To My Liberal Friends

[thestickman]

Richardols:

Okay, you may consider yourself the Lone Ranger for being the only one who doesn’t think Fox News is a conservative news outlet. Even conservatives accept that. But, to paraphrase the lady seeing her son in a parade, “Everyone’s out of step except our Stickman!”

P.S. The fact that it’s owned by Murdoch should have given you a clue.

LOL!!! Another nice dance. Feel free to explain how if there’s an equal number of liberals and conservatives with equal time to express their views this = right-wing bias. I look forward to your response.

PS. Asserting Murdoch’s ownership is proof of Fox News being right-wing is fallacious.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

PS. Asserting Murdoch’s ownership is proof of Fox News being right-wing is fallacious.

His other media is right-wing, but not Fox News. Sure.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Feel free to explain how if there’s an equal number of liberals and conservatives with equal time to express their views this = right-wing bias.

You don’t get it, Lone Ranger.

 

[trailblazer]

It would be nice if we could depend on news to report ONLY facts without interpretation. Unfortunately the media is so biased, it has become harmful…and better not watched or read unless one can carefully screen fact from fluff!

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

You don’t get it, Lone Ranger.

So you either can’t or won’t explain how equal time for both perspectives = right-wing bias, eh? I also see you’ve resumed the name-calling again.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

I also see you’ve resumed the name-calling again.

Oh, but it’s a compliment. You stand alone like the Lone Ranger, willing to maintain your position in the face of so many who would disagree with you.

 

[miguel]

trailblazer:

It would be nice if we could depend on news to report ONLY facts without interpretation. Unfortunately the media is so biased, it has become harmful…and better not watched or read unless one can carefully screen fact from fluff!

Yes. You’d think news reporters would figure this out. The current situation is ultimately bad for the profession. If people can’t trust what you say, they stop listening. No listeners, no job. Hey Dan Rather, did you hear that?

 

[Vincent_N]

Richardols:

NPR is very good radio. I find no bias in the news reporting, and they cover a lot of things in depth.

You can admit their liberal callers whine alot.

 

[estesbob]

And btw, I think the criticism of Rove is overrated, as much as that of Durbin was. This partisan extremism is stupid, and dangerous.

Durbin marginalized the deaths of some 50 million people and slimed all those who serve in the military in order to score cheap political points.

Rove’s comments were backed up by reams of direct quote fromLiberal groups and Liberals.

There is no comparison. It is sad to see the party i once called home continue to sink into irelevancy. JFK, Harry Truman et al are spinning in their graves.

 

[estesbob]

Steve Andersen:

Those who equate current US activities with the Nazis and Gitmo to a gulag obviously have no concept of what Nazis or gulags were really about.

That being said, holding people who have not been convicted of any crime for an indefinite period of time is wrong (not to mention illegal). If you think that it is not too bad then maybe you should think about how you would feel if you were held incognito for 3 years and maybe perhaps occasionally chained to a chair until you soiled yourself……then we can talk.

As far as I know Habeas Corpus has not been revoked. If these people did something than accuse and try them. If the information related to their crime is too sensitive then bring it before a judge and then seal the record for 10 or 20 years. BUT we cannot let a single branch of government decide these matters

You just made Rove’s point for him. The left thinks the war on terror should be waged in the courts-the right beleives it should be waged on the battlefied.

 

[estesbob]

Penny Plain:

When was war declared?

October 10, 2002

yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

 

[Philip_P]

Hildebrand:

I’ve worked while not eating for 24 hours.

I’ve worked outdoors in temperatures over 100 degrees (heat index), when I was young.

While waiting for the school bus, back in the day, I waited for 15-20 minutes in wind chills of -20 degrees. Many winter days were with wind chills around zero.

Am I a victim of torture?

And is not providing a person a chair torture?

BTW, the fetal position is a comfortable position, it is much better than forcing a person to stand for hours, like most workplaces do. I guess most workplaces are places of torture. I am not buying any of Durbin’s statements. Especially when he tries to compare this to the actions of Nazis, etc.

Were you chained to your work station? Were you denied bathroom breaks so that you soiled yourself? Were you held captive against your will, for a potentially unlimited time, with no charges ever being filed against you, held in a state of legal limbo so that for all intents and purposes you were no longer even a person? And was all this done to you in the name of democracy and freedom?

 

[Philip_P]

Hildebrand:

Name a solidly 100% pro-life person or a “pro-life” person (with the usual exceptions) who is a moderate?

