Little dig, there, Mitch? I was alive during all of Cash's career, and in that time he was never the president. He was, however, a drug ingesting womanizing alcoholic. Quite an example of a "real man."

Yep, it was a little dig.

Presented purely because Nick seems to have trouble telling the difference between a bird and...not a bird.

The pedigree and bio of the deliverer is really not relevant.

Teena: "I was alive during all of Cash's career...."

That would make Teena at least 50 years old. Well, there goes her one strong excuse for her endearing cluelessness.

To be as divorced from reality as her comments have indicated* at 18 would have been sad but unsurprising. We're all oblivious at that age; and some are bound to be more oblivious than others. But maintaining that ignorance to age 50 takes real talent. Salute!

* An example: "One need not smoke anything to know that the media are owned and controlled by 5 major corporations, all of which support George Bush."

Indeed. NPR, run by those tireless Bush supporters at the CPB; CNN, Republican party stalwarts; CBS, carriers of water for the Bush administration. Shall I go on?

How about the NY Times? Nope, never a bad word to say about the president. Minneapolis Star-Tribune -- unalterably in favor of everything that George W. Bush has ever done. Shall we mention the BBC? They'd qualify as "media" by anyone's definition, I'd think.

And what about Daily Kos (they're surely a bought an paid for media outlet, too)? Obviously unshakable in their support for the conservative agenda.

She walked the line. She fell into a burning ring of fire.

Teena, you everlastingly sweet innocent young patsy, nobody here has ever said that Bush has never flipped the bird, nor even granted the premise that such behavior would make him unfit to lead. So basically you're just trashing Johnny Cash because you have no choice, if you're going to trash George W. Bush for doing something that Cash did.

That makes me sad. Doesn't that make you sad? Hating somebody so much that you have to pretend to hate other people who have done the same thing? See what hate does to you? It's like telling a lie to your soul. When do you cross a line and start to realize that this hatred is poisoning you? I'd have guessed that "dismissively trashing Johnny Cash" would be somewhere near that line, for me. Where's yours?

PS Mitch, the correct url is below. Thanks for the (attempted) link.

Wow, Brian, what an amazingly uncivil and off-the-point response to Teena...

Her point, Cash is hardly a real man..as opined by Mitch's post.

Your point, something bloviating about hating Cash equating to transference for hating Bush...

Hmmm.. Cash was an alchoholic womanizer, that doesn't mean she hates him, but it does mean that the definition of "Real Man" seems to mean a blow-hard, gas-bag who behaves badly, at least to the confidence-challenged crowd (of which you seem to belong).

Here's a clue for all you "real men" out there, acting like an condescending ass doesn't prove that you're a man, it proves you're an ass.

PB (King of Asses)

The REAL point being, of course, that the President *did not* flip anyone off, as much as Nick Coleman wants to think so (and my original point is that even if he DID, it was not analogous to flipping off all of America; the arrogance of saying "the press IS America" is dizzying).

By the way, while Johnny Cash was an alcoholic womanizer who changed his ways. As was the President.

"By the way, while Johnny Cash was an alcoholic womanizer who changed his ways. As was the President."

Which president would that be? I don't recall anyone referring to President Bush 43 as a "womanizer."

But I agree with you that the Press does not equal America much as some of those who chose that vocation would like to think otherwise.

Wow, PB.

Speaking of furtive little wankers. If you'd managed to actually come out and try to make a point (as opposed to scoring points), I'd be glad to discuss it with you. But you're as slippery as an eel and I suspect it's by design. Come out and say what you mean (speaking of "confidence challenged") and then we'll talk.

Uh-oh. I'm being "uncivil" and "condescending." Next I'll be "patronizing." I think that means we're at least three exits past getting any sense out of this guy. If you can't argue logically, object to the tone of voice. Waaaaaaaaah.

I get it, arguing logically means calling people names, as you did with Teena..

Ok, so here goes, people who think flipping folks off is proof of man-hood live vicariously through others because they are either a. angry or b. afraid. So yeah, that's what I mean by confidence-challenged.

George Bush is a "real man"??? OMG, I almost need to find a can to vommit into. He ducked his obligations, behaved like a spoiled brat as a young and middle-aged man, lead 3 businesses into ruin, was given his shot by investing about $150k which OTHERS turned into millions, was plucked out of the crowd because he was a. photogenic and b. pliable. , he ducks tough questions, pretends to be this simple speaking red-neck, when he's really upper, upper crust east-coast snob-land born and bread, and has generally shown himself to be a snivelling little whiner.

If you worship that, and think of it as "real", tough, individualistic or anything else even in the same universe as most normal folks, go for it, but he's no Johnny Cash.

And apparently all you seem to be able to do is call folks names, but your posts are nonsense.

PB

Glad you brought up that Johnny Cash changed his lifestyle, Mitch. He had a wild youth, true, but then again lots do! Some change and grow up...some don't. Some just remain peevish adolescents into their 50's....Teena. And PB...what can one say? At least some of these later posts aren't encyclopedic in length...there's a blessing!

What I find kind of ironic is that Teena decries Johnny Cash for having a "lifestyle" that I thought leftists celebrated...free-love, drugs and all the angst that goes with being a "creative artist"...or is that just if you're spreading crap on a religious icon or yourself or something? I think it may have something to do with the fact that the particular wild man in question became a Christian...now that's where they draw the line....

Let's try to get back on topic here:
1) The President didn't flip anyone off.
2) Nick Coleman not only said he did, but spun a tragic yarn about all the horrors this entails.

