the Bush administration.

Terrible situation really although I don't deny Australian news papers are ridiculously biased, there are three main ones owned by Families, when one gets married its front page news in that family's paper!

But I think in a sense the ultimate responsibility in ANY nation comes down to the people, who have to be motivated enough to discover the truth, because nothing beats huge people power, simple, there just has to be enough willing to though.

Tynan

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:40 PM

I saw a guy on Bill O'Reilly the other day saying how generous America is for going over to third world countries and employing so many people, ie: thinking sweat shops for nike, etc are a geneorus contribution to the world.

Tynan

:laugh: the Nike stuff was bad and there certainly are others.

I think the world is moving toward a globnal economy and the larger countries are trying to figure out how to protect the job in America that costs $10 per hour against the same job in India that costs $3.00 per hour (whatever it is) - I think we and the world are approaching this the wrong way - but I know of no alternative that work - Hopefully, it will resolve itself.

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:42 PM

:laugh: the Nike stuff was bad and there certainly are others.

Kathie Lee. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. :woohoo:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:42 PM

I think the world is moving toward a globnal economy and the larger countries are trying to figure out how to protect the job in America that costs $10 per hour against the same job in India that costs $3.00 per hour (whatever it is) - I think we and the world are approaching this the wrong way - but I know of no alternative that work - Hopefully, it will resolve itself.

The problem is that these thrid world economies especially india and china are increasing very very rapidly, so it seems as if this is a viable option, however, I think it has more to do with their large population and the natural progression of the society.

Tynan

dissention

01-08-2005, 07:46 PM

Terrible situation really although I don't deny Australian news papers are ridiculously biased, there are three main ones owned by Families, when one gets married its front page news in that family's paper!

But I think in a sense the ultimate responsibility in ANY nation comes down to the people, who have to be motivated enough to discover the truth, because nothing beats huge people power, simple, there just has to be enough willing to though.

Tynan

Well, the American people are amongst the laziest people to grace this Earth, so good luck in trying to get them to take any responsibility about anything. The American people roll over and fetch for the people in charge and it's only gotten worse in the name of partisan politics. Throw the Bible around with some random month-old fetus and everyone is up in arms, ready to picket and bomb abortion clinics. Send their kids over to Iraq to kill other kids and all they do is wave the flag, slap a magnet onto the ass of their car, and profess their allegiance with Bush. The current crop of Americans wouldn't know true democracy if it flew up and bit them in their self-satisfied, greedy asses. They're ignorant and stupid by choice. Great country, lazy people.

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:51 PM

I'm not taking the bait. ;) You know as well as I do that the American press failed miserably in reporting this war and everything that went with it. They did such a bad job that they're as responsible for this mess as the Bush administration.

You can lead a horse to water - but you cannot make it drink :shrug: Thus it was with the American public. They knew. If they watched ANY TV or if they ever glanced at the cover much less read a magazine or newspaper - the facts were there - and vehemently expressed. The public just refused to believe it.

Agian, what more could they have done -

they reported the abuses like torture

they reported the failures like the tons of missing explosives

they lambasted W on the missing WMD

they reported the faulty intelligence

they reported the administration's lack of interest in OBL until 9:00 a.m. on 9/11

they reported that Afgan is a drug seller now and we are supporting that

they reported W and crewe GROSSLY underestimated the post war in Iraq

they reported the lack of finding OBL

and about a million more.

And - when I say "they" - I mean all of them - even Fox News carried the AP wire stories and even wrote their own - even Fox showed the prison torture :shrug: Even BO came out agains the post war situation in Iraq and said Americans should hold him accountable for that - and BO did in his interview with W :shrug:

But and again, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink :shrug: Most American's do not care if Middle Easterners die.

I think you think reporters should respond the Pres. (and I mean any Pres. ) with a finger in the face and dialouge similar to "shut that LYING MF'ing hole in your face and listen to me you wothless so and so . . . "

I think we both know that will never happen and it never really has :shrug:

But - you will never see the truth in what I said because it is easier to blast, etc. So be it :cool:

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:52 PM

The problem is that these thrid world economies especially india and china are increasing very very rapidly, so it seems as if this is a viable option, however, I think it has more to do with their large population and the natural progression of the society.

Tynan

China will be the largest in the next ten years of less.

India already is the largest Democracy on the planet.

America, however, still retains the economic and, along with her allies, the military power - so we shall see where this leads :cool:

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 07:54 PM

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:56 PM

Well, the American people are amongst the laziest people to grace this Earth, so good luck in trying to get them to take any responsibility about anything. The American people roll over and fetch for the people in charge and it's only gotten worse in the name of partisan politics. Throw the Bible around with some random month-old fetus and everyone is up in arms, ready to picket and bomb abortion clinics. Send their kids over to Iraq to kill other kids and all they do is wave the flag, slap a magnet onto the ass of their car, and profess their allegiance with Bush. The current crop of Americans wouldn't know true democracy if it flew up and bit them in their self-satisfied, greedy asses. They're ignorant and stupid by choice. Great country, lazy people.

I wasn't going to say it in those words howver I think in a sense it could be true, I know at election time, I felt the same way but I try to think the best of people and that it will eventually work out, we had our conservatice PM re-elected a month before your election, I was shocked, I thought we would win but at the same time, it isn't because middle Australia are being lied to so much, it is that middle Australia are getting what they want, - grants for first home buyers, grants to help pay for new babies, expensive but popular, so really people are stupid to get rid of it if they benefit.

Our economy is good and we are thriving at the moment, however from what I am aware, America ain't doing so great at the moment.
Tynan

tynan88

01-08-2005, 07:59 PM

China will be the largest in the next ten years of less.

India already is the largest Democracy on the planet.

America, however, still retains the economic and, along with her allies, the military power - so we shall see where this leads

It will lead to a hell of a lot of problems in this generation, because it is a huge shift given current standars and conceptions, ie: personally I think our world will change even more greatly in the next hundred years than the last, because the next generation will be generally free of a lot of the old school though patterns of my grandparents generation (I am sixteen) and we will see radical thought changes.

I predict legalisation of marijuana the norm (we can discuss this in another thread if your up for) and much different views towards homosexuals and lesbians, and all for the better!

Tynan

dissention

01-08-2005, 08:03 PM

BTW - your post bolsters if not proves my point that the media put the info out there and the majority of Americans could care a less :cool: Thanks :wavey: :xoxo:

:laugh:

Yeah, the media that only interested, intelligent, and responsible people, such as myself, seek out. :laugh: If you can tell me that average Americans have the intelligence to access stuff such as The Nation and The Economist, I'll give you a kiss. That kind of truthful media is the only real media we have. Most Americans are ignorant to this fact and listen to the gospels of GE, Murdoch, Sinclair, and Disney. If you can honestly tell me that they did their jobs in reporting over the past three years, I'll give you another kiss, only this time I'll up the ante and slip some tongue. ;)

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:03 PM

I wasn't going to say it in those words howver I think in a sense it could be true, I know at election time, I felt the same way but I try to think the best of people and that it will eventually work out, we had our conservatice PM re-elected a month before your election, I was shocked, I thought we would win but at the same time, it isn't because middle Australia are being lied to so much, it is that middle Australia are getting what they want, - grants for first home buyers, grants to help pay for new babies, expensive but popular, so really people are stupid to get rid of it if they benefit.

