No surprise.

Cybercast News Service is the "news" organization that Bobby Eberle picked to replace Talon News at GOPUSA.com.

And...Cybercast News Service also picks up Jeff Gannon's "news" articles and distributes them all across the Internet.

Once again Brad, top notch.

Oh my...I'm mentioned in that article too...not the sort of acclaim I've been looking for...lol

Gotta love the way most of that article is copy and pasted from the AC4VR press releases.

Well, it appears the RNC is actually using this trumped up front group's info for their own direct mailings. Read this post on the Democratic Underground,

http://www.democraticund...address=104×3388419

This group sprung to life over night , they were quickly used in a high level postion, now their bogus disinformation is being spread internet wide ( and I predict soon to be used by the MSM) as truth. This is the same exact pattern used in the Gannon/Guckert scandal. They could care less who knows of their M.O. They have the all corporate media in their pocket and feel they can get away with everything.

I hope from the beginning this information has been shared with Rep. Conyers and Slaughter. If there is one issue that needs to be addressed and fixed before the 2006 election it's election reform.

Rove starting early once again.

Thanks for following this subject closely.

Let me get this straight, ACVR is bad because it has conservatives on it's board but....

It's ok for Kos to accept $ from Dean?
Have you looked at the board of Media Matters?
Is Democracy Corp the bastion of non-partisanship?
Isn't The Center for American Progress a Clinton organization?

Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a liberal way of life.

Genek,

I speak for myself...but I'm a liberal that doesn't think the stuff you listed is a-ok.

But this is an entirely different matter. And you're a fool not to recognize that.

The American Center has not disclosed the info that Brad , Joseph Cannon and me have blogged about.

Ron,

Thank you very much for your admission --- you're honestly the first liberal that I've ever heard admit that a progressive front group may have an agenda.

I don't see any difference between ACVR and the many, many "non-partisan" progressive organizations. I think that Media Matters and Democracy Corp are perfect examples.

What I'd like to know is if you, Brad and Joseph blogged about the connections between Media Matters or Democracy Corp and the DNC, DCCC, etc. with the same vitriol and hatred that you attacked ACVR.

However, don't get me wrong - I'm NOT defending ACVR (I don't know enough about them yet), nor am I attacking any of you personally (I think blogging is vital).... I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

Brad-

I just e-mailed the following to CNS and Ms. Rhodes:

"You people just don't get it! You are obviously smug and feeling ascendant in your current grip on the American "democracy" but you WILL NOT long keep down what I am certain is a significant majority of the American people who do feel that truly fair, open, honest and verifiable elections are critical to a real American Democracy."

Frank Rich at The New York Times, Salon, Watching The Watcher, The Raw Story, Zephyr Teachout are among the liberals who have written about the Kos-Trippi affair.

As far as "hatred and vitriol." I've never seen hatred on the brad blog nor on any other liberal blogs.

But I've probably been harsher and angrier about some of the hypocricy on my side.

But since you like to leave comments without even looking into anything...I'm telling you more than you deserve to hear.

Media Matters, Daily Kos and all the rest are not run by top dogs from the Democratic Party...They also didn't get to speak at congressional hearings without revealing their backgrounds.

You're absolutely wrong...And you're just like the wingnuts who attack liberals with lies. I have no problem with Republicans or true conservatives...but none of them have any power now...and none of them reflect your party or your blogs.

But this is my last word on the subject...if you don't believe me check out my blog...you'll see that I criticize anyone on either side that I consider hypocritical...and I'm far from alone on that.

GeneK said:

ACVR is bad because it has conservatives on it's board but....

No. That's not a problem, Gene. As you mentioned, you haven't looked into them. You may wish to.

Here's a link to the Key Articles in the Series so far.

Read 'em, and then let us know how they compare to any of the groups you've mentioned (hint: they don't).

-----
" Let me get this straight, ACVR is bad because it has conservatives on it's board but....

It's ok for Kos to accept $ from Dean?
Have you looked at the board of Media Matters?
Is Democracy Corp the bastion of non-partisanship?
Isn't The Center for American Progress a Clinton organization?

Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a liberal way of life."

GeneK
-----

Pull your head out of your ass you complete imbecile. This is a republican front group posing as "nonpartisan" to spread disinformation in hopes of having talking points to counter legitimate election fraud used exhaustively by your party in what is easily the largest powergrab in the history of our country.

Instead of being concerned at this direct attack on our democracy ( for the sake of argument ... republic...I know you nitwits like that word) you sit back spouting out rehearsed bullshit spoonfed by the Hannity's and the Limpballs in this world.

Become your own man, make an earnest attempt to educate yourself on the republican back electronic voting machine manufactures and the " proprietary source code" they use to operate them.

Also, catch up on history. Read more on the rise of fascism in 1930's Germany. You and the party you so identify with are truly modern day fascists. Facts, history and definitions don't lie.

----
"As far as "hatred and vitriol." I've never seen hatred on the brad blog nor on any other liberal blogs."

Ron Brynaert
----

Don't be baited into this republicans slander game. The "hateful democratic" talking points have got to be the most ineffective and overly used garbage ever derived by Frank "Putz" Luntz

They so easy brush aside Limpball's "feminazi" references dating back into the late 80's or Coulter's racist remarks about Helen thomas as an "old arab".

The playing field is never level when dealing with these swine.

Get my point?

"Limpballs"...Ha ha!!

I've never seen 5 uglier creeps in my life.

Mirror site of the day

"Read more on the rise of fascism in 1930's Germany."

Very nice, only 11 comments before Godwin's Law is proven yet again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law). Pretty typical for dumb shits like you - can't stand up to the truth about your hypocrisy and immediately start name calling and Hitler references.

BTW, turn on the news and take a look at the extermination for convenience that's taking place in FL before you start throwing around Hitler charges. Blow your fascist comments out your ass you sniveling, hypocritical, tinfoil-hat wearing, dumb ass.

If you want to have a calm, rational discussion I'd be happy to respond - but I'm sure that's too much to hope for. I've yet to meet a liberal that can carry a fact based conversation without resorting to personal attacks and name calling (Ron may have been the exception - but the rest of you ass-hats ruined it).

Nobody I know who wants to have a "calm, rational discussion" introduces themselves by calling the other party derogatory names.

(From your 1st post here: "Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a liberal way of life.")

Whaddya expect?

Gene, If I may ask, why does the reference to Hitler frighten you so much?

-----
"BTW, turn on the news and take a look at the extermination for convenience that's taking place in FL before you start throwing around Hitler charges. Blow your fascist comments out your ass you sniveling, hypocritical, tinfoil-hat wearing, dumb ass.
-----

LOL, you predictable trained monkey, more rehearsed rightwing talking points I see. Perhaps you didn't get the memo but 82% of the country find people like you appalling for using that poor women to further your political agenda.

-----
"If you want to have a calm, rational discussion I'd be happy to respond - but I'm sure that's too much to hope for. I've yet to meet a liberal that can carry a fact based conversation without resorting to personal attacks and name calling (Ron may have been the exception - but the rest of you ass-hats ruined it)."
-----

The last thing I want is a calm discussion with lying spineless slimeball like yourself. I'de much rather beat your ass silly for all the harm you termites have done to our once great country.

-----
"Very nice, only 11 comments before Godwin's Law is proven yet again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law). Pretty typical for dumb shits like you - can't stand up to the truth about your hypocrisy and immediately start name calling and Hitler references."
-----

rest assured brown shirt, long before crossing paths with you I have been clueing many people into the almost mirror image your boy Rove has used in following Joseph Goebbels.

