An answer to an old issue

[gekkogecko]

Warning: heavy dose of politics.

Way back when, in another thread, I had made the assertion that the current administration engages in underhanded practices to a degree unprecedented in modern US political history.

jseal took exception to that, and demanded that I back up this assertion with hard numbers. Unfortunately, I did not then, nor do I now have the time to actually hunt down the number of times King George II & Co have lied to the American public, the US Congress, and the world in general vs the number of times any previous administration has engaged in those same deceptive prectices.

However, I did have time to read through this: and note, this is from a Republican member of congress.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31398

[scotzoidman]

If you had time to read all of that, you've got a lot more time to spare than I do. However, I did get the gist of it. Here's hoping that jseal gets so tied up reading the whole missive, he doesn't have time to respond with the usual "yes, but..."

[jseal]

If you had time to read all of that, you've got a lot more time to spare than I do. However, I did get the gist of it. Here's hoping that jseal gets so tied up reading the whole missive, he doesn't have time to respond with the usual "yes, but..."
funny you should mention that...

That certainly looks like an unbiased, level headed site. :rofl:

Would that be this Dana Rohrabacher (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dana_Rohrabacher), representing California’s 46th congressional district? The one with possible ethics violations, and links to that paragon of virtue Jack Abramoff, about whom the Washington Post reports Rep. Rohrabacher once said. "He's a very honest man. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043001147_pf.html)"

:roflmao:

For those who actually read the speech, there is a quote at the bottom with which I could not agree more.. “... carefully consider who our leaders are going to be and carefully consider the issue of the day. We have a wonderful democratic society. There's a balance of power here set up by our Founding Fathers. And it's important, whether you're Republican or Democrat, that we maintain this balance of an authority, the legislative, executive, and judicial in this country ...“.

It is interesting to note what people prefer to rely on for information.

:rolleyes:

[wyndhy]

gg, frontline has done some good shows about these issues - cheney's law, endgame, news war, and spying on the homefront are a few that come to mind right off the bat. i believe if you visit frontline's site, you can watch them on-line. interesting stuff

[gekkogecko]

That certainly looks like an unbiased, level headed site.

Yeah, irony. Since it's a given that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, what is the actual poitn you're trying to make?

Would that be this Dana Rohrabacher (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dana_Rohrabacher), representing California’s 46th congressional district? The one with possible ethics violations, and links to that paragon of virtue Jack Abramoff, about whom the Washington Post reports Rep. Rohrabacher once said. "He's a very honest man. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043001147_pf.html)"


Why, yes, it would be the same; you seem to be implying that Rohrabacher is a crook who has his own axe to grind, and his own corruption issues to attempt to distract people from by pointing out someone else's corruption and dereliction of duty issues.

jseal, if that's exactly your point, then you could have just made it more succint by pointing out that Dana Rohrbacher serves as a Representative in the US Congress.

[scotzoidman]

"Attack the man, ignore the question" is an old Debate Club tactic that jseal obviously knows too well. I lost interest in reading the whole text rather quickly, & the issues the *distinguished gentleman* were raising were pretty much old news & quite irrelevant to my way of thinking (just a couple nights ago I saw "Final Report: OKC Bombing" on NatGeo that pretty much dismissed all the points the Rep raised, at least to my satisfaction). Also it seemed that he was raising issues that date back to the Clinton admin, but still felt he must blame the present Chief Exec. for the "cover-up".

All this is not to dismiss the point you were making gg...I get that even his own party is making like rats on the sinking ship these days. Even McCain, accepting GWB's endorsment for his candidacy, told reporters afterward that he would welcome the President's help in the campaign, of course, understanding that said Prez has a very busy schedule, etc., etc...translation: take a picture, this is the last time you'll see me anywhere near his coattails...meanwhile, Dubya is heading back to the ranch, thereby topping Reagan's record for time spent away from the office...busy schedule? What busy schedule?

This week the President rolled into my home town to defend the war in Iraq before a group religious broadcast evangelicals, thus guaranteeing he would have a solid "Amen Corner" to back him up...preaching to the converted again, Dub...

[jseal]

... I lost interest in reading the whole text rather quickly ...
Fair enough.

[jseal]

Yeah, irony. Since it's a given that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, what is the actual poitn you're trying to make?
You are mistaken. Some opinions can be much, MUCH more unbiased when compared to others. The relatively unbiased opinions are those which are substantiated. (there’s that inconvenient issue of substantiation again!) It is the relatively unbiased opinions – the ones which are substantiated by facts – which are more believable than the claims some ask others to accept as true - but without proof.

Why, yes, it would be the same; you seem to be implying that Rohrabacher is a crook who has his own axe to grind, and his own corruption issues to attempt to distract people from ...
Given the facts – I assume here that you are willing to accept the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, etc. reports as factual (and if not, you would, of course, need to substantiate your decision to dismiss the reports as non-factual) – would you agree that someone who is carrying around that amount of ethical baggage should have his – or her – claims scrutinized a bit more carefully than someone who did NOT have an involvement with Afghanistan and the Taliban during which he reversed his stated positions and may also have violated federal law (http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act?cat=biz-fin), and who did NOT have these possible ethics violations, and his distinctly right wing positions?

Perhaps you (and others) think I am being unreasonable in being a mite skeptical about the accusations made by people with a documented background like this. I have a rather different take on the subject: how in the world can you accept at face value (which you certainly SEEM to do) unsubstantiated claims made by that people like this? Surely you can do better than this! wyndhy suggested the a possible source – perhaps you could start there.

Oh, and by the way, the claim that I “demanded that I back up this assertion with hard numbers” is false. I did not make such a demand. What I did post, and what you did post may be found by clicking here (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showthread.php?t=28800).

You will note that I made no demands of you. I did point out there what I have pointed out here: if you wish people to accept your claims on faith, that is up to you.