Our economy is good and we are thriving at the moment, however from what I am aware, America ain't doing so great at the moment.
Tynan

I think all people are generally lazy :shrug: Thus, I would not limit Americans in that label.

As for the economy - all major indicators indicate it is well on the way to recovery save any terrorist attack, etc. Personally, I welcome this news no matter that it will put a feather in that jerk W's hat. But, I am not partisan :shrug:

The question is whether it will revcover and then boom (with legal profits unlike the costly and economic ruining fraud that went unchecked in the 90's - that little fiasco cost trillions in lost wealth and tens of millions of lost jobs ) enough so that America can pay the OUTRAGEOUS debt W put us in to get there. Personally, I am unsure. But, I hope it does. It certainly could, but that is going to take some doing (like STOP SPENDING ON CREDIT ) and a lot of luck.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:05 PM

Yer I think the debt was something was big, the American national debt is bigger than our whole budget for the next ten years! Is it true it is over a trillion dollars?

Tynan

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:06 PM

:laugh:

Yeah, the media that only interested, intelligent, and responsible people, such as myself, seek out. :laugh: If you can tell me that average Americans have the intelligence to access stuff such as The Nation and The Economist, I'll give you a kiss. That kind of truthful media is the only real media we have. Most Americans are ignorant to this fact and listen to the gospels of GE, Murdoch, Sinclair, and Disney. If you can honestly tell me that they did their jobs in reporting over the past three years, I'll give you another kiss, only this time I'll up the ante and slip some tongue. ;)

You may kiss me whenever you like :laugh:

But and again, I do not know what more they could do to get it through to people. But, they did report the good with the bad and reported it often. Those facts speak for themselves and if you have any evidence to the contrary let's see it.

The problem was people like Hannity, BO, and the mad ant Scarborough and their ilk were allowd to voice their response. Should we have silenced them :shrug: I wish we had no matter the cost to freedom of the press - and I know EXACTLY what that makes me sound like :laugh: :eek: :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:08 PM

Yer I think the debt was something was big, the American national debt is bigger than our whole budget for the next ten years! Is it true it is over a trillion dollars?

Tynan

I think so - but that number is difficult to figure and people use different models. But, that sounds about right. I think a booming economy can cut that to zero - but and again, that will require discipline, which the R's have none of :mad:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:11 PM

The problem was people like Hannity, BO, and the mad ant Scarborough and their ilk were allowd to voice their response

Well I think it speaks volumes that the names of the fox enws network are the names i have heard in Australia, that is the face you are presenting to the world.

Tynan

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:17 PM

Well I think it speaks volumes that the names of the fox enws network are the names i have heard in Australia, that is the face you are presenting to the world.

Tynan

well, they really cannot be silenced by law and I submit every country has these types :shrug:

Well, we present others as well. I also tend to think FOX is not broadcast too much outside of the US. I base this on my travels abroad. The hotels (American and foreign owned) always have CNN, which IMO (shut us Diss :laugh: ) is FAR from being conservative and is a little bit like light or diet news. I have never seen Fox in any of those hotels. Thus and hopefully, we keep our crazies in the upstairs room :laugh:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:19 PM

dissention

01-08-2005, 08:19 PM

Well I think it speaks volumes that the names of the fox enws network are the names i have heard in Australia, that is the face you are presenting to the world.

Tynan

That's because you have Rupert Murdoch running the show over there. ;)

dissention

01-08-2005, 08:20 PM

I think FOX news is shown in Australia for a bot of a novelty :lol

CNN though to be honest I don't associate with a country, I see it as more of an international station, because it is very diverse.

Tynan

If only I could have babies with Christiane Amanpour...LOVE. HER. TO. DEATH.

That is a real journalist, folks.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:21 PM

That's because you have Rupert Murdoch running the show over there. ;)

Well yer I guess you could be right although there is a lot of bitterness towards him here, because he had to give up his Australian citizenship to go and own Fox News, so we find it ashame he put his business ahead of his country.

He's no great loss though, he's still basically identified as an Aussie anyway :sorry:

Tynan

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:22 PM

If only I could have babies with Christiane Amanpour...LOVE. HER. TO. DEATH.

That is a real journalist, folks.

Yep - and Americans SAW her report the news :shrug: Thus, my point :wavey: :D :wavey: :D :wavey: :xoxo: :xoxo:

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 08:24 PM

I think FOX news is shown in Australia for a bot of a novelty :lol

CNN though to be honest I don't associate with a country, I see it as more of an international station, because it is very diverse.

Tynan

really - that is interesting. When I was in Montreal about a year or so ago, these people I met were like CNN is W's lapdog - I was like WTF - you mean Fox - they were like CNN. I think there was a language barrier :laugh:

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:24 PM

Christiane Amanpour

That sounds so classy I LOVE that name, and her accent.

Tynan

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:26 PM

really - that is interesting. When I was in Montreal about a year or so ago, these people I met were like CNN is W's lapdog - I was like WTF - you mean Fox - they were like CNN. I think there was a language barrier

Nah to me, CNN seems very independent, it has a very international and to me a very European focus on it, also there are some Aussies on it so it's very international even though its based in Atlanta (is it?).

I would be interested to see what other non-Americans think.

Tynan

dissention

01-08-2005, 08:27 PM

Yep - and Americans SAW her report the news :shrug: Thus, my point :wavey: :D :wavey: :D :wavey: :xoxo: :xoxo:

Your point isn't any such thing. CNN silenced her and reprimanded her for not sanitizing her pieces. She then went on Inside Politics and ripped the network a new asshole for being such a lapdog. Then she appeared in Linda Ellerbee's documentary about 24 hour news and the brass at CNN were furious. There's a reason why she's hardly on anymore. ;)

dissention

01-08-2005, 08:29 PM

That sounds so classy I LOVE that name, and her accent.

Tynan

Me, too. I'll never forget it when she went after Clinton on live TV. He looked like he was going to **** cement. Homegirl has brass balls, I love her.

tynan88

01-08-2005, 08:32 PM

I don't know much about her but from you guys have said she sounds like a REAL journalist, it is a real shame, it isn't just the journalism that is awarded now, it isn't the story that matter, its how it effects the government that matters.