Now go study up, i'm done with ya.

heh heh

Kira #14 -

"brown shirt" "fascists" "Hitler" "beat your ass silly"

ooooo.... name calling and threats - the last refuge of someone who's lost the argument and has no facts on their side.

whimper, whine, cry and threaten all you want, but the truth, values and ideals will crush you and your ilk.

What's sad is that you can't face the truth - the democratic party is a "has been". You don't stand for anything, only against progress. Look at the demographics and election results - unions are shrinking, minorities don't buy your B.S., and the country realizes that you have no core beliefs or values - you're on your way out.

GeneK said

It's ok for Kos to accept $ from Dean?

Gene, the Markos Moulistas had been up front from the beginning and never pretended to be non-partisan. The money he was paid with legally came from campign contributions to do real work. The blog that he runs is his. Nobody pays him to run it.

Have you looked at the board of Media Matters?

If there's something that the board of media matters has done in violation of ethics, please let us know and tell us the specifics. We'd be more than happy to kick the Tom DeLay's of the world out of the left.

Is Democracy Corp the bastion of non-partisanship?
Isn't The Center for American Progress a Clinton organization?

You just can't leave the Clinton thing alone can you? Republican congress, Republican Whitehouse,
Republican Supreme Court Justices for the past five years. And if anything goes wrong , it's still Clinton's fault.

By the way, Clinton was a Democrat only in his first term. In the his second term, he was all Republican, ie...Dick Morris.

And like I said to another right wing troll, you wouldn't be here if the left wing blogs weren't making waves. Nice to hear from ya!

I just e-mailed them too. Hopefully, we liberal bloggers can make an impression on their soft brains.

GeneK said (apparently without irony):

take a look at the extermination for convenience that's taking place in FL before you start throwing around Hitler charges

While I don't much care for Hitler charges myself unless they are warranted (including absurd "extermination" claims), it's odd that you don't mention the 6 month old baby that just had it's plug pulled in Texas --- against the mother's wishes --- due to the law your leader George W. Bush signed allowing hospitals to kill any such patient if they can't afford to pay the bills.

No outrage there, chief? Just curious.

Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a fake conservative's way of life, I guess.

-----
"While I don't much care for Hitler charges myself unless they are warranted "

Brad
-----

Brad, I never referenced Hitler, I referenced 'fascists". There is a huge difference in the comparison and the sooner people understand and seperate the two the sooner they will understand the ideology of this modern day republican party.

I'll post this summary of an article wrtten by Dr. Lawrence Britt listing the common characteristics of all fascist regimes to date. Understand this is but a speck of info dealing with the subject for the sake of space.

The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

-----
"ooooo.... name calling and threats - the last refuge of someone who's lost the argument and has no facts on their side.

GeneK
-----

I recommend you contact your beloved Sean "Insanity" Hannity and start preaching to him as well. We don't want anymore of this "hate" talk right? Lord knows it's the root of the moral decay in this country right? LoL, trained monkeys , every last one of ya.

http://www.oliverwillis..../files/hannityvmoran.mp3

Take note, all fascist regimes through out history had relatively short lived reigns of power. All those responsible for its rise are eventually held accountable.

If we called the Republicans "corporatists" most would take it as a compliment or at least nod assent ("free enterprise"!), but in the words of Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Teddy Kennedy protesting the “simulated drowning” of interrogation subjects = HYPOCRASY (apparently actually drowning your girlfriend and then covering it up for personal political gain is ok)

Protesting the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib yet cheering for a woman to starve to death = HYPOCRASY

Liberals bitching about the ACVR yet giving Media Matters et al a pass = HYPOCRASY

Calling the death of a guilty person by lethal injection or electrocution cruel and unusual punishment yet calling the starvation death of an innocent woman a good thing = HYPOCRASY

Media Matters attacking Fox news yet giving CBS a pass on the Rathergate forgery = HYPOCRASY

Media Matters completely ignoring the forged Schiavo “talking points” memo = HYPOCRASY

The ACLU protesting the Minute Man project’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly = HYPOCRASY

Supporting the extermination of fetuses and the disabled simply because of convenience yet calling conservatives Nazis = HYPOCRASY

Supporting big gov’t, the seizure of private property, socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth yet calling conservatives fascists = HYPOCRASY

Sorry folks but you loose again.

BTW… Brad #24 – I don’t support pulling the tube on the 6 month old – remember that I’m from the pro-life party.

This is great – when confronted with the truth you simply resort to your talking points and scripted lines from DU, Mikey Moore, Soros, etc. When that doesn’t work you start name calling and personal attacks (btw, I don’t support Hannity, Coulter or Limbaugh for this very reason). I have yet to have a calm, rational, factual discussion with a group of liberals without the hate speech from the left.

-----
"(btw, I don’t support Hannity, Coulter or Limbaugh for this very reason)"

GeneK
-----

They are the modern voice of your party. Question is, if you say you don't support these people why the hell are you in a party where they take leadership postions?

GeneK, the more you talk the more apparent it is how misinformed you actually are.

Remember my suggestion, become your own man not another trained chimp.

where they take leadership postions?

Leadership positions? Secretary of Defense Limbaugh? Secretary of State Coulter? UN Amabassador Hannity? WTF are you talking about? They're radio talk show performers, TV stars, and columnists. The left has none of these? How about a little honesty, if that is possible.

-----
" Leadership positions? Secretary of Defense Limbaugh? Secretary of State Coulter? UN Amabassador Hannity? WTF are you talking about? They're radio talk show performers, TV stars, and columnists. The left has none of these? How about a little honesty, if that is possible."

Manananana
-----

For the sake of skewed argument another trained chimp steps in to downplay the role of the mighty voice of the party.

Apparently this poster also has a hard time with reading comprehension. What part of "modern voice of your party" don't you understand?

Drawing misguided assumptions between politically appointed leadership and mass media leadership doesn't reflect to well on your ability to differentiate between facts.

AGREED Manananana!!!

Although Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity often "attack" the liberals they are simply performers. Even O'Reilly, the favorite whipping boy of the left, is simply a news ANALYST and COMMENTATOR. We could compare the hatred spewing from similar people on the left like Franken, Kos, or Rhodes. Of course, we could also mention the supposed impartial reporters like Rather, the memo by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin, or any of the other mouthpieces of the left.

But instead, let's look at the hatred and personal attacks spewing from Kennedy, Dean, McAuliffe, Boxer etc. These are the LEADERS of the democrats.

Gene, Gene, Gene ... oh how well you play the freeper game - just attack and demonize relentlessly while at the same time including all the usual GOP talking points. And you wonder why it's so hard for you to have a dialogue with people from the left?

Take a hint - it's because we finally got around to realizing that there is no such thing as dialogue with you people. As I recall, it was one of your party's respected leaders who made the claim that bipartisanship is like date rape. And other leaders of your party, both through words and actions, have made it clear to us that they have one overriding goal - A ONE PARTY STATE.

Your presence here is for one purpose and that is to play your role in assisting in the GOP's stranglehold on all the levers of power in this country. The camparison's that other posters have made between your ilk and "brownshirts" is entirely apt. Either you are blind to it, or you wear it proudly.

Apparently this poster also has a hard time with reading comprehension.

I have no such problem. You said:

Question is, if you say you don't support these people why the hell are you in a party where they take leadership postions?

My reading of this sentence is that you are asking why someone is in a party where they (meaning the aforementioned entertainers) take leadership positions. It is not unreasonable to conclude that you meant leadership positions in the party. If not you may have constructed a sentence with a problem in subject-verb agreement.