While I know the temptation is irresistable for all of you to the left of center (where "center"="me") to turn everything from a comment thread to a baptism to a trip to the coffee shop to a bit of delicto flagrante into an excuse for bashing the President, it's really not what the thread is about.

Everything I said about Johnny Cash was said first by Cash himself. Mitch and I were just having a bit of fun. I hope Doug lives as long as I have. With it comes wisdom, experience, and a long lifetime of memories. Even the memories of the past 4 1/2 years should have taught Americans something, but I guess one must be open to learning in order for that to happen. When I referred to what American media corporations put out there in another thread, I meant the owners, not what reporters or writers would like to report. Writers and reporters are usually liberal, but their bosses are not. Isn't the BBC British? They are quite a bit more liberal in Brittain in almost every sense of the word. That would be refreshing.

"I hope Doug lives as long as I have."

Well, I'll be 45 in a couple of months. If you are the minimum age for your comment, I won't have to live long.

"With it comes wisdom, experience, and a long lifetime of memories."

The available evidence indicates otherwise, but it's not exhaustive. Perhaps you have gifts you've chosen not to reveal here; you needn't keep your light under a bushel basket.

"Even the memories of the past 4 1/2 years should have taught Americans something, but I guess one must be open to learning in order for that to happen."

Indeed. I've learned many things; they pretty uniformly contradict your statements here. The evidence of the last election would seem to indicate that my experience is more common than yours.

"When I referred to what American media corporations put out there in another thread, I meant the owners, not what reporters or writers would like to report."

What you said was "...the media are owned and controlled by 5 major corporations...." You now wish to change that to "American media corporations". Since you've given me the rest of the world, I'm perfectly willing to argue this point too. Is it your claim that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports the Bush administration in any way? How about George Soros? Frankly, your claim that "5 corporations" own and control the American media is risible; the American media is rather more than a few broadcast networks. If you wish to continue narrowing your definition, eventually you'll reach only five corporations, but such an artificially narrowed definition is frankly useless.

"Writers and reporters are usually liberal, but their bosses are not."

Presumably you have some point here, but I'm unable to see what it is. If it is your claim that these few media outlets owned by the "5 corporations" are unwarrantedly favorable to the Bush administration in their published or broadcast news coverage, I'm afraid that you and Jonathan Alter are in a tiny minority in holding that opinion.

"Isn't the BBC British?"

One might think that the British Broadcasting Corporation is British. There's even some evidence to indicate that.

"They are quite a bit more liberal in Brittain in almost every sense of the word. That would be refreshing."

Opinions vary.

I neglected to mention that the five corporations that control the MSM in America are in fact American. I think most readers would have made that assumption, but not argumentative you, Doug! The media includes newpapers, magazines, television, radio and probably others that you will, undoubtedly, tell me I forgot. PBS has recently been infiltrated by Republicans, Kenneth Tomlinson and Patricia Harrison. Harrison is the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. Their views are decidely more conservative than prominent employees in PBS of recent past. This is a trend in broadcasting that worries people who have preferred factual news stories as opposed to false rhetoric. It's just a matter of taste, I guess.

Mitch wants to bring this thread back around to Nick Coleman and his false story and what does Teena (one of THE MOST clueless lefties I've read on this blog ever) say?

"This is a trend in broadcasting that worries people who have preferred factual news stories as opposed to false rhetoric. It's just a matter of taste, I guess."

And she's referring to a conservative or two actually "infiltrating" (!) PBS and now there will no longer be "facts" disseminated! HAR HAR!

Holy moly. It makes my stomach hurt.

...and now for some hard numbers...

The top 5 media organizations according to Ben Bagdikian in his 2004(?) revised edition of "The Media Monopoly" were Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom.

(In the US, (excluding Bertelsmann), GE/NBC fills the number 5 slot...)

BTW, This number is based on the ownership and control of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.

90% of all of these media outlets are owned and controlled by these 5 corporations.

To find out who gives to whom, go to:

http://www.opensecrets.org

As for the finger, It would certainly not be out of character for Mr. Bush to do something so sophomoric BUT it's clearly his thumb.

and Colleen,

(one of THE MOST clueless lefties I've read on this blog ever)

Who whizzed in your Cocoa Puffs this morning?

Lighten up for cripes sakes.

WHAT??? The Republicans have infiltrated PBS?? Dang it. Why doesn't anybody ever tell me these things? I miss everything. All that false rhetoric, I suppose, and not enough factual news stories. Must be a trend. To the ramparts, everyone!!

Let's get back to the facts. Bush is a sniveling little whiner. John Kerry is a real man. PBS has been infiltrated. Iraq is a quagmire. Hillary is a moderate conservative. John Bolton is too mean. Judge Roberts is too nice. Johnny Cash was a drunk. The earth is burning up. Al Gore won the election.

Please, just stick to the facts. Let's not have any more of that false rhetoric! And next time, somebody tell me if the Republicans infiltrate anything else. Don't let me find out about it here. It's frightening! Next thing you know, they'll take over Air America and then where will we get our factual news?

"I neglected to mention that the five corporations that control the MSM in America are in fact American."

I'll leave the rest of Teena's latest comment just rotting there in the sun, but I will address this part.

As I said above, if you narrow the definition enough to be useless, you'll eventually end up with five corporations. You would now like to retroactively add "MSM" and "in America" to your definition. Neither was there originally. Your statement remains demonstrably, obviously, and risibly false, even after amendment (see the CPB, which doesn't seem to be one of your five corporations.)