Tynan

irishgrl

01-08-2005, 09:11 PM

I think your dig was ill aimed....I cant do any worse with the economy than the Twig already has. I can balance a check book which is more than I can say for the Bumbler and his posse. Also, I think you are being overly optimistic regarding this "recovery" you seem to think is happening. It is NOT happening in MY neck of the woods, and I have yet to see any widespread evidence that things are getting any better, especially for the long haul.
considering the dismal turn things have taken, I think our Government could have used a little advice from the man on the street.
as for this from Diss:
The American people roll over and fetch for the people in charge and it's only gotten worse in the name of partisan politics.
you AINT talkin about me darlin'; I dont roll over and fetch for NO higher ups.
I get on my soapbox and write my representatives and my local paper and donate to worthy causes (mostly environmental) and I hate HATE HATE
the current bunch of Bunglers.
I dont get my news from ANY of the Broadcast Biggies. I listen to NPR or PBS sometimes BBC...I DETEST Fox, I think they are just another incarnation of the Rush Limbaugh talking head mentality.

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 09:15 PM

blah blah blah - use google to find the articles - I am tired of this argument because even if I cite 100 articles you will never believe it :shrug:

irishgrl

01-08-2005, 09:24 PM

Im talking about the fact that all anyone hears about/reads about or knows for their own situation is that things are NOT getting better, they are getting worse. Benefits are being cut, costs are rising, taxes are rising, programs for the poor/students/elderly/minorities are being cut. Bigger and bigger chunks are taken out of my paycheck, and basic needs are getting pricier all the time! I dont know-maybe you live in a bubble. If companies are downsizing and outsourcing, how can you say things are better? My newspaper is filled with articles about companies closing down and moving away, leaving whole towns without a significant employer. Our manufacturing base is non existent. Small to mid-size farms are going under. There's more but what's the point? Not everyone is as fortunate as you, Jason.

strandinthewind

01-08-2005, 09:31 PM

tynan88

01-08-2005, 10:41 PM

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 12:29 AM

Ooh shame this had to urn this in to somewhat of a class war, it isn't the aim, if any should be demonstrated by this it is that it is harder for society to function than it should be, ie: a simple comment about the state of the economy has seemingly upset others, what you think?

Tynan

I agree :nod:

But, my point was economists are saying that while we are not out of the woods yet, the economy is on the up swing. I realize it is not in all areas, but it is in some. I mean look at that article I posted about Georgia's income tax rev. rising by like 24% and they mention it is because the economy is rebounding. Hopefully, the rest of the country will follow as the indicators indicate it is doing, despite what Mary perceives in her own local area - about which I know nothing and was not in any way commenting on except perhaps in general and hoping it was part of it.

Also, the bust of 90's was far more reaching than I think a lot of people realize. The trillions of lost wealth was devastating. No matter if Gore or anyone else had been Pres., the economy was going to tank and tank hard. I mean how could it not with all that fraud. MCI, one of the largest companies in the world failed because of fraud that should have been caught by the Clinton Administration or Jeb Bush in Fla. - its stock lost all of its value - So many hard working people had that in their retirement plans, etc. And, I am not just talking about people who personally owned it - I am talking about states and other large entities and corporations that had that stock in their pension plans - every dime of the that was lost. Enron was even larger that MCI I believe. The two of those were devastating on their own, but those were not the only two - there were many, many more. Thus, America had to recover from that. The idea that we could just immediately absorb that is just wrong by any economic theory. I mean all that wealth - all those jobs - all those ancillary businesses and personal jobs that were lost as a result of the fraud --- all of that was a large pill to swallow. Thus, the economy was headed for a tank no matter what. Then, we had 9/11 - which essentially shut everything but the news down for two days and killed what was left of the reeling and crashing economy.

Though not a full on depression and almost a double recession :eek: - it was pretty bad - not as bad as it sould have been I submit - and that is IMO largely due to Greenspan's brilliant move of lowering the rates to re ignite the already booming housing market and the refinance market. I know more than one person or family who when they realized they were going to lose their jobs or soon thereafter, took equity out of their houses (the average house price rose significantly and in some cases tripled from like 1996 to 2000 ) to live while trying to find another job. So, most sources give the housing market the credit for essentially driving and somewhat saving the US economy from say 1999ish (perhaps 2000 - but the underpinning came in around 1999 or so) until today as rates are still very low by any definition - they will however soon rise as most predict.

I think it is unreasonable to expect America's economy to recover from that in one or two years. I, quite frankly, am surprised it has taken as little as four to get this far.

I think the tax cuts helped provide a spark - at least according to Alan Greenspan who is far more knowledgeable than I am :shrug: But, Greenspan also has consistently warned W's out of control debt spending will possibly negate any long lasting effect from the tax cut spark.

So, we shall see. I certainly hope it works, but fear the debt may be too much. Plus, with India and, esp., China emerging, the US will most certainly have to be more competitive in wages to stay alive and that means in the end less in payroll, which will help stifle the economy IMO. But, the global competition is not really any Pres.' fault. I get that trade agreements and tariffs can protect us, but that is only a band aid :shrug: In the end,the US must face this "threat" and deal with it in a feasible way - what that way is I do not know.

But, as they say, only time will. I mean the boom of the 90's was heavily built on the tech boom (though the housing market helped). Problems with that boom (fraud, paying outrageous IPO prices when the company had no HOPE in positive income ever, etc. ) aside, we may get lucky and have a similar thing happen in the latter part of this decade. There may be another internet - another cell phone (which also grew heavily in the 90's) - etc. In sum, Clinton and Congress helped and guided the economy as much as any ruling body in a quai-free market can, as has W and the current Congress in some ways. But, luck has had something to do with it for both - it usually does :nod:

NOTE : The Clinton administration is solidly to blame for not catching the fraud - I mean if they can take credit for the economy - they can take credit for it being built on essentially nothing. AND W is responsible for Enron as he was the Gov. of Texas during the fraud just as Clinton was Pres. during the fraud. They both took huge donations as did all politicians on both sides :nod: That is why no politician is quick to prosecute Enron or MCI -----SCUM :mad:

Anyway - that is my economic ramble for this evening - Enjoy :laugh:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:23 AM

I blame you. You gave us Rupert Murdoch. :laugh:

No ****. :lol:

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 01:24 AM

No ****. :lol:

Again AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN :laugh: :laugh:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:25 AM

I don't think its a bitch fest, personally regardlless of others opinions I am interested in them, I found it amazing to find the American perspective on these issues and am greatful there are enlightened people I can learn from.

For the record I am involved in politics in Australia, and am aiming to get in to parliament, I am a member of the Labor party which has socialist roots and is currently in opposition.

Tynan

Amen brother. If the **** gets too deep here, can you see about getting me a visa? :laugh: :wavey:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:30 AM

If they did, our economy would not be recovering,

Oh please. For whom?

and Georgia

Is still a federally funded tax welfare state courtesy of the blue states.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:33 AM

Just for the record, FDR cancelled three of his inagurations (well, the party party anyway). Reasons? The Depression and WWII. Just saying.