In any case, they're just entertainers. But I find it interesting that they strike so much fear in your heart that you must demonize a bunch of grandstanding entertainers. Their witty barbs must be causing some pain or you'd just be laughing at them like I do with Alan Colmes (Fox's token lib) or Paul Krugman (clueless economist for the NYT) or that zoo gone mad called Air America. To me they're a bunch of irrelevant fools not to be taken seriously. But I don't hate them. I pity them. So lost. So angry over imagined wrongs. And So wrong. But what the heck, if they can consume Soros' and other libs' dollars for no good purpose, let 'em rant.

CT --- Trust me, I've tried to have factual discourses with the "tinfoil hat, moonbat" crowd (granted, I'm not sure if everyone on this site qualifies - I'm hoping there are a few calm libs here).

Here's one sample - http://proudliberaldem.p...splay&num=1107224950

(you may have to search for the whole thread, as I was banned from the board)

BTW - If Grover Norquist is a LEADER of the Repub party than Soros and Moore must be leaders of yours. are you sure that you want to trade quotes based on those rules?

How have leaders of "my" party made it clear that they want a "one-party state"? Was it that they ran for office? Was it that they opposed Liberal ideas?

Why don't you stick to actual, in-context, quotes from elected representatives?

I'll start... Howard Dean advancing the theory that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time. Dennis Kucinich said Bush is targeting civilians for assassination. Joe Biden said Bush is
brain dead. Al Gore screaming that Bush is a traitor and betrayed the US. Boxer and Dayton calling Condi Rice a liar. These are current (and one former) elected leaders of your party spewing the hate.

"My reading of this sentence is that you are asking why someone is in a party where they (meaning the aforementioned entertainers) take leadership positions."
-----
hence my comment on your reading comprehension.

LOL, "entertainers" they are now huh? WOW, considering networks like NBC and CNN often use quotes by Limpballs and Drudge as "news" how often do we hear from Will Smith's take on Iraq? Let's not even consider that these characters make up the bulk of FAUX "News" ratings.

"strike fear"? Don't confuse fear with pity and disgust because soon it's going to come back and bite you in the ass....really, you need to lay off the kool-aid for awhile.

"So lost. So angry over imagined wrongs."

Only in the warped world of the republicans can talking points like this hold any meaning.

" if they can consume Soros' and other libs' dollars"

What is with the hard on you rightwing nitwits have with Soros? Is it the fact that he is a billionare that suffered through Nazi occupied Budapest who sees history repeating itself all over again?

Another thing, why in the same breath as Soros do we not hear you nitwits mention Rupert Murdoch or Richard Mellon Scaife? I ask that rhetorically of course.

"considering networks like NBC and CNN often use quotes by Limpballs and Drudge as "news"" - I have never heard a quote by Limbaugh used as news (other than the actual news reg. his addiction) but this only speaks to the problem with the MSM and their news gathering ability.

I have many problems with Soros - but it'll have to wait for a later post... sorry.

...why in the same breath as Soros do we not hear you nitwits mention ...

It might have something to do with the fact that my mention of Soros was in reference to financers of Air America. Those you mentioned are not likely to be sending AA any money.

"entertainers" they are now huh?

Uh, yea.

RE: GENEK, #28:

I assume you’re trying to spell hypocrisy, but I’ll address your points anyway:

1) “Teddy Kennedy protesting the “simulated drowning” of interrogation subjects = HYPOCRASY (apparently actually drowning your girlfriend and then covering it up for personal political gain is ok)”

-Kennedy is a person with great faults and I doubt many of us forgive his performance in the Chappaquiddick incident but what does that have to do with anything? You’re throwing out smoke and mirrors. The “simulated drowning” you speak of is a government sponsored activity and far more serious in its implications for our society than the behaviors, or even hypocrisy of an individual. Everybody, including Kennedy, should speak out against it, including you.

2) “Protesting the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib yet cheering for a woman to starve to death = HYPOCRASY”

- You are completely distorting and inflammatory about the Schiavo incident. I have heard or know of no one who “cheered” or had any happiness about her plight on either side. That wasn’t the issue at all. It was whether the government should be a party in such personal decisions at the end of life. You apparently think so. Have you ever had to deal with the tragedy of a loved one who has suffered a catastrophic brain injury with no hope of recovery and you knew what their prior stated wishes were in the event of such a tragedy? I have and the experience and decisions are heart-wrenching, no matter what choices you make. Would you want the government intervening in such decisions if they were your personal matters? Why can’t people like you allow the possibility that Mr. Schiavo was truly trying to do what he knew his utterly hopeless and helpless wife wanted him to.

3) Liberals bitching about the ACVR yet giving Media Matters et al a pass = HYPOCRASY

-What is your problem with Media Matters? It must really hurt that one of your own decided to go over to the other side and tell it like it is. The story of Media Matters is pretty upfront and they are certainly not trying to represent themselves as bipartisan, just as debunkers of the many rightwing lies and spin that are SO prevalent in the media now.

4) Calling the death of a guilty person by lethal injection or electrocution cruel and unusual punishment yet calling the starvation death of an innocent woman a good thing = HYPOCRASY

I refer back to my previous answer. Mrs. Schiavo’s story is a tragic one. Unlike you, I think the vast majority of the American population is able to sympathize with both parties in the dispute and realizes the pain and difficulty in such decisions. One more reason why the government shouldn’t be involved. Also, see below regarding capital punishment.

5) Media Matters attacking Fox news yet giving CBS a pass on the Rathergate forgery = HYPOCRASY

- We’re not giving the media a pass on anything. Their corporatization and fall as the voice of the people is a huge concern to all of us who aren’t brainwashed into the “left-wing media bias” mantra the right continues to push. CBS is no better than the rest of the MSM. Maybe the reason that Media Matters attacks Fox is because CBS at least tried to investigate and produce corrections and consequences for the overblown “Rathergate” affair. No one expects Faux news to ever investigate or admit their lies. Did Britt Hume ever admit his distortions about FDR’s plans for Social Security. Is O’Reilly investigated by Fox when he is caught in one of the many lies Media Matters points out or when he engages in sexual harassment? No, they actually come to his defense. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around here.

6) Media Matters completely ignoring the forged Schiavo “talking points” memo = HYPOCRASY

- Where has it been proven that the “Talking Points Memo” was forged? Can you not see any possibility that, in the aftermath of their unpopular, misguided and unequivocally political effort to bring the federal government into the Schiavo tragedy, not to mention violating the separation of powers stipulated in the Constitution, they might want to push the idea that the “Talking Points” were forged by the left. Of course you can’t see that, you’ve drank too much of the Rightwing Kool-Aid.

7) The ACLU protesting the Minute Man project’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly = HYPOCRASY

- Even your own leader had this to say: "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

8) Supporting the extermination of fetuses and the disabled simply because of convenience yet calling conservatives Nazis = HYPOCRASY

- Again, an absolute distortion of the argument. Only people like you would equate these issues with “support of extermination”. No one is “promoting” the termination of any viable life, only recognizing that people in their own, personal circumstances should be able to make difficult decisions about their lives and the lives of loved ones within the boundaries of the law, without parts of the government intervening, especially for political reasons. Also, we are not calling conservatives Nazis, but the Neocons that have gained a death grip on the Republican Party are not conservatives. I also refer you to the excellent description of fascism posted on #25 above. If you can’t see why we are concerned, then you are not capable of a dialogue.

