Nothing important here. MoveOn.

You want a real liar? Take your pick, Armitage, Fitzgerald, clinton or all of the above. Quick, go get another talking point from Moveon.org. I sure they have a whole section on how to deal with someone who confronts you with truth and logic. The usual tactic of smearing and personal insults is wearing a bit thin.

Man, Sifters just love to hate teh bush. It's like a MoveOn meeting in here. lol.

Farhad, yes I agree with you about the far bigger issue and yes, I agree.. it seems that people will put up a blind eye to facts if it doesn't support thier current view. Also, Rotty actually makes a good point about how some of the dems and reps would feel appalled at the thought of being "in the same club". As for the MoveOn programming comment, I could not say, so far I've enjoyed conversing with some of the people here and I feel that this venue may have many open minded people but that's another conversation altogether.

I just wanted some people to see this report, because I've spoken to several people that just do not believe it and some consider me crazy for suggesting that Bush and Kerry were in the same Fraternity, much less one called Skull and Bones with a slogan of the Order of Death.

Hey Patriot, you are not gonna get much support here. This nulls out the beleif by the lefties on this site that the dems are different than the republicans. MoveOn programming does not allow the kind of thinking that puts the left and right in the same club. Serious reprogramming required...

I'm impressed. Nobody has blamed the US (yet) for this. Obviously not interesting to bl968 since it is not anti-administration material. Perhaps MoveOn hasn't figured an angle yet...

Yes I agree that rationality should be based within the realms of morals and so on.

However my statement is simply reflective of the world we live in, while it would be nice if we were all rational agents with morales it is no so. While we can clinically analyze certain things and work out the pros and cons of certain step over others it is too often that our morality gives away in face of fear or other emotional responses. Some that go far deeper then any rationality or morality can control.

Observe the war drums post 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Most of what happened during that time was rationality gone in face of mass hysteria and fear over a terrorist attack. Rationality would imply that while the attack was devastating it was not the world changing event as pro-war advocates make it seem. That Iraq is not a threat, I mean the most powerful country in the world coming down to presenting a case for war based on fuzzy sat images and power point presentations.

Take this for example, the US supports Israel with arms and international backing in the UN where it struck down more then 60 resolutions aimed at ending the perpetual conflict that exists there. The conditions are nearing apartheid, the Arab people see this as backing of imperialism of Jewish people over the Palestinian and Arab in the Western bank and Golan heights. So anti-American fervor develops. Creating the large destabilization we now see in Iraq and so on. Is American support of Israel rational then? http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

At the same time rational thinking can be a problem as much as a solution. Look at Vietnam. Rationally the domino theory makes sense, while it gives no account to historical background. Thus flawed.

My overall point being that while we as the new generation might include a certain humanity in our thinking, this is not what happens in the highest level of goverment. But it's not all lost, hopefully with emerging communities like VS and Moveon.org and others young people can be educated and have a profound influence on our world in the future.

In reply to your comment:
““No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.””

rickegee, while you are right that there is probably no such thing as a progressive republican I dislike being identified as a democrat because I see the nascent progressive movement as a transitory beast.

In reality DC politicians are scared of the netroots and their demands that government actually be transparent and accountable. Currently democratic elected officials are playing lip service to those elements of the party, but eventually they will seek to marginalize them.

When this finally occurs I expect the various progressive branches of the democratic party, EFF, moveon, DKos, Blue State Project, TPM, Crooks and Liars, MYDD to form their own political coalition. To some extent you can already see this with "net roots" endorsed candidates. They are trying to change things from within the democratic party, but I doubt that they will be all that successful.

No am not a progressive, I don't believe we should be entirely laissez-faire with regards to our economy and people, nor do I believe that social assistance programs that were part of American way of life since the New Deal should be annexed. You can't have a totally capitalist society nor a totally socialist society in the US, it wouldn't work.

I didn't post this video to give support to Mr Moyer's organization or anything like that, I believe that what he says encapsulates everything I feel is wrong about the current political climate, we have a conservative base that is quickly losing it's ground by having a simple vast hate of the left but no real plan of action other then war war and more war. We have a democratic left side that is too willingly to wait till 2008 and then come into office like some sort of messiah of hope. All while more troops are sent into Iraq and Afghanistan...

Democracy is built on mutual discourse and exchange of ideas, policy action should come from the same area. I believe it's important for citizens to know all viewpoints offered to let people reach their own conclusions. Simply painting someone as a crazy liberal by quoting DiscoverTheNetworks, well that doesn't really help anything especially since they have a anti-left stance. I could bring something from MoveOn.org about their practices.

And I think that progressive statement you made is funny. I would rather have all that then have a goverment that feels that it can trample over the constitution in order to implement policies to watch it's own citizens and or remove attorney generals based on their political affiliations...

Sorry to do two in a row....fortunately, no one reads the comments.

theo47:

"Dude, if your liberal media paranoia has extended to the internets, you're welcome to leave the site."

>>>> Yeah, and moveon.org called, their belfry is missing another moonbat. Didn't some dude in Berkeley march naked so we can ALL speak freely?

"Considering your previous racist comments, I don't think you'll be missed."

>>>> People can decide for themselves what they think of me or anyone else. I know who I am and need neither validation or approval from anyone here. I doubt anyone gives a damn. And most importantly, I'm not being paid for ranting, so anything goes, just as if I were being paid.

>>>> Your *perceived-by-me* disdain/hatred of ANYone that disagrees with liberal latte-sipping elitist hogwash certainly trumps any faults I have. Over here, anyway.