Yup. These fascists must have their coronation whilst the soldiers die in Iraq and make the "have mores" have even more.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:36 AM

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:44 AM

Our economy is good and we are thriving at the moment, however from what I am aware, America ain't doing so great at the moment.
Tynan

It was doing a hell of a lot better 10 years ago and even better than that about 40 years ago.
We may never recover from the cancer that is the Reagan presidency and Clinton's signing of NAFTA without caveats.
All we want is health insurance, a decent living wage and a decent amount of vacation time to spend with our families. Ironically enough, the family values people are the same ones that are f*cking us over on these issues.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:49 AM

I predict legalisation of marijuana the norm (we can discuss this in another thread if your up for) and much different views towards homosexuals and lesbians, and all for the better!

Tynan

Not in this country darling. The fascists would having nothing left to run on. the only way they're legalizing pot is if big pharma gets involved and my guess is they've already studied that and decided the profit margins aren't big enough for them. They'd have to have all those farms instead of a factory that can churn out all those pills. Farming is far more costly becasue they need water, another big problem. I'd bet 1/2insane could shed a little more elight on this.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 01:54 AM

Yup. These fascists must have their coronation whilst the soldiers die in Iraq and make the "have mores" have even more.

Nice try - but we are hardly in the same financial situation as then :laugh:

Well, they are getting millions in donations for it to wit - so I am unsure of the burden to the govt. which is related to the point I guess:

Associated Press
Published on: 01/05/05
Atlanta-based Home Depot is among the big corporations donating funds for President Bush's inauguration ceremonies.

More than $13 million has been donated by corporations and individuals to fund the festivities, scheduled for Jan. 18-21, according to a Presidential Inauguration Committee report released last week.

The committee said three weeks ago that it planned to raise $40 million to $50 million for the inaugural events.

Other big corporations that donated include Ford Motor Co.; Time Warner Inc.; the National Association of Homebuilders, based in Washington; and First Data Corp.

The committee announced almost 50 new contributors, including 12 that donated $250,000, the maximum amount sought.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/homedepot/0105/05homedepotdonate.html
______________________________________________________________

In any event, no one in the last 60 or so years has cancelled theirs - Better :laugh:

Personally, I think it is a sham for a second termer - but they all (SAVE FOR FDR in a depression :laugh: ) apparently have done it That is all I am saying. But, once again, I am appearing to give W credit for something pretty much everyone else has done and you all just cannot have that because to do so would be, despite its truth, to give W some kind of validity :shrug: I am just not partisan that way I guess. AND - I am not insulting you all for being that way - I am just noting that I think you all are and I think it clouds your vision sometimes (as I run for cover for saying that :laugh: )

I guess I just read things like W's inauguration is a horrible thing and should be canceled because the money should be donated to the Tsunami victims (which is the gist of what was said over the last two or so weeks) and I think what the hell does one have to do with the other. I mean in all the other inaugurations there was still famine, world disorder, and some poor person in need that could have used that money. So, why take it out on W for doing what everyone else, except apparently FDR in a depression (which we are not in) , did.

Again and for he record - I think the inauguration of any Pres. to the tune of over the cost of a press feed from the floor of the Congress is stupid and an outrageous expense - so I am not realy arguing with you about that.

As for the economic indicators, 2004 was the best year for jobs since 1999. I saw that while on the stairmaster today. Plus, Greenspan is saying it and has been saying it. I think Greenspan is a pretty good source :shrug:

But and in the interest of time - let's not argue about it now and revisit it in a year - Let's see if those numbers hold and if Greenspan is still saying it then.

AND another thing - I would like to point out that as I predicted time has shown Novak ain't been indicted yet - I believe others around here were thinking it was going to be soon :wavey:

When will you people learn not to argue with me :laugh: :laugh: (levity here :wavey: )

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:54 AM

well, they really cannot be silenced by law and I submit every country has these types :shrug:

Well, we present others as well. I also tend to think FOX is not broadcast too much outside of the US. I base this on my travels abroad. The hotels (American and foreign owned) always have CNN, which IMO (shut us Diss :laugh: ) is FAR from being conservative and is a little bit like light or diet news. I have never seen Fox in any of those hotels. Thus and hopefully, we keep our crazies in the upstairs room :laugh:

A huge part of the problem is deregulation and that the Fairness Doctrine was done away with. Again, brought to you by the plague that is known as the Reagan administration.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 01:56 AM

It was doing a hell of a lot better 10 years ago and even better than that about 40 years ago.
We may never recover from the cancer that is the Reagan presidency and Clinton's signing of NAFTA without caveats.
All we want is health insurance, a decent living wage and a decent amount of vacation time to spend with our families. Ironically enough, the family values people are the same ones that are f*cking us over on these issues.

that is because they are greddy IMO. They all Jones so bad they cannot be bothered with the little people, even if they are the little people mind you :laugh: , on their way up the ladder :rolleyes:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:56 AM

If only I could have babies with Christiane Amanpour...LOVE. HER. TO. DEATH.

That is a real journalist, folks.

Yes. Notice how little we see of her anymore.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 01:57 AM

A huge part of the problem is deregulation and that the Fairness Doctrine was done away with. Again, brought to you by the plague that is known as the Reagan administration.

with the blessing of how many D members of Congress?

They are all sleazy IMO.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 01:58 AM

Yes. Notice how little we see of her anymore.

I thought you did not watch the news :shrug:

I see her all the time, esp lately, she is in the Tsunami area along with every other big reporter :shrug: She has been on pretty much daily for the last two weeks.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 01:59 AM

really - that is interesting. When I was in Montreal about a year or so ago, these people I met were like CNN is W's lapdog - I was like WTF - you mean Fox - they were like CNN. I think there was a language barrier :laugh:

CNN has started to pattern themsleves after Fox. It's all about the dollars. Their assessment is not that unfair.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:00 AM

Nah to me, CNN seems very independent, it has a very international and to me a very European focus on it, also there are some Aussies on it so it's very international even though its based in Atlanta (is it?).

I would be interested to see what other non-Americans think.

Tynan

You're watching CNN international, not what we get over here.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:03 AM

SEE: Judith Miller, New York Times

again, I guess no news agency reported anything. None of them even mentioned it :rolleyes: You know better than that :laugh: The problem was the American people did not buy it. They for the most part could care a less about the Middle Eastern people - they just as soon see them all dead. A good example of this was this guy the other day was on the one hand saying too bad about the WMD but the US is trying to help these poor people in the wake of a ruthless dictator - and then no less than five minutes later was watching the news and SCREAMING we ought to kill them all. So, I, being ME :D told him he was not supporting the troops or W because they say the Iraqi's are our friends and we are there to help them not kill them all as he just advocated. Well, that ended all civil conversation :laugh:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:04 AM

blah blah blah - use google to find the articles - I am tired of this argument because even if I cite 100 articles you will never believe it :shrug:

Propaganda!