9) Supporting big gov’t, the seizure of private property, socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth yet calling conservatives fascists = HYPOCRASY

-So the current government isn’t BIG government or redistributing wealth (to the wealthy), or seizing private property? I guess you only object when big government is for social welfare instead of for trumped up, illegal wars (that kill far more people than abortions or end of life assisted deaths), out of control defense spending and throwing money into the pockets of Energy companies and the Pharmaceutical Industries (eg- the Medicare Reform disaster) who make record profits while moving us further and further from the kind of real reform we need to deal with the real problems looming in the very near future. I am a physician working in our broken healthcare industry that has been taken over by the Insurance industry and big business, so don’t lecture us about the ills of socialized or any other healthcare. In regards to fascism, I again suggest you check the excellent description posted on #25 above to refresh your understanding of the concept.

10) Sorry folks but you loose again.

-The only way we L O S E (correct spelling) is when people with “loose” screws like you are able to gain control of a once great country.

11) BTW… Brad #24 – I don’t support pulling the tube on the 6 month old – remember that I’m from the pro-life party.

- You mistake pro-fetus party with pro-life party. Does your “pro-life” stance include opposition to the death penalty? Your party has no interest in promoting policies that are “pro-life” to the millions of children in this country and around the world who are born into poverty or neglect, the millions who could be saved from AIDS by promoting “safe sex” education, the millions in this country who can’t afford healthcare because of a system run amok, the innocent millions who die in wars waged by us or to promote our selfish “interests”.

12) and scripted lines from DU, Mikey Moore, Soros, etc. When that doesn’t work you start name calling and personal attacks (btw, I don’t support Hannity, Coulter or Limbaugh for this very reason). I have yet to have a calm, rational, factual discussion with a group of liberals without the hate speech from the left.

You are about as far from being able to engage in civil dialogue without name-calling and vitriol as anyone I’ve seen. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Steve -

EXCELLENT post!!!

Thank you very much (esp. catching the spelling errors - it's kind of embarrassing to have spelled hypocrisy wrong).

I’ll try and take the time to respond to your points as thoughtfully and in-depth as you did mine. However, I don’t have the time to respond to all of them right now.

I’ll only address 2 points right now…

First - The “simulated drowning” you speak of is a government sponsored activity and far more serious in its implications for our society than the behaviors, or even hypocrisy of an individual. Everybody, including Kennedy, should speak out against it, including you.

I actually have a bit of experience with interrogation and “water boarding” as I am a former Military Pilot and went through SERE Training and I spent some time as an Intelligence Officer exposed to EPW interrogations. I am absolutely against “torture” not only because it’s inhumane (and we’re the good guys), but it quite simply doesn’t work very well. I am in favor of aggressive interrogations including sleep depravation, water boarding, tag team questioning, calorie reduction, etc. Pretty much anything that wouldn’t cause a normal person lasting physical or psychological damage. Additionally, there needs to be strict limitations and command level sign-off on using these techniques. I know (from first and second hand experience) how well these techniques work and I have experienced many of them myself (in a training environment).

Also - You mistake pro-fetus party with pro-life party. Does your “pro-life” stance include opposition to the death penalty?

I am pro-life (with a couple of very limited exceptions). However, I don’t believe that the federal gov’t should be involved in the issue. I am also pro death penalty. These two points are not mutually exclusive, the problem comes from the language used in describing the positions. I believe that life begins at conception and I am against the taking of innocent life. The key word is “innocent”. If the state (legally) determines that someone’s crime is serious enough to warrant taking their life – I’m all for it. I have no problem with safe-sex education, condoms, birth control, etc. I oppose using abortion for birth control.

:angry:I get so dishearten by the deceptive practice the Republicans portray on the American people. I was reminded with a feeling of a " lost cause" knot in my throat that causes me to shallow a deep sense of defeat that started with the 2004 presidential elections. Now I see this Republican practice to mask everything they are trying to do with a "something you really need" face. One example of this is when they cut entitlements they say to the American people we need a gov. that does not control your life. By cutting a benefit or funding, the Republicans are setting us free. If this is Freedom, I would rather not have it. This voter fraud Bill runs parallel to the Demarcates claims and effort to seek voter reform; the Republicans will mask their Bill as addressing the voter fraud issue thus defeating the Democrats by putting something into play that will shorten the minority vote.

Maybe you have a solution to this dynamic of deception; I don't.

Joseph

#41 Joseph

If it is any consolation, you're feelings of defeat and rising dead at being marginalized by the party in power are right on. It is the reason to seek power, you know. Hope this helps.

#41 joseph

"If this is Freedom, I would rather not have it."

Unfortunately, this is the exact attitude that the Democratic Party preys upon.... you'd rather accept complete and total gov't control of your life rather than making your own decisions.

This feeling is why the Democratic Party and union membership is declining so rapidly... Americans don't want to be told when, where and what to think and do. It’s kind of like in the movie The Matrix – you are starting to wake up and see the Democrats for what they are and that they want to “manage” every waking moment of your life. Don’t worry. The feeling is uncomfortable at first, but as you get used to the freedom and as you start to become more and more self reliant, you will find it exhilarating and empowering. Pretty soon, you’ll start wondering were all your tax money is going.

GeneK, you are a brainwashed beyond belief.

Why haven't you followed up with further comments to posts upthread rather then continue to spout more of your warped vision of America? I mean what lunatic makes a comment like this?..."The feeling is uncomfortable at first, but as you get used to the freedom and as you start to become more and more self reliant, you will find it exhilarating and empowering." ...bizarre beyond words.

Don't you see how crazy your thought process is? Do you honestly think that is a rational statement? Take a step back, a deep breath and regroup because i'm telling ya you're overdosing on the fascist republican kool-aid. It isn't normal to think this way. Have you ever sought counselling...seriously? What you imagine to be strong political beliefs are really deranged fantasies of how you think the world works.

Wow

GeneK, to comment on the "Godwin's Law" thing.. you must not have read it very carefully.. I did..

"Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact."

and

"Fundamentally, Godwin's Law serves to exclude normative considerations from a positivist discussion. Frequently, a reference to Hitler is used as an evocation of evil. Thus a discussion which is proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative discussion of subjective right and wrong. It is exacerbated by the frequent fallacy of since Hitler did A, therefore A is evil. However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law are when Hitler is invoked in a positivist manner (i.e. objective facts) that does not have a normative dimension and is therefore permitted."

You see, the POINT is, this country -is- marching down the same 'nationalistic' road as 1930 Germany. We've already started back in the war against Islam. Then what? The christian-right wants a Theocracy in this country.. They have already started preaching hate toward "gays".. who's next? What happens when the leaders of the Theocracy decide it's time to start putting those "sinners" in jail ? and when the jails get too crowded?

The entire -point- of Godwin's Law is to show that using Hitler/Nazi Germany to 'minimalize a valid argument' is something that happens.. but it's also -clear- that there are times when the conversation is -APPROPRIATE-, like here.

Again, read up on Fascism..

Also, nice how you point to 2 of the 12 points.. even when you specifically asked to have some covered.. when they are, you back away from them.. Nice flip-flop on the Schiavo thing too. Once your "association to negative connotations" was shown to be wrong, you quick flip on the issue.. how very "Kerry" of you. I see you didn't discuss the "government staying out of your life" when mentioning her case, then just left it out all together in the rebuttle to the point.

Also, "water boarding" -is- torture.. the -point- of it is to convince someone they might die (just getting a head dunked for the less-than-a-second it takes to get your head wet wouldn't do much, would it). Sleep deprivation also causes a slight psychosis (which typically reverses once you get sleep again), is that the kind of person you want info from? someone who is losing their mind? While I can also agree with you that we need to interrogate prisoners, I don't believe we should -ever- be 'torturing' people (in any context).