Again, the quote from Teena's comment was, "...the media are owned and controlled by 5 major corporations...." Nothing about "American media", nothing about "American corporations", nothing about "MSM" or "main-stream media".

If you wish to claim that "all the American main-stream media that is controlled by five corporations is controlled by five corporations", I'll allow your circular claim, for whatever it might be worth.

But then that's just "argumentative" me.

Have an especially nice day, Teena, though I doubt that you'd recognize that either.

The link below might be helpful to some. As you may have noticed, I do not resort to vile language. It is a mystery as to why, when I try to hold discussions with those on the "right", the majority of you are so hateful toward anyone who does not agree with you that civil conversation is almost impossible. As a middle-aged woman, I have never seen, heard, or experienced the level of childishness or outright venom that so many people exhibit today. I was raised by loving parents who basically followed the 10 Commandments and common sense while raising 4 children. We were pretty poor and had very few extras. But we were raised in an atmosphere devoid of mental, physical, and emotional abuse. Maybe we were the exception. I hope not. Thank you Doug, not Doug Sundseth, for correcting me.
http://www.corporations.org/media/

"...civil conversation is almost impossible..."

Perhaps passive-aggressive condescension qualifies as "civil conversation" in your circles; it does not in mine. Nor does wilful misrepresentation of the history of a debate. Further, if you wish to make a vigorous statement of opinion, an unwillingness to brook a vigorous disagreement is hypocritical; the more so when your statement is objectively, provably, and commonly know to be false-to-fact.

Still, if you wish to play the martyr, far be it from me to prevent you. Everyone needs a hobby.

Oh, for the love of...Teena makes obviously risible statements and when called on them falls back and looks all innocent, civil and even "middle-aged woman"ish. Gag. And, of course, casts aspersions on how others were raised, how much money they may have had (lots more than her, probably, and she turned out nicer because of or in spite of all the hardship). boy, if that isn't a liberal in a nutshell. Notice the tolerance oozing from every pore?

As for Doug (plain Doug)-I guess when I read yet another woman making the rest of femaledom look foolish and inane I tend to get crabby.

Oh, and Teena, please go to the Powerline link and read about the election fraud and tampering, etc. that was uncovered....done by Democrats! It's amazing...what a shocker! Please go read it before you bemoan the Ohio and Florida debacles any further. If it wasn't for fraud and intimidation carried out by Democrats, elected officials in this country would be even more decisively conservative (or at least Republican).

Be nice to Teena. She doesn't understand. At least she's here, and that's a good thing. She just got off on the wrong foot.

Teena began this thread with a gratuitous attack on a dead man, who many people --actually, an extraordinary number of people-- revere for not only his artistry but for how he got his life back together and what he did with it. By any standard, Johnny Cash was an extraordinary human being, but Teena probably doesn't know this else she wouldn't have poured such disdain on his memory and hurled it back at Mitch, even in fun.

Naturally, everyone who's a Johnny Cash admirer's got Teena pegged immediately. Only, Teena can't see that, because the only information she has she learned through the distorted lens of her liberal, probably feminist, ideology growing up poor in a home "devoid of mental, physical, and emotional abuse." As a middle-aged woman, she has just never seen, heard, or experienced the level of childishness or outright venom that so many people exhibit today. She just can't comprehend it, even when she's doing it.

When Teena opens the thread by childishly disparaging Mitch by spewing outright venomous contempt for a well-loved and admired American icon, she just doesn't know what she's done. She's revealing to us her own personal "truth," which doesn't happen to be true at all, of course, but it is to Teena and that's all that matters. Even if it's wrong.

That's how liberals have gotten themselves elected in our country all Teena's life. The more clever ones know how to exploit Teena's and millions of others' fears and desires just by saying what they want to hear. They know people who consider themselves poor, or who consider themselves victims, or who believe they are more deserving or more altruistic, will continue to believe things that simply are not true, regardless of the facts, because when it comes to personal identity, facts simply do not matter. If they did, Bill Clinton would never have been elected, let alone survive in office.

Give Teena some credit. She has recognized that the world is changing. She is concerned about what she perceives as Republican "infiltration" of the news media. That's what she sees, though it is not there. Now, at least, it is possible that she will later realize that it is not that the media is only beginning to become distorted, but that it has been wildly distorted all her life, that she believed it without thinking twice, and that none of "the news" was even remotely true.

And when that day comes, then maybe she too will recognize Johnny Cash as a human being, just like the rest of us, and not just some drug-ingesting, womanizing alcoholic. She'll join us in the arena of ideas, not lost in the library of liberal cliches.

She will be free.

Mitch did not say Johnny Cash was an icon, he said he was a real man. I disagreed, but Mitch did not call me names. A person's idea of what an icon is seems to be a personal thing to me. I might call Mathatma Ghandi an icon, others might not. I would not criticize anyone for not agreeing with me. My actions would constitute civility. Civilized people practice it. Martyr or not(I really must ponder just exactly how have I suffered in my life), I try to be civil.

One notable difference between this and other blogsites I sometimes visit is that when contributors start to act like vultures, the host posts the rules and/or doesn't allow the offending parties to post. Is this how you do things, too, Mitch?

Colleen said,

"I guess when I read yet another woman making the rest of femaledom look foolish and inane I tend to get crabby."

This is a really interesting comment...

Do you also believe that the comments made by Howard Dean or Jesse Jackson make the rest of "maledom" look foolish and inane? I'm guessing no.