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:05 AM

Propaganda!

see me in a year :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:

OH alrighty - other than Greenspan's comments, which I have repeatedly cited to in the past - - here is one from ABC (emphasis supplied) :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1278680.htm

US jobs data points to steady growth. 08/01/2005. ABC News Online

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1278680.htm]

US jobs data points to steady growth

The United States economy has churned out 157,000 new jobs in December, the US Government said in a report suggesting steady, if less than spectacular, growth.

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 per cent, the Labour Department report said.

The non-farm payrolls figure was slightly below the average Wall Street forecast of 175,000 new jobs, but the agency revised the number of jobs created in previous months up by 34,000.

For all of 2004, 2.231 million jobs were added, the best since 1999. In 2003, the nation lost a net 61,000 jobs.

The jobs report is seen as one of the most important indicators of economic activity and the December report is consistent with modest growth.

The report is unlikely to deter the Federal Reserve from its path of steadily lifting interest rates, analysts said.

The Labour Department revised its data for November to show 137,000 new jobs instead of 112,000; and for October to show 312,000 instead of 303,000.

Experts say the economy needs about 150,000 new jobs each month to absorb new labour market entrants and maintain modest economic growth.

Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist for High Frequency Economics, said the rise in December payrolls was skewed by favourable seasonal adjustment factors and the addition of 36,000 state and local government jobs.

"Overall [the data] looks okay but core job gains are softer than headlines and wage gains are still worryingly soft," he said.

Average hourly earnings rose by two cents, or 0.1 per cent, to $US15.86 in December, less than expected by economists.

Average hourly earnings have increased 2.7 per cent in the past 12 months, the fastest growth since the summer of 2003, but slower than inflation of 3.5 per cent.

In December, manufacturing industries added 3,000 jobs in December, the first gain since August.

For all of 2004, factory jobs grew by 76,000, the first annual increase since 1997. Construction industries added 7,000 jobs, the tenth increase in a row.

-AFP
______________________________________________________

Once again - I am not saying we are out of the woods yet, I am just saying these indicators show we are on the way - it is still a long road - it always is.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:09 AM

Nice try - but we are hardly in the same financial situation as then :laugh:

It's not about MONEY, it's about principle.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:13 AM

It's not about MONEY, it's about principle.

So, you think W should cancel it why - because of the Tsunami victims. Again, people were in need during all the other ones - so if this is your reasoning, you must also apply that venom to them as well :shrug:

Also, something tells me that is Kerry had won - we would not even be having this coronation argument :shrug:

Again and for the record - I think all of these coronations are a HUGE waste of money and are all in bad taste. But, they happen - so be it.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:13 AM

with the blessing of how many D members of Congress?

None. Reagan and Bush vetoed the legislation to make it a law.
NEXT!

Edited for clarity.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:19 AM

I thought you did not watch the news :shrug:

Quote me. :shrug:

I see her all the time, esp lately, she is in the Tsunami area along with every other big reporter :shrug: She has been on pretty much daily for the last two weeks.

She's been on with Anderson Cooper covering the tsunami. But before that, she was hardly seen.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:21 AM

None. Reagan and Bush vetoed the legislation to make it a law.
NEXT!

Edited for clarity.

I find it hard to believe not one D supported that action - but it is mostly irrelevant because even the press did not want it :laugh: to wit:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

-Val E. Limburg

FURTHER READING

Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.

Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.

Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.

Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents, 1989.

Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California), October, 1994.

Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.

Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York), Summer, 1989.

Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.

Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.

Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.

Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.

See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television
__________________________________________________________

Also, most stations, even Fox, have a point counter point show. So, the doctrine is somewhat still being applied.

I think - you just want one that espouses only the far left. While I admit that is not a bad idea :laugh: - it does sem to run afoul of the First Amend. :shrug:

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote me. :shrug:

You said the other day that you did not watch the news on t.v. - I then commented that you sure do read it though :laugh:

But, if you watch it great :cool:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:23 AM

So, you think W should cancel it why - because of the Tsunami victims.

We're at war. And he wasn't duly elcted the first time and was "elected" through disenfranchisement of minority voters and probable fraud this time.

amber

01-09-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote me. :shrug:

She's been on with Anderson Cooper covering the tsunami. But before that, she was hardly seen.
wait, didn't you just say two days ago when i compared you to TUSK guy at my work that you did not really watch the news? :confused:
EDIT - oops, strand beat me.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:24 AM

wait, didn't you just say two days ago when i compared you to TUSK guy at my work that you did not really watch the news? :confused:

AH HA - a witness :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :p :p

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:25 AM

You said the other day that you did not watch the news on t.v. - I then commented that you sure do read it though :laugh:

But, if you watch it great :cool:

Produce the quote.

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:26 AM

wait, didn't you just say two days ago when i compared you to TUSK guy at my work that you did not really watch the news? :confused:
EDIT - oops, strand beat me.

Again, produce the quote.

amber

01-09-2005, 02:26 AM

Produce the quote.
well, but i saw it. Did you take it out or something? why would i make that up? I agree with everything you've said... :p I can't remember which thread, but the convo was like:
I said something about work guy and politics.
strand said "Do you work with Dissention"
and i said, no, this guy only watches News on TV, and only reads political books, More like our own GDW
then you said "I don't really watch news on TV" or something very similar to that.

estranged4life

01-09-2005, 02:27 AM

when I think of the hypocrites of the world the following nice/lovable song lyrics pop into my mind? Maybe it's how I view 'em...You be the judge:

"F**k this, All of this
Bitch and moan and bleed and piss
Seconds away from goin' down
Go ahead and push me
Your fakery, your butchery
Is nothing compared to my hate for you

F**k your apathy and
F**k your empathy and
F**k your nihilism, too
F**k your bitter pills, take em all, you never will
But most of all... F**k you!"

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:28 AM

well, but i saw it. Did you take it out or something? why would i make that up? I agree with everything you've said... :p

If my word is going to be used against me, I want the exact quote produced.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:32 AM

We're at war. And he wasn't duly elcted the first time and was "elected" through disenfranchisement of minority voters and probable fraud this time.