Even though you "believe that life begins at conception and I am against the taking of innocent life", the definition of "life" is up for debate. You think it's when there are 2 cells dividing, I think it's when the divisions get far enough along to form internal organs and the possibility of brain activity starts. That's not until after the 8th week of gestation. So, while you believe it's at 2 cells, I believe it's at functional organ formation. Here's the kicker.. you said "I am pro-life (with a couple of very limited exceptions). However, I don’t believe that the federal gov’t should be involved in the issue.", which by definition means you are PRO-CHOICE as far as the matter of law. If not, then you DO suppor the government getting involved by making it illegal for someone to have a differing opinion than you.

Here's your real problem (not trying to be fecitious here). You are not really a Republican.. you just don't like the things you hear about most "liberals" and Democrats. You hear all the 1/2 truths and twisted words comming from the right (things like they have "morals" and "values" but Dems/Liberals don't?? how do you figure?) and it "sounds" good. The problem is, what they preach is NOT what they practice. The 'real' hypocracy is all over the right where the left has issues as well, but no where near as bad (at least, I never hear about things that compare to the right.. like killing a poor black baby 'cause the insurance expired, but moving Congress and the President to save a Republican voting white woman who WANTED to end her suffering [as evidenced by the courts that supported her RIGHT to die instead of live (if you can call it that) like that]).

For your post in #43.. " This feeling is why the Democratic Party and union membership is declining so rapidly... Americans don't want to be told when, where and what to think and do. It’s kind of like in the movie The Matrix – you are starting to wake up and see the Democrats for what they are and that they want to “manage” every waking moment of your life. Don’t worry. The feeling is uncomfortable at first, but as you get used to the freedom and as you start to become more and more self reliant, you will find it exhilarating and empowering. Pretty soon, you’ll start wondering were all your tax money is going."

First, the problem IS that 'Americans -want- to be told when/where/what to think/do', and the Repubs KNOW that. Americans have become fat, lazy, stupid, and disinterested in our prosperity as a country. If -more- people cared about the Constitution (or even knew what was in it), we'd not have the problems we do today. Democrats don't want to "manage" everything you do, they want to make sure you aren't being crapped on by Business and Government (generally). Dems/Liberals want to make life GOOD for -everyone-, not just those who were born into money (and the prescious few who can actually go rags-to-riches). Freedom is not freedom when a full 1/3 of your population is being abused by the rich and when 80% of -all- wealth in the country is owned by 3% or 4% of the population. That's slavery and seritude. Republicans/Conservatives are the ones that want to manage your life, they want to force religion down your throat and make laws based on biblical mandate (despite popular belief, our system is NOT based on the bible, read some quotes from our founding fathers.. not to mention, one doesn't need god to know how to be a good person and treat people with respect).

Anyway.. one day you will either wake up and see the lies and spin the right keeps stuffing down people's throats or you will just continue to be a poor lost soul floating around in the bliss they provide you while robbing you blind with lower wages, higher taxes (you -do- realize that the tax-breaks Shrubman put in gave billions back to 10% of our society, while only giving back millions to the other 90%, right? and the -cost- of that 'relief' is record deficit spending.. so much for 'smaller government' and 'lower taxes' since our kids will have to pay for this somehow).

Mananana in #41... does -anyone- else see this statement as very very disturbing? The -reason- to seek power is to cause pain and despair on others? I think someone is more like Shrubman than we know, and is actually a pretty good insight in to the malicious intent of most Republicans. Wether it be to shove religion down the throats of non-believers or just cause pain (like people that torture puppies and kittens)... Some scary shit to think people like that support Shrubman and the right..

#44

What's the matter, does the fact that I prefer freedom and self-reliance scare you? Do you worry that when I read Kos, DU, PowerLine, LGF and several other blogs, I may actually identify your lies? Are you concerned that because I actually listen to NPR, Air America and Fox News for information I can easily spot the liberal misinformation? Would you rather that I just toe the party line and spew liberal rhetoric?

I actually make my own decisions without waiting for Dean's talking points to tell me how to think. I actually decide what to do and then take personal responsibility for my actions instead of having big brother tell me what to do.

Unions are a perfect analogy for the liberal mindset - You have a someone tell you when, where and how long to work. Your pay is negotiated based upon the good of the union and not on individual skills. Pay increases are dependent upon how long you've been paying dues and not merit. You don't even have a choice of if you work - the union may tell you to strike. The union will even take your money and "donate" it to the political party of their choice.

No thank you - I'm much, much better than that.

Liberals are terrified that their membership will wake up and actually realize that they can do better on their own. If the collective starts thinking for themselves they may not need Teddy Kennedy or the elites telling them how to think.

The thing liberals fear the most is a rational free-thinker with access to data and information. Why do you think that the collapse of the liberal movement is occurring at the same time that access to information is growing. You can no longer rely on Dan Rather, Mark Halperin and the rest of the liberal media in feeding your lies to the American people.

One of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that we actually encourage people to get information from multiple sources and then make up their own mind. You only want them to listen to your rhetoric. If they question, disagree or aren’t quite liberal enough, you attack them. Try posting a conservative or moderate opinion on DU or virtually any liberal blog and see how long it takes to get attacked or even banned. This site is actually one of the better liberal ones that I’ve found (thanks to Steve) – go back and count the number of posts that called me a fascist, Nazi, idiot, nitwit, etc. Why was I attacked? For simply posting an opposing viewpoint. I thought that the liberals approved of free speech? Or do you only support “party approved” speech? The only conservative site that even comes close to that disgusting behavior is the freepers – and I condemn them for it as well. However, the vast majority of conservative sites welcome opposing points (when presented respectfully). Take a look at www.coldheartedtruth.com or www.wizbang.com.

GeneK #47

Do you realize that -most- of that post is exactly what Liberals say about Conservatives too? Do you also realize that, from -my- expierence, most conservatives actually do NOT have a clue? they do NOT investigate? Like you, they listen to Fox News (which has been shown time and again to IGNORE issues) and use that as a "source" when what -we- here are trying to -show people- is that ALL of the MSM is currently 'broke'?

You want to know why you were attacked? here's your first post on this thread, and the first post I ever saw from you..

"Let me get this straight, ACVR is bad because it has conservatives on it's board but....

It's ok for Kos to accept $ from Dean?
Have you looked at the board of Media Matters?
Is Democracy Corp the bastion of non-partisanship?
Isn't The Center for American Progress a Clinton organization?

Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a liberal way of life."

Let's break that down, shall we? First, you totally missed the point about AVCR. no one cares if it's got Conservatives on the board (and veracious ones at that), so long as it was STATED to be a right-wing group. The -problem- is, they claim "non-partisan" which is -painfully- false. Your not seeing that.. well, shows a distinct lack of ability to open your mind and process information (one might call you an idiot for that, I'd just say you need to ponder it more.. but, your not being able to adequately or fully process information flies in the face of this last post too, about being "informed").

Then you make a comment about a DEMOCRATIC group having Democrats on it? Um.. did that group lie about their affiliation? or intent? I don't see how when the NAME is "Democracy Corp".. you'd have to be.. well, an idiot, not to see that that's a Democrat leaning (and likely lead) group.

Then we have your final statement "Hypocrisy... it's not just a word it's a liberal way of life.".. But, wait.. Liberals aren't the ones saying "we believe in a right to life! All life is sacred!", then kill a black baby cause there's no money to pay the bill.. then move Congress and President to save a white woman (against her wishes no less). -that- is hypocricy.. trying to implicate "Democratic Corp" as trying to be .. man, I can't even get my head around where you came up with bringing that in..