So why would you presume that Teena's comments are a reflection of the rest of all women?

I'm sure some behavioral psychologist out there would have a field day with this one... I'm guessing perhaps unresolved absent father / domineering mother issues...?

Question just for the guys out there... Do you think Teena's comments postulate a negative reflection of "femaledom" as Colleen suggests OR should Colleen temper her petty insults like this one...

"Some change and grow up...some don't. Some just remain peevish adolescents into their 50's....Teena."

and try to be a bit more civil and tolerant, even if she disagrees with Teena?

And yes, I know... It's a nonsequiture. So sue me.

Yah, Mitch, you gonna throw the libs a lifeline or what? Give them even more ammunition (as if they needed it) to preen their sense of victimhood? After all, if someone disagrees vigorously (or at all) with a liberal, it's inevitably a sign of evilness, mental illness, or (the line they've chosen for this thread) patronization and meanness. Nothing to do but call on a Central Authority Figure to impose some order (in their favor, of course.)

So, don't you have rules against evilness, mental illness, meanness, or patronization? Can't you post those right about now?

"A person's idea of what an icon is seems to be a personal thing to me." --Teena

No doubt that's true, Teena, but then it all depends on the meaning of "is," doesn't it? Or perhaps, the meaning of "personal." Or maybe the meaning of "idea," because when we pay no respect to the actual definition of words, then "truth" can mean whatever we want it to mean. As Orwell explained, in this way war can mean peace, ignorance can mean knowledge, and slavery can mean freedom.

The hallmark of Liberalism is the distortion of language, which is always the predicate of distorted thinking. Once people are taught to substitute their own meanings for the definition of words, it becomes much easier to manipulate the "truth" so that the true believers blindly follow on. That's why in America today, the Great Divide is ideological; half the country believes in their own personal truth, that all morality is relative, and that there is no objective reality. The other half believes that's utter nonsense.

How such distortions of language play out in real life was amply illustrated by the Clinton Administration's years long response to Islamic terrorism. The United States was attacked repeatedly; many Americans were killed. Our embassies were bombed, our ships were bombed, the WTC was bombed, and our cities and institutions were targeted for massive attack. Yet the Clinton Administration defined these repeated, blatant acts of war as mere "crimes" and instead clung to their own personal truth and relative morality while denying the objective reality that America was at war and innocent people were dying.

After 9/11, President Bush declared, "This is war." What did the Liberals say? "Bush lied," of course, because more important than facing any objective reality is the Liberal's allegiance to personal truth and relative morality, the conceit of defining words to suit their own emotional needs. The Liberal leadership understands this dynamic, indeed, depends on it, because they know all they have to do to attain power is distort the meaning of words to suit the emotional needs and desires of those who will vote without thinking.

The dictionary defines "icon" as, "An important and enduring symbol: One who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol," which, by any standard, Johnny Cash certainly qualifies. Yet you referred to him as a drug-ingesting, womanizing alcoholic and now can't understand why, when you were just trying to be "civil," the contributors here have responded like "vultures."

Check your premises. You might as well have called the new Pope a Nazi. Which, of course, is exactly what Liberals did. Dick Durbin compared Guantanamo to Auschwitz. Iraq is Vietnam, and so forth. The sky's the limit whenever the definition of words is "a personal thing."

We reap what we sow.

"Do you also believe that the comments made by Howard Dean or Jesse Jackson make the rest of "maledom" look foolish and inane? I'm guessing no."
-------------
Indeed they do, and that's not a guess. But why stop with Howie and Jesse? The list is endless.
-------------
"Question just for the guys out there... Do you think Teena's comments postulate a negative reflection of "femaledom" as Colleen suggests OR should Colleen temper her petty insults..."
-------------
Colleen is quite capable of defending herself, but to answer your question, Doug, yes, Teena's comments postulate a negative reflection of "femaledom" for the reasons outlined above.

My guess is you know that. Whether it's Howard Dean smearing the Republican Party or Teena smearing Johnny Cash, it's the smearing that demeans us all. There is nothing noble about it; it is not "dissent" but prejudice. It's not "disagreement," it's just scorn and hatred all dressed up as a "difference of opinion."

For the sake of civility, some things must not be tolerated. That's what elections are about. Apparently, this concept seems lost to Howard Dean and the Democratic Party, which, having been soundly voted out of power, can perceive no other solution than to foolishly and inanely denigrate the president and the people who support him.

Real men have better things to do.

Eracus... WOW!

Where to start...?

Howard Dean's and Jesse Jackson's comments make "maledom", (that would be all males by the way), look foolish and inane? That's what you just said...

By your standard, this,

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." President Bush, —Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

...makes all guys absolute freaking retards or are we going to apply a different standard... Perhaps only the comments of "liberals" have the power to make all men look like idiots.

Wow! What power!

"Once people are taught to substitute their own meanings for the definition of words, it becomes much easier to manipulate the "truth" so that the true believers blindly follow on."

Hmmmm... Let's test that theory...

Posession of WMD's = weapons of mass destruction related programs.

Or...

A 2004 pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame = if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration

What was that again? Oh yeah. "The hallmark of Liberalism is the distortion of language".

Damn those manipulative Liberals in the Bush administration. Have they no sense of decency or honor?