Again, I think they should not have them at all period except for the swearing in :shrug:

Again, I think you sould be singing a different tune if Kerry had won - but we will never really know because he did not win (sadly so IMO)

Here is an interesting article on the prior coronations:

The First Inauguration

It was in New York City, out nation’s first capital, that George Washington became the first President of the United States. Congress had planned for the new government to begin its responsibilities on March 4, 1789, but a harsh winter made travel difficult, and it wasn’t until April 6 that enough congressmen arrived in New York to count the electors’ votes and announce, "Whereby it appears that George Washington, Esq. Was unanimously elected President, --and John Adams, Esq. Was duly elected Vice President of the United States of America…"

It took several days for the exciting news to reach Mount Vernon, General Washington’s home in Virginia. He set off for the capital, leaving behind his wife, Martha, who would join him later. He traveled by coach and on horseback through Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philadelphia, finally arriving in New York City aboard a grand barge that had been rowed from New Jersey across Newark Bay. Meanwhile John Adams, his Vice President-elect, and the Congress were deciding what the new Chief Executive’s official title should be. Adams preferred "His Most Benign Highness," but a congressional committee settled on the title we still use today: "President of the United States."

Inauguration Day, April 30, began with the sounds of ceremonial artillery and church bells ringing across the city. At noon, General Washington made his way through large crowds to Federal Hall, where both houses of Congress were assembled for swearing-in. New York Chancellor Robert Livingston read the oath, and Washington, his right hand on a Bible, repeated the words inscribed in the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." President Washington added the words, "So help me God," a custom followed by every President since.

Inaugural Traditions

The First Inauguration gave rise to many traditions that continue today. For example, President Washington followed his swearing-in with an Inaugural Address, a special speech written for the occasion. In 1793, the oath of office for Washington’s second term was administered by William Cushing, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and the first in a long line of Supreme Court Justices to preside over Presidential Inaugurations.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to be sworn in as President in Washington, D.C., the location chosen for the permanent capital and the site of all but a handful of Inaugural ceremonies. Jefferson showed his taste for simplicity by going on foot to the Capitol for the oath-taking and returning to his boardinghouse afterwards for dinner. After his second Inauguration, however, Jefferson rode on horseback from the Capitol to the President’s House (the name then used for the White House) amid music and a spontaneous gathering of mechanics from the nearby Navy Yard – a procession that grew into today’s Inaugural Parade.

Jefferson’s second Inauguration also began the tradition of the Inaugural Open House, when the executive mansion was opened to all who wished to greet the President after his swearing-in. The popularity of the Open House would later cause our seventh President, Andrew Jackson, to flee through a window after a mob of well-wishers stormed the White House, ruining furniture and breaking china in their eagerness to see him. In 1865, despite growing concern about safety, Abraham Lincoln shook some 6,000 hands after his second Inauguration. President Grover Cleveland, realizing that the White House could no longer accommodate such crowds, instead held a review of the troops from a flag-draped grandstand just outside, adding another element to the Inaugural Parade.

Presidents have celebrated in many ways since George Washington danced the minuet after his Inauguration in 1789. James Madison, America’s fourth President, and his wife, Dolley, were the guests of honor at the first official Inaugural Ball, held at Long’s Hotel in Washington, D.C. Martin Van Buren’s Inauguration featured two balls, and President William Henry Harrison held three to meet the ever-growing demand for tickets. Later Inaugurations have featured specially built pavilions for dancing, balls held at several sites throughout the capital, and even Inaugural parties in other cities. Modern Inaugural festivities reflect not only the President they honor, but also the desire to include the many Americans who want to take part in celebrating our nation’s rich history and the transfer of presidential power.

Technology and Ceremony

You may have watched President Bill Clinton’s 1997 Inauguration on television or heard about it from a radio broadcast. Maybe your local newspaper carried photographs of the event, or perhaps you visited an Internet web site to get information about the ceremony and various Inaugural celebrations. We rely on technology to help us participate in and learn about our government in ways that previous generations of Americans never dreamed.

For example, only the members of Congress gathered in Federal Hall on April 30, 1789, heard President Washington’s first Inaugural Address. Twenty years later, after James Madison’s swearing-in, his speech was published in the newspaper for all to read. James Polk took the oath of office on 1845 while Samuel Morse, inventor of the electric telegraph, sat near him on the platform tapping out the news on his miraculous machine.

It was 1857 – the year James Buchanan became President –when the Inauguration ceremony was first photographed. Citizens across the country were able to share in the festivities through pictures. Four decades later, movie cameras recorded highlights of William McKinley’s Inauguration, giving viewers a new window into history. The year 1925 found Americans gathered around their radios to hear Calvin Coolidge take the oath of office, and in 1949, Harry Truman became the first President to whose swearing-in was televised. If you like to use computers, you may know that President Bill Clinton’s second Inauguration was the first to have an official web site and to be seen live on the Internet by people around the world.

Inaugural Language

The Constitution is the supreme law of the united States, describing out country’s three-branched, democratic system of government and the fundamental rights to which all citizens are entitled. In Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, our nation’s founders declared that "The executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America," and provided an oath of office for the President-elect’s official swearing-in. This 35-word oath has remained unchanged for more than two centuries, in part because it so clearly and simply describes the responsibilities of the Chief Executive:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In 1817, James Monroe, our fifth President, became the first to give an Inaugural Address to an assembled public crowd. Since that time, the traditional Inaugural Address has been an opportunity for the President to speak directly to the American people. George Washington said juts 135 words after his second inauguration in 1793, while William Henry Harrison gave the longest Inaugural Address ever, taking almost two hours to deliver 8,445 words.

Inaugural Addresses are often remembered as reflecting a particular time in history. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called on Americans to "…finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds," while in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt reached out to citizens discouraged by the Great Depression, saying, "This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper." President John F. Kennedy inspired a generation of young people in 1961 when he urged, "…ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." And in 1993, President Bill Clinton reassured a nation in transition after the end of the Cold War by stating, "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Family/html/inauguration_history.html

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:33 AM

and another:
____________________________________________________________

A look at the history and tradition of Inauguration Day

WASHINGTON (AP) -- At noon on January 20, in the shadow of the Capitol, George W. Bush will raise his right hand, place the other on a Bible and swear to faithfully execute the office of president and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It will be the 55th quadrennial presidential inauguration, an event steeped in history and marked by all the pomp and pageantry with which Americans have come to associate the oath-taking ceremony. Heightened security, a constant in this age of terrorism, also will be part of the first inaugural since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Here, in question and answer form, is a look at the inauguration:

Q: Why is the inauguration on January 20 at noon?

A: The Constitution's 20th Amendment, passed by Congress March 2, 1932 and ratified by the necessary states on January 23, 1933, set the date and time.

The president had been sworn in on March 4, typically the final day of the congressional session. For practical reasons, the nation's forefathers had chosen that date because it took weeks to collect and count the votes, and then weeks by coach or horse for the president-elect to get to the capital.

The change also reflected the desire to limit the lame-duck congressional session, which the outgoing president and members of Congress found to be an "unproductive period of time," according to Betty Koed, the assistant U.S. Senate historian.