>>> Unlike too many lefty know-it-alls I don't pretend to be perfect, fair, reasonable, etc. all the time. Or even some of the time. If it's true that people hate in others what they see in themselves, could it be that maybe it's YOU who are afraid that deep down, YOU'RE a racist? How do you know I'm not black? Or Asian? Are you the scary robot that represents you? I don't even have an icon because I hate flickr.


>>>> So allow me to welcome YOU to the internets, effendi. Unlike the CNN idiot box, people to the right of Chomsky and Marx have a voice here. And I'm not going to be glib and suggest anyone leave because they don't care for _my_ toaster leavins.

>>>> I bear no ill will against anyone. I'm allowed to be angry and rant, etc. and I would grant all the same if I had any power at all.

>>>> You may hate me but you'll usually learn something.

>>>> Long P.S. I'm disappointed only that my Republitarian views would be considered 'extreme.' There was a time when fighting against dictators and other fascists was considered noble, even by the left. Now the left wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater at the first sign of conflict. WTF.

Seriously Un-fucking-believable.

And they use such similar URLs too! This http://moveamericaforward.org/ is the bad one... which posted the video above... This one http://www.moveon.org/ is the good on, fighting to recover control off your congress.

Bush receives the treatment because he deserves it AND NOT THROUGH A MAINSTREAM MEDIA unless he really really fucks up. Clinton is receiving it because Fox was attempting to set a political agenda through the interview and elections are fast approaching... Fox takes any and all shots at known democrats to attempt to alleviate pressure on the republicans and the Bush administration. Remember the battle against Chrismas? Completely orchestrated by Fox News in order to turn the cameras away from the administration.

Not to mention that Clinton was arbitrarily ambushed, the interview was NOT ABOUT his anti-terror policy, rather his humanitarian initiative. He may have looked prepared but I will guarantee you that he wasn't. Would Fox ever do that to Bush or anyone in the republican party? Hell no. The reporter continually interupted him which of course would make Clinton angry, it would make my blood boil to be interupted while attempting to answer a question, and that was what half of this piece was about, him not being able to control his temper and being an "angry democrat". They said that Clinton was beating or whatever in this piece, but he still answered the questions well and was able to prove that he did do things, and more things than the current administration pre 9/11. Was this mentioned at all? no...

Don't attempt to pull moveon.org and other partisan political interest groups to justify Fox's right journalism because there are just as many if not more interest groups for the republicans. News organisations like CNN and MSNBC might lean one way or the other, but they don't feed viewers propaganda which Fox does. Also you seem to be very naive in what a majority of democrats or a moderates are. I'll speak on my ideology (moderate). I don't care where the news comes from so long as it isn't slanted and the viewer is able to recognize bias, it is very easy to do this while watching CNN and MSNBC, reading the New York Times, New York Post, whatever. But whenever I turn on fox news or read the washington post I see them indirectly and sometimes directly saying that John Kerry or X canidate will create chaos as president without ANY BACKING, or NCLB has outstanding results and enough funding, just opinionated or false statements pushed as facts. It has come to the point where I will not believe any publication of Fox news as fact or if the ISSUES ARE EVEN RELEVANT... I do not represent the majority of individuals (as the ratings and lack of a party show) but all that does is show the oppression of democracy because I end up with a president that a majority of retards voted for.

"I'd argue that people wouldn't know the pure truth if it ran up and smacked them in the face, because while the truth doesn't have a bias to it, people waste an incredible amount of time trying to find one if it doesn't agree with their world view."
I'm assuming "it" refers to truth or the status quo? I'll assume the status quo as "trying to find truth if truth doesn't agree with their world view." doesn't make sense. If you have that little faith in people's intellect why are you defending Fox news which so obviously distorts reality and creates more ignorance?

"Who's getting the soft treatment now?"

Here's a fun little game, Go searching this site and others and find as many videos as you can that portray Bush as idiotic, dumb, incompetent, the next Hitler or otherwise having the I.Q. of a doorknob, then try to find a comparable number that show Clinton in the same light. Clinton overwhelmingly gets the soft treatment by the media.

"And for the record, I hate ALL biased journalism, whether it is Liberal or Conservative."

Then I hate to burst your bubble, because then you must hate all journalism because 99% of it is biased in one way or another. By it's own admission, the mainstream media and most cable news stations are biased to the Left and they seem to get along with each other pretty well. While Fox tends to be biased to the right, and the other broadcast and cable outlets, MoveOn.org, MediaMatters.org and people like yourself just CAN'T STAND IT.

The truth is a very elusive thing these days as it always has been, especially with such an intense flow of information it's increasingly hard to find the pure truth. Most often what we tend to accept as the truth is nothing more then distorted sound bytes that simply reinforce our world view, Why? Because it's easy, and you/I don't have to graple with the startleing realisation that we might wrong. With so much of it flying around, it has become increasingly difficult to separate pure fact from biased distortion. I'd argue that people wouldn't know the pure truth if it ran up and smacked them in the face, because while the truth doesn't have a bias to it, people waste an incredible amount of time trying to find one if it doesn't agree with their world view.

Wow, it only took two hours for the usual crowd to scream "Fox News manipulation!" Because according to MoveOn.org, MediaMatters.org and "Outfoxed" we all know that Fox is totally in the tank for the Republicans and intentionally distort all manner of information to fit their radical and twisted world view.

Yeah, and it was financed and distributed by MoveOn.org........so I'm sure it's not biased in anyway at all and only tells the absolute truth.