OK Doug-WMD were not found...doesn't mean they weren't there and were moved. PLENTY of time to do that while everyone hemmed and hawed for almost two years. Criminy, how hard it that to think about?
Secondly, Bush said he would fire anyone "that broke the law". Has anyone (in the Bush administration) broken the law in the Plame affair? Hmmmm?! You proved Eracus' point very well thank you. You just crapped a lot of words out there and "voila!" we were all s'pose to step back and say...oh, he's right. Well, we're not the (apparently) gullible lefties that lap up any old thing they want to believe.

And thanks, Eracus. You are much better than I at saying what needs to be said. I can't take much of it, though...it's like arguing with a two year old...actually, two year olds are at least amusing and cute! Oops, there I go again, being uncivil and calling people names...Sorry...I was raised better than that (by two parents...neither of which were absent or domineering!). Oh, and we were poor, too...but we had love...and all that....(ha!)

Eracus,

Speaking of falicy of "The hallmark of Liberalism is the distortion of language", Here's my favorite.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." = Al Gore claims that he invented the internet.

Damn liberal Bush supporters

Gee whiz, Doug. This must be one of those instances where the writer produces an effect which seems outrageous to the reader, because the latter has completely missed the point which is the basis of discussion. The unhappy result, of course, is the foolish inanity of your childish response, which only more again proves the basic point.

When Teena says, "It is a mystery as to why, when I try to hold discussions with those on the "right", the majority of you are so hateful toward anyone who does not agree with you that civil conversation is almost impossible," we must assume, in the interest of civility, that she is sincere, that she does not understand; that the incivility is indeed a mystery to Teena even bigger than, perhaps, why we disagree with her.

The point is not the difference of opinion, but the divergence between the basic premise of the parties. The "red" side looks at 12 years of history, the factual record of attacks by Islamic terrorists financed, trained, and given safe haven by Islamic nation-states, the attempted assassination of a past American president, the invasion of Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, the routine torture and intimidation of civilians, the serial violations of UN Security resolutions, the mass graves, defectors' reports, and the uniform consensus on Iraqi weapons capabilities by the premier intelligence communities around the globe, the burning rubble of the WTC and 3,000 incinerated Americans, and decides it's time for a military response.

The "blue" side, by contrast, just screams, "Bush lied!!" declares the election was stolen, that Saddam was not a threat, that Islamic terrorists deserve the protection of the U.S. Constitution, that publication of forged documents and false reports of desecrated Korans serve the national interest, that a successful black female raised in poverty is too "extreme" to be a judicial nominee, that the sealed adoption records of another judicial nominee's children require scrutiny, that Robert Novak is a fink, and more recently, that Johnny Cash was a drug-ingesting, womanizing alcoholic.

The Liberals' distortion of language has produced this distortion of reality about which no discussion is possible. It's the rough equivalent of asking when did you quit beating your wife? If we cannot agree on the premise, which in one case is demonstrably true and in the other case demonstrably false, then any discussion is pointless. The only recourse in the absence of reason is ridicule and intolerance, which is everywhere on display in the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and most pointedly in your response above.

How does this help anyone?

Eracus,

Let's rewind and look at a basic premise you suggest, actually two, which you seem to be obsessing over. And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions here...

The first premise has to do with "truth". You suggest that it is a characteristic of liberalism to live by standards of personal truths versus factual truths.

You offer Teena's slander against Johnny Cash, one of my musical hero's by the way, as evidence to support your premise.

By comparison, purely for illustrtative purposes, in the 2000 elections, the conservative mantra was that Al Gore was a liar because he claimed to have invented the internet.

The "factual truth" was that Gore never claimed to have invented the internet yet it was held as a "personal truth" for millions of Americans - much like the idea that Johnny Cash was a drug ingesting womanizing alcoholic.

You say, "...half the country believes in their own personal truth... ...The other half believes that's utter nonsense."

I would argue that 100% of America believes in their own personal truth and they select facts which support their biases and affirm their belief systems and ignore facts that don't.

It's that simple and you've done it multiple times in this thread.

Case in point.

"After 9/11, President Bush declared, "This is war." What did the Liberals say? "Bush lied,"

Come on now. After 9/11, this country was united. Liberals didn't yell, "Bush Lied". Liberals joined the service. Liberals mourned the dead. Liberals flocked to give blood. Liberals did exactly the same things that Conservatives did yet you present this inane comment as a fact.

The irony is that in this thread you also said, "The more clever ones know how to exploit Teena's and millions of others' fears and desires just by saying what they want to hear."

You mean like Iraq had WMD's?

The facts I had said Iraq's WMD's were destroyed in the first Gulf war, had not been able to restart any programs due to sanctions and that they posed no threat to America and it's alies.

Based on what we know know, who's personal truths were right?

The second premise has to do with Liberal distortion of language.

Again, you suggest that the distortion of words is a hallmark of liberalism.

Here's what you said.

"The hallmark of Liberalism is the distortion of language, which is always the predicate of distorted thinking. Once people are taught to substitute their own meanings for the definition of words, it becomes much easier to manipulate the "truth" so that the true believers blindly follow on."

If this is a liberal trait, how come we have a "clear sky's initiative" which allowed an increase in emmisions of Mercury and CO2's?

How come we have private accounts one week but personal accounts the next week after polling suggests the public isn't hip to private social security accounts?

How about Iraq had WMD's ready to strike the US and it's alies becomming WMD related programs?

How come we have the "war on terror one day" and "the struggle against violent extremism" the next day?

How about inheritance tax redefined as death tax?