I suppose that would depend on what you define as “solidly 100% pro-life.” Personally, I would go with Cardinal Bernardin’s criteria of a Consistent Ethic of Life, and would have to conclude that there is no such thing as a “100% pro-life” person. Rather, pro-life is the goal we are working toward, rather than a litmus test which lets us off the hook by excusing us from giving serious consideration to the full spectrum of Catholic teaching.

Even if we narrow “pro-life” to “anti-abortion,” (a MAJOR undercutting of the entire concept of prolife, but for arguments sake…). What is pro-life? Someone who spews absolutist rhetoric with no chance of being translated into effective legislation, and so picks up votes with no obligation to deliver? Or is it someone who wants to reduce abortion wherever and however possible, willing to work through the democratic process, but never losing sight of the ideal and final goal?

 

[Hildebrand]

Philip P:

Were you chained to your work station? Were you denied bathroom breaks so that you soiled yourself? Were you held captive against your will, for a potentially unlimited time, with no charges ever being filed against you, held in a state of legal limbo so that for all intents and purposes you were no longer even a person? And was all this done to you in the name of democracy and freedom?

“Were you chained to your work station?” Having prisoners in chains is not torture.

“Were you denied bathroom breaks so that you soiled yourself?” Now this is the only possible criminal element of the litany of “abuses”.

“Were you held captive against your will, for a potentially unlimited time, with no charges ever being filed against you, held in a state of legal limbo so that for all intents and purposes you were no longer even a person?” In the past, POWs could be held until the end of the war. Was the United States forced to release German POWs while Germany was waging war against us? Under the Geneva Convention the current detainees (for the most part), do not share the same rights as normal enemy combatants. Can the time of investigating who should be held or released be sped up, perhaps, but I’d prefer the military remain being careful in the investigation process.

Let me tell you, I would rather be in Gitmo than in an American Federal or State Prison where rape of prisoners in some places is rather prevalent.

 

[Hildebrand]

Philip P:

I suppose that would depend on what you define as “solidly 100% pro-life.” Personally, I would go with Cardinal Bernardin’s criteria of a Consistent Ethic of Life, and would have to conclude that there is no such thing as a “100% pro-life” person. Rather, pro-life is the goal we are working toward, rather than a litmus test which lets us off the hook by excusing us from giving serious consideration to the full spectrum of Catholic teaching.

Do you equate abortion and capital punishment?
Philip P:

Even if we narrow “pro-life” to “anti-abortion,” (a MAJOR undercutting of the entire concept of prolife, but for arguments sake…). What is pro-life? Someone who spews absolutist rhetoric with no chance of being translated into effective legislation, and so picks up votes with no obligation to deliver? Or is it someone who wants to reduce abortion wherever and however possible, willing to work through the democratic process, but never losing sight of the ideal and final goal?

An “absolutist”, by your definition of an “absolutist”, as one who believes it is all or nothing, is acting contrary to Catholic teaching. I believe in Humane Vitae, it discusses this very topic and the need to reduce abortion, even if by limiting it.

You are still dodging the question, name an solidly anti-abortion politician/justice who is considered a moderate in the mainstream media?

 

[Fitz]

Richardols:

NPR is very good radio. I find no bias in the news reporting, and they cover a lot of things in depth.

If you are a liberal you would not notice the bias. That is the point. If you are a conservative you pick up on the bias in: choice of topic, what is emphasized, what is left out, and the choice of words used. You must know this. You certainly seem to recongnize conservative bias when you hear it.

 

[Philip_P]

Hildebrand:

“Were you chained to your work station?” Having prisoners in chains is not torture.

For 18 - 24 hours at a time or longer, in a crouching position?

“Were you held captive against your will, for a potentially unlimited time, with no charges ever being filed against you, held in a state of legal limbo so that for all intents and purposes you were no longer even a person?”

In the past, POWs could be held until the end of the war. Was the United States forced to release German POWs while Germany was waging war against us? Under the Geneva Convention the current detainees (for the most part), do not share the same rights as normal enemy combatants. Can the time of investigating who should be held or released be sped up, perhaps, but I’d prefer the military remain being careful in the investigation process.
yet the prisoners at Guantanamo do not even have the status of POWs. And when exactly is the end of the war? The war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war against anyone the administration deems suspicious? What assurances do we have that the miltary is being “careful in the investigation process?” None. Is this the way the beacon of freedom and democracy is supposed to operate, at the whim of men with guns? No.

Let me tell you, I would rather be in Gitmo than in an American Federal or State Prison where rape of prisoners in some places is rather prevalent.