Anyway, we -do- believe in free speach. I've seen some pretty scary things comming from the right (like Rather being let go even though the evidence I've seen STILL shows Shrubman was AWOL and snuck out of the war, the 'allegation' that the documents were forged, from what I understand, was -not- proved.. however, it -has- been proved that the contract with South Africa that Saddam 'supposedly' had to get yellow-cake uranium was forged, and it would seem that something like that would -have- to come from inside.. where's the "firing" over that?). I think it's nice that you found some Conservative-slanting sites that let comments be posted, but as many here have pointed out, -most- right-leaning sites don't. Hmm.. wonder why that is?

I was gonna just post the above.. but I feel compelled to comment on this too.. you said "What's the matter, does the fact that I prefer freedom and self-reliance scare you?" (and you bashed on Unions some too).. Here's the problem as I see it. In an "ideal" world, I would mostly agree with you that if you work hard you will get ahead in life. In an ideal world, you could tell your boss "look, I do a damn good job here, you know I do. I need more money to make ends meet at home. You getting $95 million a year and only paying me $75,000 when I do the real work is getting old" and you'd get a raise. However, in "this" world, where corperations post RECORD profits, then CUT BACK to be "competitive", the boss will say "biteme, I'll pay some Indian 1/5 of what I pay you and give the rest of that money to me". Then what? Now what? you are out of a job so some person in some -other- country that doesn't pay taxes or support -this- country can work for a company that -is- protected by -this- country? Basically, corperations "run the show" and do it on the backs of Americans. When Americans don't do something to force them to "treat us fairly", they WON'T.. period. It's a proven FACT that when a company is left to it's own devices, they dump all over the emplyees (sure, you have the rare small company that actually cares for it's employees, but once it goes "public" and get's a "board" and "officers" who's JOB it is to increase PROFITS, all that changes).

Just because 'unions' are currently run by (and I'm taking your word for it, but I have no reason not to belive you) currupt people doesn't mean the principle isn't sound. The -idea- of the union was to -force- companies to be -fair- to employees in the absence of government controls. How can a group of people trying to stand together to force a bad entity to be fair to them be wrong? Do you NOT realize that's how this flippin country was FORMED?

Anyway, my expierence has been that people like you take the "meat" of what the right says and agree with it's principles (and in an ideal world, they might not be bad ideas either), but you refuse to accept that the world we live in is NOT an ideal world, people do NOT act in a decent manner (buisness are in it for MONEY, nothing else.. and left to their own devices will gladly destroy what ever they have to to maximize profits, even if they are destroying lives). Liberals tend to understand that life is a lost more than catch-phrases (self-sufficient.. nice concept, but our economic model -requires- unemployment.. why should we also let those people starve? lose their houses? lose their cars? never be able to get ahead, then not have any kind of retirement?) and try to 'force' everyone to be -fair-, nothing more. I'm sorry you see it as 'unfair' to help support -all- the people of this country that -allow- you to be self-sufficient. I'm also sorry you can't see the curruption in business and government (from all sides, not just the right.. though, they have been the bulk of it for a long time.. personally, I've never liked -any- politicians, but at least the Dems try to help those in need more than the Repubs).

GeneK seems to be so big on personal reliance. He fails to mention that corporations are the biggest welfare queens. I lost count of how many times the Airline Industry has dipped into the government fund to flush our money down the pipes.

America exists today not as a capitalist society, but as corporate socialism. But you never hear the right wing nuts complain about that. And Genek, remember, it's the republican voting states that suck our more government funds than the democratic voting states.

Your lies do not work here.

Horkus -

Absolutely perspicacious, and absolutely unregistered by you target audience. Mammon is a powerful god. And those whom Mammon hath rewarded, no humane reason can disabuse.

"your"

Wait.. is -this- the hypocricy GeneK is talking about?
Repubs doing a filibuster? so let me get this straight.. it's -wrong- for Democrats to Filibuster to prevent religious fanatic judges being put on benches in the Supreme Court, but it's ok for Repubs to filibuster so they don't have to tell their constituents their money was diverted from a tax-exempt church related kind of thing? Rich people diverting funds (tax break) to churches who then give that money to a Conservative Candidate? Interesting...

Oh.. wait.. I can't post that.. I'm an uninformed Liberal ..

Then, of course, we have this "misinformed" tidbit that fuels "more oversight" and "strict checks and balances" that are -clearly- not needed and only go to bloat government needlessly.. just let police and officials do their jobs already!

Na, no need for oversight or checks and balances

Well, Gene, as I said, I have no interest in having a conversation with you, and your response to my post was such a perfect example of why. It is riddled with innaccurate statements, disinformation and false equivalences.

Just for kicks, I'm going to take one example from the morass you posted, not for your benefit, because I am convinced you purposely seek to misinform. I don't believe you are one of the blinded followers at all, nor do I believe you are here to have a discussion.

So let's take this one: "BTW - If Grover Norquist is a LEADER of the Repub party than Soros and Moore must be leaders of yours. are you sure that you want to trade quotes based on those rules?"

Apparently, you consider party leaders to only be those who have titles after their names? You knew enough about what I wrote to decipher who it was that I quoted, so surely you must know that Mr. Norquist holds strategy sessions on a weekly basis that are attended by GOP politicians, think tankers and pretty much everyone who is anyone on the right. That plus a direct line to KKKarl Roverer have served to make Mr. Norquist a very large influence on the Bush administration's domestic policies.

Perhaps that doesn't meet your definition of leader, but it sure does meet mine. Grover speaks, the Bush adminsitration follows.

As for your false equivalence to Soros and Moore, perhaps you can tell me how often they conduct strategy meetings that are attended by Democratic leaders, and how much of an impact they have on what the Democratic party does? A fairer comparison for Soros might be Richard Mellon Scaife, but Soros has an awful lot of catching up to do for that to work. And Moore? Come on. The guy is a radical, independent film maker who marches to the beat of his own drum and who, with his work, speaks for at least half of the working people in this country.

Really, based on your tremendous propensity to carry on the fine tradition of throwing mud at whatever anti-GOPers happen to be a threat to your party, I'd have to say that your motive in mentioning Soros and Moore has nothing to do with balancing out my Norquist point, and everything to do with throwing mud at Soros and Moore in order to propagate the thought that these 2 men are radioactive and liberals need to denounce them. The right wingers have been working on that message ever since "Fahrenheit 9/11" proved to be such an eye opener for the masses.

Ya know what, they are 2 of my heroes. Knowing that they are getting under your skin just plain makes my day! (and let's see who else did you mention - Air America Radio, Randi Rhodes, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Joe Biden - does anybody like this guy any more?, Barbara Boxer ... and the list goes on).

I'd say you pretty much don't like anyone that presents a challenge to your party's control of government. And in typical GOP fashion, the best way to handle that challenge is to use tactics that slime, smear, bully and intimidate.

GeneK # 47, Does it bother you that you are speaking with a life long Democrat who happens to be a business owner and a strong believer in God? Does it also bother you that this believer in God is digusted by a political party ( fascist republicans) who use the name of God to alienate and divide countrymen for the sake of political gain?

Actually, I know more Democrats like myself than the republican talking points of a lazy, welfare receiving, atheists who would hand the keys of our country over to terrorists.

Your mindset and the entire foundation of your party is set in stereotype so racist, dividing,uniformed and quite frankly "cult like" that you fail to see that most Democrats are just as patriotic if not more so than yourself.

You have chosen long ago to take a weak minded approach to the game of life. Like your gutless leader squatting in our White House you look at all things in black and white terms. You have no ability to see most people and issues dealing with daily life as a vast array of color. Your shorth-sightedness is not only laziness it is also the driving force behind so many of our country's problems. I suspect you will be caught in this tunnel vision till your dying days.