Dude, your entire argument is based on the premise that the distortion of words and that personal truths are exclusive to the liberal ideology,

I've offered example after example where your argument doesn't pass the sniff test so either you and other conservatives are really liberals or you're premises are so wrong as to make all of your points baseless.

Which is it?

"I would argue that 100% of America believes in their own personal truth and they select facts which support their biases and affirm their belief systems and ignore facts that don't."
-----------
In other words, "everybody does it." That is your premise. It follows then that any discussion is pointless because you will only select facts which support your biases and affirm your belief system and ignore facts that don't.

Thank you again for so thoroughly proving my point.

Copied from Eracus' post : When Teena says, "It is a mystery as to why, when I try to hold discussions with those on the "right", the majority of you are so hateful toward anyone who does not agree with you that civil conversation is almost impossible," we must assume, in the interest of civility, that she is sincere, that she does not understand; that the incivility is indeed a mystery to Teena even bigger than, perhaps, why we disagree with her.
I'd like to clarify why I am surprised at the level of nastiness I find on sites such as this. When Bush won re-election, those who support him should have been thrilled. After all, it was a hard-fought close race. (Ah - but most of the world was not happy) On many conservative blog sites, Bush supporters demonstrate repeatedly that they not only do not feel like winners, they are just not happy people, period. Your team won - why doesn't that help you feel better? Please explain.

Check your premises. The assumption that "most of the world was not happy" or the suggestion that Republicans are "not happy people" is just a regurgitation of what Liberal news sources have reported ad nauseum ever since Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968. They said the same thing when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale. That it's a Liberal mantra today after Bush defeated first Gore and then Kerry is just more of the same propaganda.

By contrast, of course, the whole world reportedly rejoiced uniformly when Clinton defeated Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, notwithstanding the expansion of genocidal dictatorships, the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, catastrophic breaches in U.S. national security, repeated attacks on Americans by Islamic terrorists, the U.S. playing butler to Fidel Castro and the butchers of Tiananmen Square --and all while Saddam was making billions off the UN oil-for-food program and corporate fraud bilked millions of Americans out of their life savings. Those were the good times, remember??

Bear in mind also that alot of these so-called Bush supporters on blogsites these days are just cynics war-weary from battling "experts" in the mainstream media who have been misleading the public for decades. They finally have a voice and they've found it in a culture that unfortunately has thrived on "flamings" and "fiskings" and snarky, dimwitted comebacks. They come in both colors, of course, but pay them no mind. They do not represent the vast majority of Americans, just some fraction of those whose interests and free time converge on internet blogs.

The "rest of the world" does include an awful lot of people, so we can't know how all of them felt. But it also includes the Saudi royal family who have enjoyed the Bush's and our government's gracious generosity a very long time. So they, of course, were very happy.
I wish I could find a documant that I downloaded which bears the number of the court case brought against George H. W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. It detailed how the two of them split a reported $250 billion in Oil-For-Food funds. Not sure of the outcome. Damn! I wish I could locate this. I've tried to find another online location about this, but none of them bear the court case number.

The "rest of the world" does include an awful lot of people, so we can't know how all of them felt. But it also includes the Saudi royal family who have enjoyed the Bush's and our government's gracious generosity a very long time. So they, of course, were very happy.
I wish I could find a document that I downloaded which bears the number of the court case brought against George H. W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. It detailed how the two of them split a reported $250 billion in Oil-For-Food funds. Not sure of the outcome. Damn! I wish I could locate this. I've tried to find another online location about this, but none of them bear the court case number.

The "rest of the world" does include an awful lot of people, so we can't know how all of them felt. But it also includes the Saudi royal family who have enjoyed the Bush's and our government's gracious generosity a very long time. So they, of course, were very happy.
I wish I could find a document that I downloaded which bears the number of the court case brought against George H. W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. It detailed how the two of them split a reported $250 billion in Oil-For-Food funds. Not sure of the outcome. Damn! I wish I could locate this. I've tried to find another online location about this, but none of them bear the court case number.

Eracus said,

"The point is not the difference of opinion, but the divergence between the basic premise of the parties. The "red" side looks at 12 years of history..."

The "blue" side, by contrast, just screams, "Bush lied!!..."

Let's go back further than just 12 years ok?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1726745,00.html

Excerpts follow

A BRITISH cow that died in an Oxfordshire field in 1937 has emerged as the source of Saddam Hussain’s “weapons of mass destruction” programme that led to the Iraq war.

An ear from the cow was sent to an English laboratory, where scientists discovered anthrax spores that were later used in secret biological warfare tests by Winston Churchill.

The culture was sent to the United States, which exported samples to Iraq during Saddam’s war against Iran in the 1980s. Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator’s choice in his attempts to create biological weapons.

...

The odyssey of the Iraqi anthrax was unravelled by Geoffrey Holland, a politics student and antiwar campaigner at the University of Sussex. The exact batch chosen by Saddam was disclosed in the CIA report by Charles Duelfer, the former UN weapons inspector, last autumn.

“Iraq declared researching different strains of B. anthracis, but settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a BW,” Mr Duelfer said.

A congressional investigation into Gulf War syndrome by Don Riegle had already uncovered invoices showing that this batch was shipped from the United States between 1986 and 1988.

Who was President between 1986 and 1988?

We reap what we sow Eracus.

Wow. This is really precious stuff. We got the Bushes in bed with the Saudi royal family for $250 billion, a dead cow from 1937, the origin of Iraqi anthrax explained by a politics student and anti-war campaigner in a London tabloid, secret CIA reports, former UN weapons inspectors, Gulf War Syndrome, and an attack on Ronald Reagan. I gotta hand it to you guys -- these are quite extraordinary personal truths! You must be watching the "news."

