molson_golden2002

I wish I had more time right now to answer all these post, but I will later. 1) Who is "my guy?" 2) No. They do reporting and investigating and all that, but these military clowns are held up as Iron Clad authories on the subject and really they are just puppets spewing Bush's lines for him. 3) Now Tom don't blow you stack and get all mad at me, but I will agree and disagree with you. Yes, there is a legacy about Vietnam. There is this story that's been much told that the media lost Nam. Ok, so if you are the military you try and control the media. Bang, they do a better job this time and the result?? It's still a war and people still don't like it. I think this helps very much prove the point that blaming the media for Nam is just an excuse. The media isn't as far reaching and important as people think. I say this as a general statement, not an ironclad one. In the shortterm the media can stir up a certain passions, but it can't do everything forever. You can fool some of the people... Just food for thought, I wonder how come the war in Afganistan for the Soviets got so unpopular in Russia if the media was completely controlled?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04..._RUMSFELD.html# Here's a video to go with the story. The Wolf Blitzer scene is so funny

The country is a victim of "Mindwar." We were "Psyopted" into this thing. Wow, this is a big story. I know everyone is tired of how rotten and corrupted everything is in our society but this is a great story on how the media acted as the bull horn for Bush and his warmongers. All the men chosen to be "military experts" on the networks were vetted by Rumsfeld, had deep financial and ideological interests in the war and took their talking points right from the Pentagon. So now the military is taking a direct roll in controlling propaganda in the United States No wonder it gets such a huge slice of the budget. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...&ei=5087%0A “Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.” The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon. In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.” At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own. “You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”

Nick Kristoff has a good point, somewhat along these lines today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/...l?th&emc=th “The message is, let’s change light bulbs and let’s be more efficient,” Mr. Pielke said. “But let’s do more than that. The solution lies in transformational technologies.” Solar power is one of the most hopeful technologies but still produces about 0.01 percent of U.S. electricity. The U.S. allocates just $159 million for solar research per year — about what we spend in Iraq every nine hours. Other renewable technologies, including wind power, also merit far more investment; it’s appalling that subsidies continue to support oil and coal, and that money should be diverted to renewables. Since 1979, U.S. spending on energy research has shrunk by approximately half, taking inflation into account. Spending on military research, meanwhile, has more than doubled and now amounts to roughly 20 times what is spent on energy research. _____________________ Unbelievable!

Tough call. The space program is a very important reseach and development program. Really, this is another tragedy of the Bush era. He created these massive deficits that can't go on. Somethings got to be cut and taxes have to be raised. BTW, investing in young children is a good bet for the future as well. And that does take money, but if it helps them be better citicens in the future its well worth it.

How many times do you have to tell me there is no difference between the party's until you will believe it yourself? And the thing to cut is the military, but this nation has been so bombarded with the propaganda that were are on the verge of being destroyed by an "Axis of Evil," or whatever, that Obama could never suggest cutting that bohemith pork project that devours everything in sight.

I think I got the Beer Tax beat for inanity: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242008/news/...gies_769679.htm I present to you.....THE CRACK TAX!

On April 19, 1995, a truck bomb exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring 500. (Timothy McVeigh was later convicted of federal murder charges and executed.)

And let's just be clear here, it does take two or three of you to argue with me. None of you can handle me alone. I also think its funny that Tom is basically compare the blockade of Cuba to the invasion of Iraq Wow, just wow!

http://myfragranceheaven.com/library/2Obsession.jpg

It's sort of like when people were against the Iraq War and they were said to "Hate America" But the ignorance gap closed and that argument didn't work any more. As the situation changes ignorant scum like you will not be able to scream that stuff and get away with it. Carter is like the modern day William Lloyd Garrison Have fun while you can

Independents??? Didn't the far right Conservatives drop their candidate like a rock to run and vote for this creep?? Ya, that's just like Roosevelt! Did FDR depend on the far right to win elections like Lieberman?

The funny thing is, you actually believe this makes Kennedy like Lieberman The comparison is just stupid. Explain why you think they are so much alike

Kennedy sought it by making a deal? Come on, stop being so stupid

CAIRO (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter called the blockade of Gaza a crime and an atrocity on Thursday and said U.S. attempts to undermine the Islamist movement Hamas had been counterproductive. "It's an atrocity what is being perpetrated as punishment on the people in Gaza. it's a crime... I think it is an abomination that this continues to go on," Carter said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/ts_nm/...nians_carter_dc

Hey, at least they busted these guys, the gang that couldn't shoot! They had no guns, ya see! http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4665658&page=1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_...s_mental_health Sad

Ya, maybe if I start making up posts and signing your name to them I'll really step up to reality!

See what I mean? Even when you have absolutely nothing at all to say, you have to say something, no matter how worthless. You are pathetic.

Kennedy stopped a war from happening in Cuba. If you really think he could have just sat on his ass while Cuba built missles you are even stupider than I think you are. He held back the military that wanted to crush the island and no doubt would have gotten us into a long and costly occupation of the place. Kennedy avoided that. Let's be clear: Kennedy chose compromise over war As for the "men of peace" comment, that refers to leaders that choose war as a last resort, not someone like Bush--or Lieberam for that matter--that look for an excuse to go to war. And I never called LBJ a man of peace, but if you want to put words in my mouth to try and further your strawman arguments, have at it.

See what I mean? Even when you have absolutely nothing at all to say, you have to say something, no matter how worthless. You are pathetic.

Wow, one of the biggest idiots on this board--yes, that's saying a lot--calling me a name.

Too funny! Well, you must be bored a lot, a real lot. Replying to most of my posts, making up fake posts and signing my name, bringing me up in all the time, discussing me with other posters and God knows what else. One wonders if you even have a life away from this board. And no, I'm not asking, I really don't want to know.

Maybe run it on your neurosis! There you go again Tom. Being obsessed with a poster on the internet is just plain wierd.

1) Lieberman left the Democratic Party in defense of Bush's policies, or did you miss that somehow? 2) Ummmm...ya? You didn't know we were enganged in Nam before Kennedy became President? And it wasn't Kennedy that sent 500,000 troops to that quagmire