Time to Pay Off Obama's Allies.

[Woodruff]

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

Flaming and trolling... will a favorite of theirs' not get banned?

A favorite of theirs? That's pretty funny, really. As to "flaming and trolling", I'm afraid it's simply stating the facts as they are in this thread. You could change that quite easily by answering the very relevant question I asked.

[PLAYER57832]

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

Flaming and trolling... will a favorite of theirs' not get banned?

A favorite of theirs? That's pretty funny, really. As to "flaming and trolling", I'm afraid it's simply stating the facts as they are in this thread. You could change that quite easily by answering the very relevant question I asked.

I am going to step in again because, truth is, I feel I fed the fire a bit and I don't really want to see ANY of you banned... and this discussion seems to be heading in that direction.

Without getting into too many specifics that really don't matter now (past history), many of us felt there was a very strong anti-liberal bias back a bit. It did very much seem that threads on liberal topics were far more likely to be shut down and people voicing liberalistic views were far more likely to be banned. Sometimes it was just that their legitimate (foul language, abuse) and semie- oversteps ( reviving old threads, posting multiple threads, etc.) were noticed far more than conservatives who did the same thing.

I believe there were 2 basic causes.

The first is that conservatives have plain and simply been more ready to complain. This is to say that all liberals are more tolerant, but those who have posted HERE, seem to have been. Further, there just seem to be more conservatives and when the numbers are greater ... you get more of the negative types in any group. Its just plain statistics.

The second is that I do truly believe more mods have been, at least in the past not just conservative, but have had very, very "conservative" or anti-scientific views. This is significant because having those views almost always cooincides with a general lack of knowledge about many topics AND an innate biase that scientists are this united group out to get the rest ... often a religious "rest", sometimes a pro-business "rest".

This means that postings by Nightstrike saying "Gobal warming is baloney" are less likely to be considered trolling, inherently, by those mods than opposing views. It is not necessarily conscious ... and that point is critical and one where I actually do, to an extent disagree with you pimpdave, even though I very much respect your posts and views (for the most part ).

OK, so 2 factors... conservatives are more likely to complain, many (not all) mods had an inherent bias against science and liberalism, and the natural tendency to just "notice" stuff more in someone who is irritating you than someone you consider your "friend"/"compatriot", etc. are what I believe lead to a real anti-liberal bias.

BUT, and this is also important, there is another factor here that is also very significant. Look at the names and associations. For whatever reason, many of those who expressed liberal views, were censored, ALSO were of the "shenanigan mongering" ilk. Let's be honest. I like/liked DM's postings. But, he did skirt the edges and quite intentionally. At some point .. someone just had to give. I am not going to rehash that whole issue. This is not the place. My point is that yes, many of the people who were banned were "trouble makers". BUT, at the same time, it is strange that DM got banned for his comments, while the main censor BES, etc got was for being a multis.. not so much for the tenor of his comments (he got some, but the main problem was not his posts).

Then, things DID CHANGE. In part, I think things did get bad enough at one point that mods and perhaps even admin took notice and did change things. In part, I think several conservatives just have moved to specialized forums. In part...????

The final, and probably more serious complication to this is that since there are no "rollbacks" in penalties, people are now being punished much more harshly than they would have been had they not been liberal, had they not had disputes with particular mods (disputes that were differences of opinion about things, rather that pure challenges per se). This is being addressed in the General Forum, so I won't get into it more here.

Per Nightstrike specifically ... I have NOT noticed that Nightstrike is now closing down threads and the like for what seems to be plain disagreement/his unwillingness to hear other views. I am not saying he has changed his views, but he is tolerating criticism more.

Some of pimpdave's accusations involve things outside the forums. Of that, I have no knowledge and don't wish to have knowledge. I will say, with all respect, pimpdave, that I don't think this is the proper venue to vent any real off-forum issues. (just my opinion) If you have a true and serious accusation, fill out an e-ticket. If your gripe is more general .. join in the topics already going regarding rule changes/penalties in general discussion or suggs and bugs forums OR start a new thread if they don't address your concern specifically enough.

