ExiledInIllinois
-
Posts
48,263 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ExiledInIllinois
-
-
Has anybody said they're blameless for not getting more than one source? I'm concerned about how it might have a chilling effect on future reporting. But it is nowhere near as irresponsible as the mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration that initiated the invasion of Iraq, and the handling of the occupation afterward.
Aaaaa. No.
Shhhh, but don't make that known.
-
Wasn't the Virgin Mary a "teenage statistic?"
-
Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN.
But back to the topic at hand.....
So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why?
Hypocrites? Yup.
You forgot to mention a WOMAN WITH CHILD, OUT OF WEDLOCK?
I take Joseph was allowed to graduate?
Hmmmmmm?
-
Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.
The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.
Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?
Vexing questions no doubt LA!
We should ALL ask those questions.
-
-
Lets see: no stockpiles, no delivery system, no enriched uranium,
no program in progress....
no intent that is traceable to a scintilla of evidence.
The embargo worked. The no-fly zones worked.
This guy had no ability to project power throughout his country let
alone upon neighbors.
Unbelievable!
Keep trying!
If you mentioned this before the Iraq invasion... You would have been "stirring the pot."
-
You know it was all her fault!
-
-
-
-
That's one of the reasons that I don't particularly care what the result of this current "crisis" is...basically, if the Republicans manage to take away the "right to fillibuster", they've stripped the minority power of the ability to hold their breath 'til they turn blue rather than eat their strained peas. If it were a real fillibuster we were talking about, I might actually start to care...but no one's done that in a few decades.
But then, if the Republicans DO manage to strip the fillibuster from the rules...it might force things back to the old methods: block action by actually taking the floor and not relinquishing it. Unless the "nuclear option" also includes completely ditching any and all rules of order, and letting anyone who chooses shout down whoever has the floor, which would actually surprise me.
Or allowing the speaker to say to someone who does have the floor: "Okay, you're done. Sit down." Which wouldn't surprise me, and would be a very worrisome development...
Good points.
-
-
-
-
Did you ever stop and think the problem is in your thinking?
"Naaaaa... It is always someone else's fault. All fine here."
AD=Right, Everybody else=Bad!
-
"Virtual fillibuster" is my name for it (though I'm sure I heard it somewhere else before I started using it). It basically describes what they do now: they effectively just declare "Fillibuster!", and everything stops on that one particular fillibustered issue. Reasoning behind doing it that way, I suppose, being that it doesn't block other Congressional work, and they can the get around to important issues like voting on motions to congratulate Idaho's Miss Potato runner-up. I call it "virtual" simply because it isn't a real fillibuster...and it also makes it too easy. If you believe stopping business is important enough to fillibuster, you should commit yourself to wasting your time standing on the Senate floor reading nursery rhymes and "The Joy of Cooking" out loud until you drop.
The phone book...you're right, they probably couldn't do it these days. But when fillibusters were real fillibusters, they used to. There's probably hundreds of pages of phone numbers read into old congressional records...
Thanks!
That is lame. The fillibuster tool should be used the way it was intended... AND SHOULD STOP EVERYTHING. When the legis is close (50-50), it can be a viable tool.
This new fillibuster is kinda like yelling at your kid then rewarding them with candy? We just can't sacrifice anything in society, can we?
-
If would be far more laughable if there wasn't constitutional precedent for it. Ever notice that certain things require more than a simple majority?
I just think that the fillibuster rules should be changed to disallow this "virtual fillibuster" crap. You want to fillibuster? Fine, get up there and read from the phone book for 12 hours. You shouldn't be able to just declare "Fillibuster!" and walk away...
I agree. The fillibuster is a viable tool that shouldn't be eliminated. I never knew there was this "virtual fillibuster?"... Explain that and how it works?
Like you said... I wish they were reading from the phone book... It would have made good CSPAN viewing... How exactly would the privacy act mesh into that?
-
Follow with me class.
You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you. It is called CREDIBILITY. To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Unfortunately, people aren't buying. But, feel free to whine about Newsweek. We made our bed a long time ago. Seems we are being profiled?
Right now America's credibility is low. Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?
I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good!
Sign me up for some of that lemonade! Talk about signing Kumbaya?
-
This is gonna sound crazy... What if the story was planted by the administration or pro-administration?
Why?
To make the press look worse and push through pro-censorship ideas.
I do admit, this would be out of AD "black helicopter" type scenarios... Yet, in politics, would be an easy play.
Plant something that you know is untrue, so you can later debunk it. Sure fits the way some do business?
Anyway... Exactly how do you flush such a large document down the toilet without it jamming up?
I have no doubt that some form of abuse took place.
It is their burden to prove otherwise because of such dubious credibilty (because of tactics used in the past).
-
-
Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government?
Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it?
I thought of that but wouldn't Newsweek want to blow the cover on this type of government intrusion?
I would rather be honest in the end.
They can't prove it as fact? They have to back off?
There is a lot of stuff floating out there, they should be careful not to fall into a propaganda trap that is aimed at making the media out to be worse than it already is.
-
-
-
What I am saying is I would want to do it myself. It brings me no satisfaction if someone else does it... If somebody else was going to do it, I would want them to live.
I am not a simple person.
Newsweek F*cks America...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Is there a telephone somewhere here?