...most Democrats are just as patriotic...

Oops. I must have accidentally wandered into the "humor" thread by mistake.

-----
" ...most Democrats are just as patriotic...

Oops. I must have accidentally wandered into the "humor" thread by mistake."

Manananana
-----

case in point!

Without a perceived enemy you and your party have nothing to advance your twisted ideology. Divide and conquer is the soul basis of your exsitence.

Without a perceived enemy ...

Come on, tell me how you REALLY feel.

Divide and conquer is the soul basis of your exsitence.

Actually, I'm real big on Oldies tunes, too. And I do so like my cats.

Teresa #55

I guess I don’t understand how the training of military working dogs relates to the interrogation of enemy combatants, but your information is incorrect. The best way to train military or any working dog is through a combination of positive and negative rewards that closely simulate the pack behavior. This is Behavior Modification 101. Interestingly, with humans you want to randomize the reward for the correct behavior (ie a slot machine).

But back to the main point…. The expert your heard is correct, but only in certain circumstances. Intelligence assets are motivated by Money, Ideology, Conscience and/or Ego (acronym is MICE). If the interrogator is trying to “turn” the detainee or “recruit” them one or more of these areas would be exploited. I believe that this is what your expert was talking about, as this is where the personal relationship comes to play.

However, recruiting an intelligence asset is very, very different from interrogating an enemy combatant and attempting to develop actionable intelligence. In this case and interrogator wants the person to believe that the interrogator has control over the detainees entire existence and that they have no choice but to give the interrogator information. Because the key is “actionable” intelligence, time is crucial. The very best way to do this is to emotionally “break” the enemy combatant. Absolutely, positively nothing is done that would cause permanent physical or psychological damage. The reason that no traditional physical “torture” is used is that a properly trained individual (such as through SERE school) would know how to use their physical pain to harden their resolve.

Proper interrogations must be conducted by highly trained individuals and they are scripted, monitored and very closely controlled. If they are not conducted this way, the BS such as Abu Graib happens.

I hope this helps – if you’re really interested, I can go into more detail (with some limits), or you can get a ton of information off the net. I even think that the Army’s Field Manuel on Intterogation has been declassified and you can buy it.

Gene #61..

I don't believe you. The expert I heard sounds more plausible. End of argument.

#56 CTPATRIOT
You - "Well, Gene, as I said, I have no interest in having a conversation with you"
Me - OK... bye, bye

#57
You - "Does it bother you that you are speaking with a life long Democrat who happens to be a business owner and a strong believer in God?"
Me - Nope

You - "Does it also bother you that this believer in God is digusted [sic] by a political party ( fascist republicans)"
Me - Probably no, but it depends on why your disgusted

You - "who use the name of God to alienate and divide countrymen for the sake of political gain?"
Me - this is your opinion, I understand how you came to this opinion, but I happen to disagree.

None of this should stop a couple of reasonable, mature adults from discussing their differences and coming to agreement on some issues and get a better understanding of the differences.

Teresa #61

Way to keep an open mind

What are your experts credentials? What are my credentials? Where did you hear you expert? Does your expert or the venue have any ulterior motive? Did you do any research on your own, or are you just blindly following someone else’s beliefs?

Just because someone "sounds" more plausible doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. It only means that they can speak well and that they probably are re-enforcing your own pre-existing ideas.

I don't care if you believe me or not, but I would encourage you to seek additional information from a reputable, non-partisan source. Please don't take any offence with my comments as I simply am trying to get you to research the information behind your beliefs - it's up to you if you decide to keep or change your beliefs based upon the truths that you find.

Don't forget - I'm supposed to be the "ditto-head" that is blindly following my leader and you're supposed to be the enlightened intellectual that is always seeking the truth.

Well, Gene. It is presumptuous of you to define my nature, not knowing anything about me. I am not supposed to be anything. An enlightened intellectual seeking the truth sounds very good, but my identity is in question as far as you are concerned.

Teresa - Sorry, as I said I mean no offense. I am only pointing out that you may be limiting your source of information and that your source(s) may be biased. Additionally, I am encouraging you to seek additional, reputable, non-partisan sources in your search for the truth. In this search you may find information that causes you to change your opinion, you may confirm or strengthen your opinion, or you may even change my opinion.

BTW Army Field Manuel 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation would give you an idea about how complex and detailed a proper interrogation should be.

You can read it at http://www.globalsecurit...my/fm/fm34-52/index.html

Additionally, keep in mind that Law Enforcement questioning/investigation is an entirely different animal from military interrogation.

It is presumptuous of you to define my nature...

I think he was just pointing out what you "appear" to be like based on your statement:

The expert I heard sounds more plausible. End of argument.

He asked for you to substantiate your "expert", but you do not. You instead decide to evade the issue and cut off the conversation. That is the definition of a bigot. From this definition we have:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner.

Sounds exactly like the way you behaved. Thoughts?

I prefer to think of myself as narrow minded.

And I most certainly did not cut off the conversation. I simply ended that particular debate.

Mananana and Teresa....

M - although you make a couple of valid points, I was trying to be funny (no one has ever accused me of having a good sense of humor), that's why I put the little smiley at the end of the sentences.

However, your def of bigot is pretty interesting - at least as interesting at the def of fascist earlier.

I am simply trying to raise some questions and get folks to think about the reasons behind their beliefs and then examine the validity of the data that led them to form their beliefs. This examination may cause them to change their beliefs, but then again it may not.

I suspect that most are afraid to perform the necessary examination. The best example of this is Jon Stewart (I don’t have the exact quote) “"What if Bush … has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and my head may … implode."

Teresa #68

Isn't being "narrow minded" close to the oposite of being "open minded"?

Again no offense ment - just a question.

No. Closed-minded is the opposite of open-minded.

Teresa,

Okay - so I'm making an assumption here, but if you define yourself as "narrow minded" and not "close minded" I would assume that you are open to changeing your opinions.

So what (if anything) would it take for you to change one of your beliefs?

A lot.

Actually, my opinions can be changed through my experience.
Beliefs might be more emotion based and intuitive, so changing them might be a different process.

T - thanks.

What about your opinion of the appropriateness of using aggressive interrogation methods to get information from enemy combatants?

That debate has been temporarily closed. Keep your hopes up. It may reopen at some time.

Horkus #49.... absolutely correct.

I heard an expert on extracting information from prisoners of war say that the best way to do this is NOT any kind of torture at all. It is by getting the person in your confidence. Developing a personal relationship. It is all psychology based on prisoner/captor behavior. Intelligent strategy is by far more effective than brute force. The principle of reward, not punishment.
It is fact that the BEST way to train military dogs is through reward.

I am an anarchist and have always been self reliant and pretty far off the grid... no insurance, no debt, self employed, heal myself, and live by my own rules. I wasn't politically involved.

UNTIL....the right wing extremists came into power. It is the first time in my life that I have felt my freedom threatened.
This is all beyond conservative/liberal ideology, since there are as many theories as there are individuals. The people in power now are into extreme government control, and if anyone doesn't acknowledge this, they are begging for a veritable state of servitude, maybe slavery. These people want complete control of personal lives.

My freedom is my most precious commodity and I don't care what the Hell any Republican OR Democrat thinks, I intend to defend it.

That debate has been temporarily closed.

Don't you mean narrowed?

GeneK, I'll talk to your point about interrogations.. Here is -your- quote (and I'm presuming you belive this based on what you read)..