[PLAYER57832]

NOW, to get back on topic:

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

Sorry, but I fail to see how Obama hiring "friends" (won't even dispute the relationship for this discussion -- let's just say they were best friends), to construct an ad campaign admittedly putting forward his views, is somehow to be compared with the Bush administration allowing private contractors to act as mercenaries -- mercenaries who commited very henious acts. Acts far worse than what the US military, but with far less oversight -- a fact that, by all accounts was absolutely intentional (that is, they hired Blackwater to do dirty work so the military would not be so sullied). WE know the difference, but most of Iraq never did.

Add to that corruption, overcharges, etc... some money repaid, some not. Even the money involved with Blackwater is so much more the comparison to this ad campaign is just silly. And, its not as if Bush had no controversial ad campaigns himself. (that would be a fairer comparison)

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

OK, ever look off the shores of California, in the Gulf of Mexico? Know anything of the biology and importance to the US ECONOMY of those regions? I do. California already has oil rigs up the ying-yang. There is a "blank" space up off the north coast, but you are also talking about strange currents, methane pockets, earthquake faults, etc. The cost of drilling up there is HUGE. Not only that, but the fisheries in those areas -- salmon once so plentiful it fed many a depression family who could not afford other meat. Those fisheries have finally begun to rebound. So, too many other industries. (I CAN get into much, much more detail, but I won't here).

I admittedly don't know that much about the Brazilian drilling sites. However, to allow them to damage their country is not exactly against our interests, even if it is perhaps not the nicest thing for us to do. The jobs from those wells there are not going to be as significant as the potential benefit from the oil we will almost certainly get as a result.

[notyou2]

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

Flaming and trolling... will a favorite of theirs' not get banned?

A favorite of theirs? That's pretty funny, really. As to "flaming and trolling", I'm afraid it's simply stating the facts as they are in this thread. You could change that quite easily by answering the very relevant question I asked.

I am going to step in again because, truth is, I feel I fed the fire a bit and I don't really want to see ANY of you banned... and this discussion seems to be heading in that direction.

Without getting into too many specifics that really don't matter now (past history), many of us felt there was a very strong anti-liberal bias back a bit. It did very much seem that threads on liberal topics were far more likely to be shut down and people voicing liberalistic views were far more likely to be banned. Sometimes it was just that their legitimate (foul language, abuse) and semie- oversteps ( reviving old threads, posting multiple threads, etc.) were noticed far more than conservatives who did the same thing.

I believe there were 2 basic causes.

The first is that conservatives have plain and simply been more ready to complain. This is to say that all liberals are more tolerant, but those who have posted HERE, seem to have been. Further, there just seem to be more conservatives and when the numbers are greater ... you get more of the negative types in any group. Its just plain statistics.

The second is that I do truly believe more mods have been, at least in the past not just conservative, but have had very, very "conservative" or anti-scientific views. This is significant because having those views almost always cooincides with a general lack of knowledge about many topics AND an innate biase that scientists are this united group out to get the rest ... often a religious "rest", sometimes a pro-business "rest".

This means that postings by Nightstrike saying "Gobal warming is baloney" are less likely to be considered trolling, inherently, by those mods than opposing views. It is not necessarily conscious ... and that point is critical and one where I actually do, to an extent disagree with you pimpdave, even though I very much respect your posts and views (for the most part ).

OK, so 2 factors... conservatives are more likely to complain, many (not all) mods had an inherent bias against science and liberalism, and the natural tendency to just "notice" stuff more in someone who is irritating you than someone you consider your "friend"/"compatriot", etc. are what I believe lead to a real anti-liberal bias.

BUT, and this is also important, there is another factor here that is also very significant. Look at the names and associations. For whatever reason, many of those who expressed liberal views, were censored, ALSO were of the "shenanigan mongering" ilk. Let's be honest. I like/liked DM's postings. But, he did skirt the edges and quite intentionally. At some point .. someone just had to give. I am not going to rehash that whole issue. This is not the place. My point is that yes, many of the people who were banned were "trouble makers". BUT, at the same time, it is strange that DM got banned for his comments, while the main censor BES, etc got was for being a multis.. not so much for the tenor of his comments (he got some, but the main problem was not his posts).