"My mother…was pretty anti-American," Jennings said on the September 6, 2002 CBS "Late Show with David Letterman. "And so I was, in some respects, raised with anti-Americanism in my blood, or in my mother's milk at least....."

"We may tell you all the time that our principal aim in life is to communicate and assist, inform," said Jennings on a 2001 CBS News special, Breaking the News. "But if you see injustice and you can get people to do something about it, ahh, it's just a glorious feeling. There's nothing a reporter likes more than to have an effect on policy......"

"In the early 1970s, when he was single...and head of the ABC bureau in Beirut, Peter Jennings dated Hanan Ashrawi, who at the time was also single and a graduate student in literature at the American University in the Lebanese capital," reported the December 30, 1991/January 6, 1992 U.S. News & World Report. "Jennings was introduced to Ashrawi's parents and sisters and became part of her circle of friends."

Ashrawi was ... the leader of the General Union of Palestinian Students while dating Jennings... part of the public ruling circle of the Palestinian Authority in Arafat's regime. "Anyone who has known Hanan as long as I have," Jennings said, "is not surprised to see her emerge as a persuasive spokesperson for the Palestinians."

Especially if she's been sleeping with the anchor of ABC News. The point is not to single out Peter Jennings but to illustrate the absurdity of suggesting there is any credibility or integrity at all in the news sources you obviously rely upon. It's propaganda. It has always been propaganda. It is the nature of the industry. It's what they do. It is not about truth, but ideology. It's about how you think, what you believe, and how you vote. If they can shape your reality, they can shape your behavior --and you'll never know it, because all your friends believe the same things you do.

When Teena discovers the Republicans "infiltrating" the news media, she is really only recognizing the rise of an alternative news source, one that travels at the speed of light, involves millions of people with easy access to facts and competing arguments, and which is not filtered through the jaded lens of a monopoly with a political agenda. Were it not for the internet, the 2004 election might have hinged on Dan Rather's "proof" that the president went AWOL. Instead, we learned that Dan Rather's "proof" was a bald-faced lie. Do you think that's the first time CBS ever lied?? Do you think Jim Lehrer didn't know Bill Clinton was lying before he did the PBS interview? Do you really think the elites over at TIME and Newsweek, the NYTimes, the WaPo, and the rest of the media power structure don't know EXACTLY what they are doing and why?

If not, then ask yourselves, why wasn't this story news when it mattered?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?

Personal Truths Eracus? Read it again...

""Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator’s choice in his attempts to create biological weapons.

The exact batch chosen by Saddam was disclosed in the CIA report by Charles Duelfer, the former UN weapons inspector, last autumn.

A congressional investigation into Gulf War syndrome by Don Riegle had already uncovered invoices showing that this batch was shipped from the United States between 1986 and 1988.""

So I guess we're talking about the CIA's or Charles Duelfers personal truths right? Or maybe Congress's personal truth?

Eracus, Please in all seriousness, just answer these simple questions:

Between what years was the anthrax shipped to Iraq?

In what year did the tragedy of Halabja occur?

Was Saddam Hussein a good man when the US sold him anthrax but then suddenly became a bad man when he slaughtered 5000 people?

Like I said, we reap what we sow.

First, Doug, let me be certain I understand your premise correctly:

You believe Charles Duelfer, Hans Blix's lap dog and Scott Ritter's pal, who resigned his post immediately after being threatened by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden's main man in Iraq, and then wrote the "Duelfer Report." In a subsequent interview on PBS, he contradicted his own report, stating:

"Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf War ..... However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems was time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done quite quickly."

Duelfer relieved Hans Blix, a Swedish academic and lawyer with an honorary degree from Moscow University, who as head of the IAEA in the 1980's made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor but could not, would not, despite repeated inspections of a plethora of Iraq's research programs, expose this highly advanced nuclear weapons facility before it was blown up by the Israeli Air Force.

Then you support your Duelfer assertion with a report on Gulf War Syndrome, issued by Senator Don Riegle, a former Republican who betrayed his party in 1973, and who was later censured by the Senate for accepting his cut in $1.3 million in bribes paid by Charles Keating in the Savings & Loan scandal --and who then quit the Senate immediately after issuing his "report," which conveniently went on to become the subject of breathless ABC, NBC, and CBS primetime "special reports," --not to mention the deluge of coverage by CNN and withering torrents of newsprint. Meanwhile, the medical journals' exhaustive studies formed a consensus that the underlying cause was "stress," but somehow none of this medical science ever made it into the mainstream media coverage. Imagine that.

Thank you again for proving my original point: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your argument has no foundation. You are simply repeating the slogans, cliches, headlines, and sound bites of the ancient propaganda instrument of the Democratic Party. You've been had. You believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel better --because it is emotionally satisfying-- not because you want to do the work necessary to obtain an objective point of view, which admittedly, would scare you to death. And should.

Eracus said,

"Your argument has no foundation."

You mean other than the Duelfer report and the Senate record of course.

I've never seen such selective comprehension in my life!

For example:

"A congressional investigation into Gulf War syndrome by Don Riegle had already uncovered invoices showing that this batch was shipped from the United States between 1986 and 1988."

You respond with:

Meanwhile, the medical journals' exhaustive studies formed a consensus that the underlying cause was "stress," but somehow none of this medical science ever made it into the mainstream media coverage.