"... interrogating an enemy combatant and attempting to develop actionable intelligence. In this case and interrogator wants the person to believe that the interrogator has control over the detainees entire existence and that they have no choice but to give the interrogator information"

so, we have "your entire existence" is in the control of someone else.. You have no control.. that would be the .. um.. definition of "terrorism", correct? So, let me get this straight.. we're fighting a war on "terror", fighting to stop terrorists from threatening our very existence.. so we use terrorist actions to do that? You ever hear of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? I have, and it makes sense. That's not something you can "logically look over and make an informed opinion about", that's something you have to understand as a thought process.. as a philosophy..

Funny thing is, being able to apply it in "some" situations and disregard the rule to suit your needs in other situations (no matter how you try to justify it) is the very definition of hypocricy (I even spelled it right this time ). So, you, dear GeneK, are a hypocrit plain an simple (unless of course, you feel it's always ok to do "wrong" to get around a preceived "wrong", in which case, you'd just be defined as immoral.. kind of a catch-22, eh?).

in-terro[r]-gating doesn't have to be brutal, violent, or outside of ones rights. Be smarter than your prisoner (I know, it's hard to find truely smart Americans.. they all just pretend to be smart.. kinda like GeneK who refused to touch on the -actual- rebuttle of CTPatriot but instead said "bye bye".. yeah, last bastion of a great mind) and get info out of them that way.. threatening their life isn't needed. As you -also- pointed out, GeneK.. without -very- close oversight of interrogations we end up with the crap that happend in Abu Graib.. which is what we are SO pissed off about (though, Repugnecons and Conservatives want SMALLER governments with LESS oversight.. yeah, you keep making ground there buddy..)

Anyway, this is all pointless. Manananana doesn't even get that his definition of 'bigot' doesn't apply to what Teresa said.. she said "the other info sounds more plausable", and with a distinct lack of "more information" on the matter, she's using reasonable info as facts, not "stereotyped, unfounded, unsubstantiated beliefs" like one does when they are a bigot.. The first definition of bigot I found was "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.".. the one -most- people attribute to the term in a general sense.. we also have " n. [common] A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool" which no more applies than your first assertion (not to mention, your definition requires "prejudiced" which is defined as "n.
1.
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
".. she -clearly- read up on it, thereby NOT being "prejudiced" on the matter.) Anyway, after seeing plenty of 'evidence' by Manananana, I think it's fairly safe to disclude any further ramblings as I've not yet seen -one- reasonable argument made by that .. poster..

I think bigotry is primarily intolerance and rejection based on illogical factors. A blanket reaction regardless of facts. Some sort of emotional, primitive response that allows no exception.
So it really doesn't apply to intellectual debate, which does occur here often.

Teresa #80

I'd agree with your assesment.. though, it -does- apply to intellectual debate when the points in the debate have no basis or justifications.. the 'belief' with no substantiation is the 'bigotted' aspect.

It does not, however, apply to you or your comments since you clearly were -not- reacting from an uninformed position. Not accepting someone's opinion doesn't make you a bigot, but that's what Manananabuttmunch would like to believe. That would go a long way to given him a valid position... since you have no visable bigotry in your assertion, and he has nothing else to stand on, I think it's safe to say he's pretty well out of steam (again).

Anyway, we should all stop feeding the trolls.. this guy keeps running around outside of the scope of discussing the issue of the thread which is what they do. Confuse and distract and try to insert ideas out of context. If we stop responding to all the posts by this twit until the post pertains to the thread, we'll all be better off (and might actually force him to finally attempt to make a valid point)

I was thinking that myself, Savantster, feeling a few odd pangs of guilt, myself, at going OT.

Later.

aauuwww, come on guys..... come out an play.... you know that you want to.... this time you may be able to "educate" me....

Teresa #80 - as you look back on the hatred, slander and threats that have been leveled against me simply because people ASSUMED (without asking) that I was a Repub, would you call it "A blanket reaction regardless of facts. Some sort of emotional, primitive response that allows no exception."

Calling someone a bownshirt, Nazi, fascist because you think that they belong to a particular political party sounds to me like "intolerance and rejection based on illogical factors"

Gene #83

Again, you are taking things out of context to try and "prove your point".. most of your previous posts "toe the party line" even if you aren't a card-carrying Repugnecon. If you vote for that ilk, you are that ilk, card or not. The views you have expressed over and over are in "support" of what's going on in this country, what's going on is counter to the Constitution and is looking more and more like we are on a direct path to "Germany circa 1930", Nazi Germany.. where Fascists ran free. If you support that kind of nation, then calling you names that are appropriately fitting is "appropriate".. not bigotted.. To say there is no "logic" to the accusations is to ignore your OWN posts/words in these few threads. Now, -thats- illogical..

...then calling you names that are appropriately fitting is "appropriate".. not bigotted...

You really believe that? Wow. I think Goebbels believed that too. Small world.

Manananana #85

Not sure who that is.. I guess I'll have to do a search and see who it is you are trying to "compare me to" in an attempt to either make me feel bad, or make a false link to in people's minds..

LMAO.. nice... Hey GeneK, see how he's using Godwin's Law here? saying that something that's a truism must make me a Nazi of the worst sort since a Nazi of the worst sort understood the truism.. though, I've not read the quote Manomanaaremynutsgettingtiny is refering to... but this -is- an example of Godwin's Law that you were talking about. Course, since Hitler himself probably thought "breathing is required to live" and I believe the same thing, I suppose I'm just like Hitler too

bah.. it took out my

Gene #83

Yes, actually. Calling someone a Brownshirt Nazi does sound a bit illogical. It really doesn't apply. The Brownshirts were from another time and were unique to that situation. The Nazi Party as well.

As far as this current administration, there is some connection, as it is documentad that they are experimenting with Nazi doctrine. But it certainly doesn't follow that all right wingers are Nazis.

I am against the comparison myself as I feel that it desecrates history. What is happening now is unique to the present and I think it should be judged as an individual event.

I further object to comparing Bush to Hitler, as I find Bush to be an impotent coward and a fool who is being used by others, which Hitler was not. Hitler had charisma and certain force. Bush is dull, stupid sounding, and I think will be forgotten by history, while Hitler will be remembered well.
Really no comparison.

Oh, and Savanster #86

your nutsaregettingtiny point is a good one.

In other words, Bush is a ridiculous dunce asshole. A primitive buffoon. Incredibly embarrassing. Probably never nade a decision on his own in his life. Hardly dictator material.

In other words, Bush is a ridiculous dunce...

Who just happens to have an IQ higher than J. Fraud Kerry. Go figure.

A primitive buffoon

Is there any other kind?

Incredibly embarrassing.

To all the right people.

Probably never nade a decision on...

nade? looks like buffoonery to me.

Hardly dictator material.

Well, at least you arrived at the correct conclusion.

Manana #91...

Thanks.

Don't Feed The Trolls!

http://www.univ-pau.fr/~...Social_Events/trolls.jpg

These two people with so much time on their hands
(wonder why that is?) have avoided most of the subject matter in this thread.

#93 "Republicans are my masters":

How is your comment on topic? Do you get a waiver?

Manananana #94 No waiver needed, he's pointing out a fact..

as much as it might bother you, you have spent considerable time -not- discussing anything but rather, just making wild (and useless) statements. That tends to make people aggresive toward you.. If you don't want people being aggressive and abusive to you, don't start out on the board as a twat.. it's quite simple.. don't be inflamitory and you won't have people getting overly ruffled at you

GeneK said: "Blow your fascist comments out your ass you sniveling, hypocritical, tinfoil-hat wearing, dumb ass....ass hats"

GeneK then said: "ooooo.... name calling and threats - the last refuge of someone who's lost the argument and has no facts on their side."

You said it, dummy.