Then, things DID CHANGE. In part, I think things did get bad enough at one point that mods and perhaps even admin took notice and did change things. In part, I think several conservatives just have moved to specialized forums. In part...????

The final, and probably more serious complication to this is that since there are no "rollbacks" in penalties, people are now being punished much more harshly than they would have been had they not been liberal, had they not had disputes with particular mods (disputes that were differences of opinion about things, rather that pure challenges per se). This is being addressed in the General Forum, so I won't get into it more here.

Per Nightstrike specifically ... I have NOT noticed that Nightstrike is now closing down threads and the like for what seems to be plain disagreement/his unwillingness to hear other views. I am not saying he has changed his views, but he is tolerating criticism more.

Some of pimpdave's accusations involve things outside the forums. Of that, I have no knowledge and don't wish to have knowledge. I will say, with all respect, pimpdave, that I don't think this is the proper venue to vent any real off-forum issues. (just my opinion) If you have a true and serious accusation, fill out an e-ticket. If your gripe is more general .. join in the topics already going regarding rule changes/penalties in general discussion or suggs and bugs forums OR start a new thread if they don't address your concern specifically enough.

Player, I agree with most of what you have stated, especially if you substitute the term "conservative" with "fundamentalist".

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

[comic boy]

When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Funny, I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, comic.

For others, you can read for yourself why these left-wing conspiracy theories over Dubya's collusion with Halliburton are nonsense.

I know it's not as reputable a source as ihaterepublicanpresidents.com or Farenheit 9/11, but you'll just have to deal with it.

You might note Luns that I was comparing Obama with Cheyney, didnt mention Dubya at all.
Truth is that I consider Bush to be a fundamentaly good man but not a particularly bright one , my feeling is that he was manipulated easily . Cheyney by contrast is a politician through and through with scant regard to truth or morality, his relationship with Haliburton was unethical and in all probability illegal.

[Woodruff]

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

The problem has nothing to do with an individual's views (mainstream or not), but rather their ability to not allow their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views. It simply requires objectivity on the part of the individual...to be able to stand outside of the situation and view it with impartiality.

If a moderator is allowing their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views (even if they are mainstream views), then there is a very real problem.

[PLAYER57832]

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

It should not matter, really.

Nightstrike is entitled to his opinion, as are we all.

I was going to edit my comment down, because I don't want it misunderstood. I see the primary reason for the bias was the beliefs of the complainers. I did at times question some thread closures or threats of closing by Nightstrike, but that is in the past. I definitely disagree with Nightstrike on many topics, but I have seen no topical bias in the moderating recently.

I have no knowledge of anything that happened outside of the public forums. On that, I only say if there are issues, they need to be dealt with admin and not here.

[notyou2]

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

The problem has nothing to do with an individual's views (mainstream or not), but rather their ability to not allow their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views. It simply requires objectivity on the part of the individual...to be able to stand outside of the situation and view it with impartiality.

If a moderator is allowing their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views (even if they are mainstream views), then there is a very real problem.

Woodruff, I have stated here we are all entitled to our opinions, but it is the position some occupy and the airing of their opinions that bothers me. I have stated that when in a position of authority restraint should be shown and you seem to disagree with this. Fair enough, lets try a hypothetical situation.

Lets assume one is in a position of authority say as a high school principal. Lets assume there is a high school newsletter published by the students with help of the adminsistration. Lets assume the principal has a weekly column in the newsletter. One week he espouses his support for:
1. homosexuality
2. the war in Iraq
3. global warming
4. his stance against revamping medicare in the US

Now repeat what you stated previously in this thread.

[pimpdave]

Some thoroughly idiotic nonsense.