In the 1930s, Sen. George Norris, R-Nebraska, suggested the 20th Amendment, and lawmakers agreed. Koed said there were several reasons for the date. It was about two weeks after Congress counted the electoral votes. Also, calendars indicated that at least for the next few years, the inauguration would not fall on a Sunday -- a day of religious services for many -- and weather patterns showed favorable conditions.

High noon seemed appropriate for a change in command.

Q: Does the chief justice of the United States always administer the oath of office?

A: Traditionally, at the official Washington ceremony, the chief justice administers the oath. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has accepted Bush's invitation to administer the oath despite begin treated for thyroid cancer.

In special circumstances, others have sworn in a president. On November 22, 1963, after President Kennedy was assassinated, U.S. District Judge Sarah T. Hughes administered the oath to Lyndon B. Johnson aboard Air Force One at Love Field in Dallas. Hughes was the first woman to administer the oath.

On April 30, 1789, when George Washington was sworn in on the balcony at Federal Hall in New York City, not a single justice had been appointed to the Supreme Court. Robert R. Livingston, chancellor of New York state, administered the oath.

Q: Who is responsible for planning the inauguration?

A: Three entities oversee what is considered a 10-day event -- parties and ceremonies five days before the inauguration, the day itself and four days of celebrations after the swearing-in.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies is responsible for all that transpires at the Capitol. That includes the oath-taking ceremony on the West Front and the inaugural luncheon in the Rotunda for the president, vice president, members of Congress and other dignitaries.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee, chosen by the president-elect, handles all events outside the Capitol, including choosing the bands for the parade and arranging the inaugural balls.

The Joint Task Force-Armed Forces Inaugural Committee is responsible for providing the military ceremonial support such as marching bands, honor cordons and color guards. The Joint Task Force, representing the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard, also organizes the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The inauguration has been designated a National Security Special Event by the Homeland Security Department, which means the Secret Service takes the lead on security. Since 1998, the Secret Service has overseen 20 special security events, including the Republican and Democratic conventions, the 2000 inauguration and the 2002 Super Bowl in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Q: When were inaugural balls first held?

A: Americans threw a party to honor George Washington one week after his inauguration on May 7, 1789. The tradition of a ball began in 1809 when James Madison was inaugurated in Washington. Dolley Madison, the first lady, hosted the party for which 400 tickets were sold at $4 apiece.

In 1857, James Buchanan had a single inaugural ball with all the trimmings -- $3,000 worth of wine, 1,200 quarts of ice cream, 60 cuts of mutton, 75 hams and 125 tongues as well as 400 gallons of oysters plus plenty of beef and chicken salad.

Often inaugural balls were held in temporary quarters. Ulysses S. Grant's second inauguration in 1873 was in a specially constructed edifice that lacked heating. Freezing temperatures forced the guests to dance in their coats and hats, eat cold food. Canaries kept in cages as part of the decorations froze.

Nine official inaugural balls are planned for Bush's inauguration, including the first commander in chief's ball for some 2,000 men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families.

Q: What music do they play at the swearing-in ceremony?

A: In January 2001, the Marine Band played more than 45 songs in addition to "Hail to the Chief." Among the music: "The Man of the Hour," "Riders for the Flag," "The Southerner," "Semper Fidelis," "Solid Men to the Front," "Washington Post," "Americans We" and "March of the Women Marines."

Q: What are some of the highlights in the history of the parade?

A: Dwight D. Eisenhower's first inauguration, in 1953, was the largest and longest parade, with 73 bands, 59 floats, horses, elephants and civilian and military vehicles. It went on for 4 hours, 32 minutes. In 1865, for Abraham Lincoln's second inauguration, blacks marched for the first time. Women first participated in the 1917 inaugural parade, at Woodrow Wilson's second inauguration. In 1921, Warren G. Harding became the first president to ride in the procession in an automobile. Cold forced the only known cancellation of an inaugural parade in 1985, for Ronald Reagan's second term.

The parade for Bush's inauguration will have 14 giant floats, 45 marching bands from across the country, 48 marching units and thousands of dignitaries and representatives from every state. The military estimates about 10,000 participants in a parade it says will last 1 hour, 52 minutes.

Q: How many horses participate in the parade?

A: 350. Prospects must have experience in local parades. This year they come from Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Texas and Virginia.

Q: How much does all of this cost?

A: The public is contributing at least $2.8 million. Costs run much higher; in 2001, planners raised more than $40 million in private donations to help pay for the festivities. President Bush's team hopes to raise $40 million to $50 million for this inaugural, with a special "underwriter" package for $250,000 and a "sponsor" package of $100,000. Donors who dig deep gets tickets to Bush's swearing-in ceremony, good seats for the inaugural parade and either entry to a lunch or candlelight dinner in which the president, vice president and their spouses will attend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/inauguration.qanda.ap

amber

01-09-2005, 02:34 AM

If my word is going to be used against me, I want the exact quote produced.
well, i'm not gonna look through, cause that's boring, but i swear you said it. Although, i'm not sure it's being used against you right now...I thought it was just an off hand comment by strand cause you were talking about the news, and, I myself, agree with everything you said and just posted about your comment cause i remembered so clearly reading it. I even thought about it. :shrug: uh, so, carry on. I personally don't care if you watch the news, i only care that something i saw clearly is now being called not to have existed... :laugh:
:xoxo:

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:34 AM

If my word is going to be used against me, I want the exact quote produced.

oh come on - you know you remember it - but if you insist - BRB

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:37 AM

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:38 AM

Dear President Bush,

Maybe I'm just thinking that something unpleasant is on fire, every time I see you on the news. There is hypocrisy all around you, if I do say so myself. I have known this much longer than I've known you.

Sincerely,
Justin

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

WELL SAID!!!!! :cool:

amber

01-09-2005, 02:38 AM

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=17579&page=1&highlight=watch+the+news

Post #7 - you said "I rarely watch the news" - Granted rarely is not never - but it does imply you do not watch too often :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:
:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
Did you edit her post in red? naughty, naughty!