The point is that invoices were uncovered as part of the investigation but you know that already.

The investigation didn't attempt to conclude that the symdrome was caused by anthrax and that's completely irrelevent anyway.

You're just following the standard Rovian strategy. When you can't address or explain the evidence, attack the source.

An investigation chaired Riegle uncovers evidence of sales of anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992. You COULD try to explain why the Reagan and Bush I administrations sold chemical weapons to Saddam who had previously gassed his own people or you could attempt to prove that the evidence itself is in error but no, instead you go on explaining adnauseam why Riegle is scum.

Either we sold the crap to Iraq or we didn't. If we did sell it, don't use the fact that he might have used it as a pretense to going to war.

To your final points...

"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."

"Your argument has no foundation."

"You are simply repeating the slogans, cliches, headlines, and sound bites of the ancient propaganda instrument of the Democratic Party."

"You've been had."

"You believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel better --because it is emotionally satisfying-- not because you want to do the work necessary to obtain an objective point of view, which admittedly, would scare you to death. And should."

The level of arrogance and intellectual immaturity on display in these 5 little paragraphs is stunning.

Real men have better things to do.

Your argument has no foundation because your sources are not credible. It follows then that your argument is not credible.

Reigle was reprimanded for taking bribes and telling lies that obstructed a criminal investigation. His career was over, but before he was allowed to retire in lieu of criminal prosecution, he delivered an "investigation" that uncovered "invoices" claiming the Republicans provided biological and chemical agents to Iraq "right up until 1992." Yet today, the very same Democrats who made these allegations now claim Iraq had no such weapons, that "Bush lied."

Why did the Democrats reverse themselves? You don't know. You haven't got a clue. Let me help you out. It is because on June 21, 1995, the Director of the CDC, Dr. David Satcher, sent a letter to Don Reigle --long after Reigle completed his Senate "investigation" and all the breathless mainstream media coverage had run its course-- identifying an additional shipment not included in the original list provided to Reigle's staff.

In that letter, Dr. Satcher emphasizes, "...the materials were non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses. Only two of the materials are on the Commodity Control List, i.e., yersinin pestis (the agent of plague) and dengue virus. (This strain of plague bacillus was non-virulent, and CDC is currently petitioning the Department of Commerce to remove this particular variant from the list of controlled materials)."

Guess what. Senator Reigle lied. The invoices were for medical reagents used for the detection and treatment of disease, not WMD. The whole thing was a propaganda exercise designed to deceive the public. In 1998, David Satcher was appointed U.S. Surgeon General by Bill Clinton, effectively ending any further debate.

You're still chewing on a bone that's 10 years old and buried. You do not have a credible argument.

Good lord...

"long after Reigle completed his Senate "investigation" and all the breathless mainstream media coverage had run its course-- identifying an additional shipment not included in the original list provided to Reigle's staff."

additional shipment... as in above and beyond whay had already been declared. With me so far?

"...the materials (in the additional shipment) were non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses. Only two of the materials are on the Commodity Control List, i.e., yersinin pestis (the agent of plague) and dengue virus.

As you've previously so boldly admitted, you only believe in your personal truth. You select facts to support your bias and affirm your beliefs and ignore facts that don't, even if it means altering or denying the actual record. Dan Rather did the same thing, as did Bill Clinton, which is pretty much how the WTC got blown off the map.

Dr. Satcher refers specifically to the corrected list of materials, taking care to note only the addition is italicized. When he states most materials were non-infectious, I believe he means most materials were non-infectious. You, of course, instead believe your own personal truth. It just makes you feel better.

The salient point, nonetheless, is the materials referred to are routinely sent all over the world within the medical research community. It is how infectious diseases are studied. Without the reagents, there would be no vaccines, no antidotes, and no medicines. Unfortunately, if you've got the reagent, you've also got the germ, and it is this fact, together with Iraqi disclosures, that was the basis for UNSCOM inspections, and ultimately, the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

One wonders if you're capable of comprehending the contradiction of your position. In the 90's, the Democrats argued the U.S. provided Iraq with WMD. Today, they argue Iraq did not possess WMD. Holding contradictory positions and embracing the paradox is the fallacy of personal truth. You are doing a fine job, though it serves no useful purpose other than to prove my original argument, that any further discussion is pointless.

Because the reality is this: Either the Democrats were lying then or they are lying now. That they are liars is an objective truth; there's nothing personal about it, and the whole world knows it. All, perhaps, except those few who select facts to support their biases and affirm their beliefs and ignore any facts that don't.

Have a nice day.

One wonders if you're capable of comprehending a calendar. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He got them from us. Most were destroyed in the first Gulf war and the rest were effectively dismantled by inspectors through 1998 when Clinton pulled the inspectors out. I would mention Scott Ridder but then I would have to sit through an exhaustive diatribe about how he is a pedophile so anything he says is without merit.

BTW, I never boldly admitted that I ONLY believe in my own personal truth. I said that everybody believes their own personal truth is the factual truth.

Let me point out something you said ok...?

"You select facts to support your bias and affirm your beliefs and ignore facts that don't, even if it means altering or denying the actual record."

You mean like when you altered the record and claimed I said I ONLY believe in my own personal truth?

What's funny about this whole discussion is that you continue to demonstrate in your own posts what you condemn liberals of doing.

I don't know if you are a Christian but I was raised Christian and I vaguely remember something that that hippy freak Jesus said. It goes something like, ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Good info on facility
management
and http://www.facilitymanagementinfo.com