Woodruff, I have stated here we are all entitled to our opinions, but it is the position some occupy and the airing of their opinions that bothers me. I have stated that when in a position of authority restraint should be shown and you seem to disagree with this. Fair enough, lets try a hypothetical situation.

Lets assume one is in a position of authority say as a high school principal. Lets assume there is a high school newsletter published by the students with help of the adminsistration. Lets assume the principal has a weekly column in the newsletter. One week he espouses his support for:
1. homosexuality
2. the war in Iraq
3. global warming
4. his stance against revamping medicare in the US

Now repeat what you stated previously in this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

Some thoroughly idiotic nonsense.

Woodruff, I have stated here we are all entitled to our opinions, but it is the position some occupy and the airing of their opinions that bothers me. I have stated that when in a position of authority restraint should be shown and you seem to disagree with this. Fair enough, lets try a hypothetical situation.

Lets assume one is in a position of authority say as a high school principal. Lets assume there is a high school newsletter published by the students with help of the adminsistration. Lets assume the principal has a weekly column in the newsletter. One week he espouses his support for:
1. homosexuality
2. the war in Iraq
3. global warming
4. his stance against revamping medicare in the US

Now repeat what you stated previously in this thread.

Sorry, but there are 2 very big differences.

First, principal tends to mean head of a school for young children. (college heads are generally deans, presidents, etc) Children have not developed critical thinking skills fully. If a principal says something, it will inherently have more weight. Not as much weight as if a parent were saying it (perhaps ), but he is an authority figure with great sway. Even though not everyone here is adult, we ought to be old enough to understand that mods are simply people like the rest of us who have been tasked with keeping forums straight.

Second, a principal, even though not directly teaching, is in the business of education. If he is in a public school, he is publically funded and has even more responsibility to ensure he is not biased except in ways mandated by the state (we live in the USA, a teacher touting worship of "mother Russia" would not be appropriate ). This is just not the case in CC. Lack is under no obligation at all to even provide an open forum. If he wanted to limit talk to people who believe little green men will come tommorrow and transport us to their homeland... its his right to do so. I would not like it and certainly would suggest it might have a negative effect on his business, but he could do that.

Now, CC has taken a stance of open discussion, allowing all sorts of input and user contribution. I (and I believe most people here) attribute a large part of CC success to that attitude. HOWEVER, as Woodruff said, what is important for maintaining that atmosphere is not that mods have one view or another, it is that they show respect for those who disagree. I do not see a current issue in that regard. I see little benefit in belaboring and "carrying a chip". Join the discussions going on regarding changes (believe you have already). That will be far more effective than carrying on this vein here.

[notyou2]

Player, I respect all opinions and listen to them, even though in the end I may not agree with them.

I said "high school" of which there are a great many players here that are of that age. A high school does not have in your words "young children". High school in most cases is comprised of students 15 to 18 years of age and 18 in many places is old enough to get married or to go to war and kill others.

As far as joining the discussion goes, I stopped posting in this thread after the OP asked me to stop, but Woodruff continued, so I felt I had to respond and show him the flaws in his argument. I would actually prefer it if a mod would break out the posts in this thread that are discussing the issue of the mods exhibiting moderation in their posts.

I will not post in this thread again on the mod issue.

[Woodruff]

Shouldn't the admins choose mods that are more mainstream in their views thus perhaps exercising "moderation" closer to the intent of the term moderator?

The problem has nothing to do with an individual's views (mainstream or not), but rather their ability to not allow their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views. It simply requires objectivity on the part of the individual...to be able to stand outside of the situation and view it with impartiality.

If a moderator is allowing their moderating judgements/actions to be influenced by their views (even if they are mainstream views), then there is a very real problem.

Woodruff, I have stated here we are all entitled to our opinions, but it is the position some occupy and the airing of their opinions that bothers me. I have stated that when in a position of authority restraint should be shown and you seem to disagree with this. Fair enough, lets try a hypothetical situation.