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:40 AM

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
Did you edit her post in red? naughty, naughty!

no - the emphasis is original - I did not include it mine because the cut and paste did not pick it up :laugh: But, she used red to highlight that she reads, not watches, the news - SWISHHHHHHHHH - the sound of a rimshot!!!!!!

amber

01-09-2005, 02:43 AM

no - the emphasis is original - I did not include it mine because the cut and paste did not pick it up :laugh: But, she used red to highlight that she reads, not watches, the news - SWISHHHHHHHHH - the sound of a rimshot!!!!!!
rimshot? more like, all net, baby! :lol:

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:44 AM

rimshot? more like, all net, baby! :lol:

AND - I STILL LOVE YOU GOLDIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:45 AM

AND - come to think of it, I was correct about Rather resigning. Lord - why the hell don't you people just agree with me :laugh: :laugh: :p :p :rolleyes:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:46 AM

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:48 AM

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=17579&page=1&highlight=watch+the+news

Post #7 - you said "I rarely watch the news" - Granted rarely is not never - but it does imply you do not watch too often

You stated that I did not watch the news. You misquoted me. I do not appreciate it.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:50 AM

You stated that I did not watch the news. You misquoted me. I do not appreciate it.

someone's a spoiled sport :laugh: :laugh:

Plus, i said "I thought you did not watch the news :shrug: " so you just misquoted me - see how easy it is :wavey: :wavey:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 02:50 AM

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 02:51 AM

My original post was not in red. The search funtion on the board does that to highlight the phrase in question. Once again, you are wrong.

see how easy it is :laugh: :laugh: :p :p :p :p :p

AND BTW - I was not wrong about Novak :wavey:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 03:02 AM

someone's a spoiled sport

Nope. If you're going to try to win an argument, or score a point using my words against me, you'd better get your **** straight.

estranged4life

01-09-2005, 03:10 AM

Ahem. Well, I think that pretty much gets to the heart of it. :laugh:

being a metalhead is that you see great lyrics that are always a response to the BS of the political world.

Example of great metal songs with political motivated lyrics:

Megadeth-
"Blackmail The Universe"
"I Know Jack"
"Truth Be Told"
"Peace Sells...But Who's Buying?"
"Holy Wars...The Punishment Due"
"Rust In Peace...Polaris"
"Symphony Of Destruction"
"Countdown To Extinction"
"Captive Honour"

Metallica-
"Disposable Heroes"
"Leper Messiah"
"Master Of Puppets"
"One"
"...And Justice For All"

I am glad real metal is starting to go back to the lyrical content of the classic speed metal era of the mid/late 80's which probably won't set well with the pro-Bush crowds.

strandinthewind

01-09-2005, 08:56 AM

Nope. If you're going to try to win an argument, or score a point using my words against me, you'd better get your **** straight.

Well, I said "I thought" - which implies I was unsure. You failed to quote that correctly in your rebuke :shrug: I mean what's good for the goose . . . . :laugh:

Also, Amber clearly got the impression you said the same thing . . . . :shrug:

Finally, and you know I had to do it JUST because I love ya darlin' :laugh:

RARE

Main Entry: 1rare
Pronunciation: 'rar, 'rer
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): rar·er; rar·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rarus
1 : marked by wide separation of component particles : THIN <rare air>
2 a : marked by unusual quality, merit, or appeal : DISTINCTIVE b : superlative or extreme of its kind
3 : seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMONsynonym see CHOICE, INFREQUENT
- rare·ness noun

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rare&x=10&y=15

Thus, "seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMON" take could lead one to that conclusion - an apparently did for more than one person :shrug: Or at least that you were perhaps unqualified to comment on the ubiquitousness of La Amanpour on CNN if you "rarely watch the news" :shrug: How can you know what you rarely (seldom) see :wavey:

But, you are digging in your heels (probably Via Spiga :p :p ) so . . . I capitulate and am contrite :cool:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 03:21 PM

I am glad real metal is starting to go back to the lyrical content of the classic speed metal era of the mid/late 80's which probably won't set well with the pro-Bush crowds.

Kid Rock is playing the inauguration. :confused: :eek:

estranged4life

01-09-2005, 03:40 PM

Kid Rock is playing the inauguration. :confused: :eek:

Mr. Kid "White Trailer Trash spokesman of American" Rock? I wonder why Shrub-tard doesnt have his other no-talent "entertainer" Jessi-Cuh Simple-ton & Kid C-Rock long lost "pappy" Hank "When I have been sober? Oh Yeah, When my I wasn't living off my pappy's fame" Williams Jr. at his inauguration?

No thanks! I like prefer real music not last weeks/months/years/century "Flavor-of-the-weak" like this "Non-metal, rappin' wannabe bandwagon chasing f-tard"...Hey Kid C-Rock, Your village called, Their missin' their idiot :nod:

gldstwmn

01-09-2005, 03:48 PM

Well, I said "I thought" - which implies I was unsure. You failed to quote that correctly in your rebuke :shrug: I mean what's good for the goose . . . . :laugh:

Also, Amber clearly got the impression you said the same thing . . . . :shrug:

Finally, and you know I had to do it JUST because I love ya darlin' :laugh:

RARE

Main Entry: 1rare
Pronunciation: 'rar, 'rer
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): rar·er; rar·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rarus
1 : marked by wide separation of component particles : THIN <rare air>
2 a : marked by unusual quality, merit, or appeal : DISTINCTIVE b : superlative or extreme of its kind
3 : seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMONsynonym see CHOICE, INFREQUENT
- rare·ness noun

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rare&x=10&y=15

Thus, "seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMON" take could lead one to that conclusion - an apparently did for more than one person :shrug: Or at least that you were perhaps unqualified to comment on the ubiquitousness of La Amanpour on CNN if you "rarely watch the news" :shrug: How can you know what you rarely (seldom) see :wavey:

But, you are digging in your heels (probably Via Spiga :p :p ) so . . . I capitulate and am contrite :cool:

You know, I have a fairly decent command of the English language. I really don't appreciate being condescended to by the likes of you. The use of the dictionary is rather superfluous. I know what I said and how I meant it.
I drew my conclusions about Christiane Amanpour by reading articles that were being published around the same time as this one. I believe it was the same thing dissention was referring to in one of his earlier posts:

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."
As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

irishgrl

01-09-2005, 06:07 PM

"Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

sounds like six of one and half-dozen of another if you ask me....

ps: I never WATCH the news on TV anymore. I dont have cable and I cant afford satelite service. I get my news via print, either the newspaper (which is also biased depending) or the internet. the internet is best because you get near realtime feeds from the major outlets. But, awhile back, I had seen Christiane on CNN and I remember being very impressed with her. She is one savvy gal. Its too bad the Bush League's control is so insidious.

dissention

01-09-2005, 07:45 PM

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=17579&page=1&highlight=watch+the+news

Post #7 - you said "I rarely watch the news" - Granted rarely is not never - but it does imply you do not watch too often :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

You put your foot in your mouth by hounding her about that quote, eh? You misquoted her and then had to post the real deal when called on it. :laugh: Tsk-tsk. :p

dissention

01-09-2005, 07:49 PM

Thus, "seldom occurring or found : UNCOMMON" take could lead one to that conclusion - an apparently did for more than one person :shrug: Or at least that you were perhaps unqualified to comment on the ubiquitousness of La Amanpour on CNN if you "rarely watch the news" :shrug: How can you know what you rarely (seldom) see :wavey:

But, you are digging in your heels (probably Via Spiga :p :p ) so . . . I capitulate and am contrite :cool:

My word, you are something. Amanpour's lack of presence at CNN has been big news for awhile, and that includes in print.