And these sorts of conditions are ok with you? What about if you were arbitrarily thrown into a prison without ever being given a reason or a chance to defend yourself?

 

[Philip_P]

Hildebrand:

Do you equate abortion and capital punishment?

There is a common thread. Either you base an ethic of life on the intrinsic right to life of ALL human beings, based upon the fact that they are human beings, or you have no basis whatsoever. To say you oppose abortion, but support the death penalty, or prisoner abuse, or illegitimate war, is simply to say that it’s a matter of killing the right people, not that you honestly care about not killing people.

An “absolutist”, by your definition of an “absolutist”, as one who believes it is all or nothing, is acting contrary to Catholic teaching. I believe in Humane Vitae,

it discusses this very topic and the need to reduce abortion, even if by limiting it.

You are still dodging the question, name an solidly anti-abortion politician/justice who is considered a moderate in the mainstream media?

But your question was to name a solidly 100% pro-life. And even on abortion I can’t answer your question until we agree on what it means to be solidly anti-abortion. Someone who thinks they can make abortion 100% illegal, at least in the foreseeable present, is being unrealistic, but perhaps that’s your definition of 100% anti-abortion. In which case you’ve by definition ruled out any moderates - i,e, those who care about actually reducing abortions. But I’ll do some research; I don’t have the entire membership and record of the US gov at the top of my head.

 

[Philip_P]

Edit to the second half of my response above:

You seem to overlook the fact that in the media references I cited, it is not in reference to abortion that they are being called moderate. Your contention seems to be that ONLY abortion determines whether one is moderate, yet clearly this is not so. Yet even among those noted as moderate overall, some are strongly anti-abortion. Look at Gordon Smith (OR), who in the citation I provided is a “moderate” in reference to Medicaid spending. Rated 91% by the National Right to Life Committee in 03-04, 100% in 01-02 and 99-00. Rated 0% by Planned Parenthood in all these years, and 14% by NARAL in 03 (which raises the interesting question of what NARAL and the National Right to Life Committee agreed on that year).

Look at John McCain, in my citation called a moderate in reference to his stance on the filibuster. Rated 82% by National Right to Life in 03-04 and 66% in 99-00. He was rated only 33% in 01-02, yet this seems to be an anomaly, especially considering that he has been rated at 0% by Planned Parenthood and NARAL all these years, including 01-02

So, some moderates are pro-life. Some moderates are pro-choice. But it is not true, as you say, that ALL moderates are pro-choice.

info from www.vote-smart.org

 

[Steve_Andersen]

………Come on. They’re prisoners of war. Different rules apply. As long as our military considers them to be enemy combatants, they have every right to lock them up. Taking and holding prisoners is not a new concept in warfare. ………

Well…
(1) If we are at “war” then it is not a war like any the Geneva conventions were designed to deal with. Congress never declared a war. There is no belligerent government. There is no chance of prisoner exchange or release through a conclusion of hostilities.

(2) The folks who did the hijackings are criminals. To call them prisoners of war is a slap in the face to every real soldier on the planet.

(Besides, it is conceding the political point to them and admitting that they are fighting for some sort of legitimate cause. Remember, for instance, during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland when the IRA members would refer to themselves as POWs and claim that the civil authorities had no right to try them? While they made other mistakes, the British never conceded that point. The US on the other hand conceded almost from day 1. What were we thinking? These aren’t soldiers, they’re thugs.)

(3) even during a war, combatants out of uniform and/or without anything identifying them as soldiers are treated as spies or saboteurs and are then subject to the nation’s regular criminal proceedings which gets back to my contention that our own law does not allow us to hold people indefinitely without charging them

………No, I wouldn’t like it. But how is that relevant? What prisoner of war ever likes being a prisoner?

It is relevant because (1) POWs are entitled by treaty to communicate with the outside through some neutral 3rd party like the ICRC. (Even the Nazis allowed that)

(2) POWs shouldn’t be tortured, period. Now I of course realize that wetting you pants is an order of magnitude away from bamboo under the fingernails but we, the Good Guys, aren’t supposed to do that.

(3) POWs know that they can be exchanged at some point or let free when the combat ends……this thing is gong to go on for decades. Those people are in legal limbo with no conceivable out.

………It’s not what I would say that counts. It’s what the main stream media would call him. .

Broad generalizations are not a good thing…generally speaking

What is wrong with folks now-a-days? What are they doing to our language? When did “main stream” become a pejorative?