Lets assume one is in a position of authority say as a high school principal. Lets assume there is a high school newsletter published by the students with help of the adminsistration. Lets assume the principal has a weekly column in the newsletter. One week he espouses his support for:
1. homosexuality
2. the war in Iraq
3. global warming
4. his stance against revamping medicare in the US

Now repeat what you stated previously in this thread.

You're seriously comparing the position of principal of a high school with the position of a moderator in a newsgroup and trying to pass it off as a valid comparison? That's ludicrous on the face of it. Public funding won't allow the principal to make those sorts of statements. As far as I'm aware, this site isn't receiving public funding.

[pimpdave]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

[Woodruff]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

Oh, I see...I've used adult language when I shouldn't have. I apologize for that error. Next time I'll take into account who I'm speaking to.

[pimpdave]

this site isn't receiving public funding.

Oh, I see...I've used adult language when I shouldn't have. I apologize for that error. Next time I'll take into account who I'm speaking to.

I see, so you flame in response.

Look, I don't know how to be any clearer about this, but exactly how does this site make money? Is it from people buying premium? Is that the public?

Therefore, shouldn't this site be a little bit more concerned with encouraging people to part with their hard-earned dollars?

It isn't advertised anywhere on the site that this is a Sean Hannity worshiping Christian fellowship. What's preventing anyone from filing a lawsuit against CC for discrimination? Even if it doesn't go anywhere, it would be a big headache, and would certainly get publicity the site doesn't want.

Also, for chrissakes, what's your deal anyway? You really want to be a mod? Is that it? How fucked up would that be if you were only constantly beating this drum because your whole mission in life is to be able to ban people for looking at you with literary crossed-eyes?

[Night Strike]

No pimpdave, this site receives private money. Private citizens choose to give their money to the site. Public money comes from the taxpayers, and school official are prohibited from pushing their political and religious views on those they work for. Same way clergy can not endorse political candidates because of their tax exemption status.

And for the final time, stay on topic.

[pimpdave]

No pimpdave, this site receives private money. Private citizens choose to give their money to the site. Public money comes from the taxpayers, and school official are prohibited from pushing their political and religious views on those they work for. Same way clergy can not endorse political candidates because of their tax exemption status.

And for the final time, stay on topic.

And the analogy could apply to private schools too. And in those cases, the parents who spend their money on those schools KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO WHEN ENROLLING.

Unlike here, where one is offered a game of world domination with interesting fora, only to be censored and slandered by the likes of you.

I'm so glad you're not the mod in here anymore.

Now back to Obama. I'm so glad you critics of him have to reach so hard to find things to complain about. It makes me laugh, really.

ps. Night Strike, I love how hypocritical you are. It's really funny how you engage in the off topic part of this thread (that Woodruff has been trolling big time) and then demand that people stop engaging the off topic part. Thanks for the laughs old buddy, you never cease to live up to my expectations.

[Night Strike]

Pimpdave, you're a troll. That was the only post that I made that was completely off the original topic, whereas all of yours have been. And that makes me the hypocritical one?


In on-topic news, Obama has another ally he has chosen to pay off. After the public and Senate forced Tom Daschle to withdraw from his nomination for HHS Secretary due to his failure to pay taxes, it seems like Obama has chosen to keep him around. If the public doesn't want him as an adviser to the president (because that is part of the job of the cabinet), why is he helping the white house with the health care issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/health/policy/23daschle.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Daschle&st=cse

[PLAYER57832]

I am interested in your response to this:

NOW, to get back on topic:

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

Sorry, but I fail to see how Obama hiring "friends" (won't even dispute the relationship for this discussion -- let's just say they were best friends), to construct an ad campaign admittedly putting forward his views, is somehow to be compared with the Bush administration allowing private contractors to act as mercenaries -- mercenaries who commited very henious acts. Acts far worse than what the US military, but with far less oversight -- a fact that, by all accounts was absolutely intentional (that is, they hired Blackwater to do dirty work so the military would not be so sullied). WE know the difference, but most of Iraq never did.

Add to that corruption, overcharges, etc... some money repaid, some not. Even the money involved with Blackwater is so much more the comparison to this ad campaign is just silly. And, its not as if Bush had no controversial ad campaigns himself. (that would be a fairer comparison)

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

OK, ever look off the shores of California, in the Gulf of Mexico? Know anything of the biology and importance to the US ECONOMY of those regions? I do. California already has oil rigs up the ying-yang. There is a "blank" space up off the north coast, but you are also talking about strange currents, methane pockets, earthquake faults, etc. The cost of drilling up there is HUGE. Not only that, but the fisheries in those areas -- salmon once so plentiful it fed many a depression family who could not afford other meat. Those fisheries have finally begun to rebound. So, too many other industries. (I CAN get into much, much more detail, but I won't here).

I admittedly don't know that much about the Brazilian drilling sites. However, to allow them to damage their country is not exactly against our interests, even if it is perhaps not the nicest thing for us to do. The jobs from those wells there are not going to be as significant as the potential benefit from the oil we will almost certainly get as a result.

[Night Strike]

Sorry, but I don't know the details to every point/counter-point. I just know that when we have a 9.4% unemployment rate, the government should be supporting drilling in US territory rather than foreign territory. Even the state of California included a plan to open up more off-shore drilling sites in order to help bring their deficits under control, but once the environmentalists got involved, the provision was either dropped or blocked (I forgot which one). I don't know about the mercenary abuses in Iraq because I've never studied them. My analogy was comparing Cheney's ties to Halliburton with Rahm's ties to these advertisers. They're both making money off the decisions and policies of the federal government, but only 1 received a large outcry of attention.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but I don't know the details to every point/counter-point. I just know that when we have a 9.4% unemployment rate, the government should be supporting drilling in US territory rather than foreign territory. Even the state of California included a plan to open up more off-shore drilling sites in order to help bring their deficits under control, but once the environmentalists got involved, the provision was either dropped or blocked (I forgot which one). I don't know about the mercenary abuses in Iraq because I've never studied them. My analogy was comparing Cheney's ties to Halliburton with Rahm's ties to these advertisers. They're both making money off the decisions and policies of the federal government, but only 1 received a large outcry of attention.

I'll make it very simple. Drilling would cost the US more... give us fewer jobs, offer us fewer benefits than NOT drilling. And would deplete what oil resources we have even faster.

Someday, the need will be greater and the technology better, allowing us to get that oil without harm and for greater return. Now is not that time.


Per Cheney/Rahm -- that Cheny benefitted would only have been a small issue if it were not for the extreme abuses excercised by Blackwater.

The mercenary abuses.. the part you say you never studied IS the critical part. That is why they are different.

Beyond that, there is a difference between rewarding a friend who helped Obama in the past with a contract and giving almost exclusive contract rights in a supposedly newly freed country, to a company directly tied to the Vice President. Blackwater and that whole contracting process are big reasons why Iraq was not rebuilt, are a big reason for the anger against us. Its about much more than just money.

[Anarkistsdream]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

[Timminz]

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Truth. Some people already know, and the rest would just continue to ignore it.

[Night Strike]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Oops, sorry that they don't call town hall protesters racist or stupid. They don't call people "tea-baggers". Basically, they are the ones actually discussing and investigating issues, not attacking people who don't praise Obama. Major Garrett investigated the spam emails coming from the White House, Glenn Beck has extensively researched ACORN and the czars, and O'Reilly continues on with the No-Spin Zone (top rated show in all of cable news). So, if you're going to attack the source of the information, you're going to have to actually provide facts (because that's what Fox reports).

[got tonkaed]

Pretty much everyone everywhere posts things that are "facts" so to speak. Given that most arguments are not statements of conditions but rather statements of policy or judgement, saying that someone is out there doing "just the facts" isnt actually a statement of condition to begin with. At that point, its rather simple to point out what you choose to view as a better argument because of its grounding in facts, has no bearing on what anyone else chooses to do. Goes for everyone as it were. But to argue that someone is not doing that, especially given the last two examples you gave, seems to be misunderstanding the issue.