Last year,
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized for the race-baiting tactics that members of his party used for decades to court white voters in Southern states.

Last week, he started backsliding.
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061031/cm_usatoday/adechoesgopssouthernstrategy)

I don't know how voters in Tennessee will react to the GOP's bigoted ad. It's hard to tell in a contest as close as this one what might influence the outcome

I saw the ad, but I think you'd have to be extraordinarily sensitive (dare I say paranoid?) to pick up on it. This reminds me of Jerry Falwell calling a tele-tubby gay. Is the tele-tubby gay? Who the **** knows? But no one would have thought twice until they called attention to it. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough to pick up on subtle things like this. I do think anyone that is that tweaked to see racism in that ad isn't going to be "swayed" one way or another.

Personally, I thought the ad's main message was that Harold Ford wasn't for traditional moral values, ergo, he went to Playboy parties. I think in the Playboy mansion you will find supermodels of every race, color or creed. The whole racism thing seems strained here, or are they really saying Hugh Hefner only employs white bunnies?!

No, they're saying that the ad will play upon Southern white men's dislike of black men dating "their women".

I wouldnt have even picked up on it, but i'm not from the south either!

I saw the ad, and that's a total BS opinion. The ad in question merely shows a white woman saying she met him at a playboy party, then at the end saying "call me." The ad is referencing the fact that he had attended a Playboy party but denied it in the press before finally admitting to it later. You have to stretch your imagination to even think it is.

How about commenting on Liberal Dems throwing Oreo Cookies at Michael Steele, photoshopping Lieberman in blackface, and calling black republicans Uncle Tom? These are blatant and obvious forms of race-baiting.

Try getting off your high horse now and then and smell the race-baiting in your own party.

I saw that ad on a talk show and I have to say that I think the media are racist...

I saw that ad on a talk show and I have to say that I think the media are racist...
Its risk vs reward. They post these things to draw attention to themselves, as long as the backlash is not too harsh. Most media I see nowadays dont even pretend to hide thier bias. (Then again they may never have and I may just be seeing it for the first time within the last few years.)

Its risk vs reward. They post these things to draw attention to themselves, as long as the backlash is not too harsh. Most media I see nowadays dont even pretend to hide thier bias. (Then again they may never have and I may just be seeing it for the first time within the last few years.)

I do not know how much it is true, though it is the third 'report' I have seen these past few weeks about the American media pretty much having given up any pretense at objectivity and are now merely stating opinion along political lines as if it were fact.

I find it hard to belief that this is actually true, but if it is then that is a very worrying sign. Lack of objective information means that people can only base their opinions on biased sources and this almost inevitably leads to people gravitating towards those sources exclusively that tell them what they already belief is true. Rather than thinking for themselves they base their understanding on faith (not necessarily religious faith, but the 'accepting without proof' kind of faith). Given how divisive American politics are it is not a good thing when people start ignoring the arguments of the other side other than as automatic lies. It makes the (political) opposition absolute enemies (thus ruling out the possibility of compromise) and has in the past in many countries eventually led to civil war.
I am not convinced the dynamics of American culture will allow the same thing (i.e. civil war) to happen, but even fostering a feeling of "us and they" and especially creating a permanent situation where half the population (regardless of who last won the elections) feels "the enemy" controls the government can not be healthy in the long run.


Eri

I think the media jumps onto whatever band wagon is passing by. Before the Iraq war they wouldn't scrutinize or question anything the administration was doing because the Band Wagon du Jour was Patriotism. Now the pendulum has swung.

I do not know how much it is true, though it is the third 'report' I have seen these past few weeks about the American media pretty much having given up any pretense at objectivity and are now merely stating opinion along political lines as if it were fact.

I find it hard to belief that this is actually true, but if it is then that is a very worrying sign. Lack of objective information means that people can only base their opinions on biased sources and this almost inevitably leads to people gravitating towards those sources exclusively that tell them what they already belief is true. Rather than thinking for themselves they base their understanding on faith (not necessarily religious faith, but the 'accepting without proof' kind of faith). Given how divisive American politics are it is not a good thing when people start ignoring the arguments of the other side other than as automatic lies. It makes the (political) opposition absolute enemies (thus ruling out the possibility of compromise) and has in the past in many countries eventually led to civil war.
I am not convinced the dynamics of American culture will allow the same thing (i.e. civil war) to happen, but even fostering a feeling of "us and they" and especially creating a permanent situation where half the population (regardless of who last won the elections) feels "the enemy" controls the government can not be healthy in the long run.


Eri

Its whoever can scream the loudest. People have thier favorite papers, thier favorite stations, etc. They typically dont watch too much else because they grow accustomed to thier daily routines.

I will give you an example. The Daily Show a few days ago. Did a piece on Kerry sticking his foot in his mouth, then clarifying his first error by sticking his other foot in his mouth. They cracked some jokes but then they went on to Bush's response, and put more emphisis on that, as well as the funnier jokes.

All the info may be put out, but you can bet bias dictates which gets the most press, and what reported, and what is sold to the audience.

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/11/joncarry.jpg

It'd be a lot funnier if they were wearing GBW masks.

It'd be a lot funnier if they were wearing GBW masks.
Even funnier is reality. Where Kerry says that he was talking about Bush yet his own academic career was no better if not slightly worse (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/). So, go figure.

At least he didn't ditch his military obligation. :p

At least he didn't ditch his military obligation. :p
Got proof? Maybe Dan Rather can help you there.

The notable thing with Kerry, is that he thinks he is part of an aristocracy.

He has always wanted to be a knight in King JFK's Camelot.

He really does think you are all just like the peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail, "There's a lovely piece of filth over here, Dennis.."

Riding his trusted warhorse PT 109. Officership in the military, for him only the nobellesse oblige of the lordly lot.

I actually believe that he believes his own crap.

Got proof? Maybe Dan Rather can help you there.

Oh, maybe the fact that he earned commendations and medals for his service in combat in Vietnam...or is the GOP attempting to rewrite history again?

The notable thing with Kerry, is that he thinks he is part of an aristocracy.

He has always wanted to be a knight in King JFK's Camelot

He really does think you are all just like the peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail, "There's a lovely piece of filth over here, Dennis.."

Wow...you would suggest this of Kerry and completely ignore the neigh on Monarchial attributes of George Bush II would be King of all the land?

Riding his trusted warhorse PT 109. Officership in the military, for him only the nobellesse oblige of the lordly lot.

At least he believes he has some obligation...whereas Bush seems to think the peasantry of America exist solely to make him and his Dukes of Industry more wealthy.

Oh, maybe the fact that he earned commendations and medals for his service in combat in Vietnam...or is the GOP attempting to rewrite history again?

Bush earned medals in Vietnam? Oooh, you mean Kerry. Too bad I actually didn't mention or even refer Kerry's military service.

Edit: Sorry Aid, I can see where you misunderstood my post. I was refering to Dan Rather's evidence of Bush and the military. I wasn't going anywhere near Kerry's record on that. While I have issues with lots of what Kerry said happened in Vietnam, I never questioned that he served.

Well, I haven't entirely read this but I've sure heard enough about GBW's use of his connections to get things like drunk driving records expunged to believe there's something going on. A whole lot of smoke might indicate there's a fire. And I saw a very convincing interview of a woman who was the secretary to the commander in the unit he served in that claimed that document that Dan Rather reported on was true in content. And that she had typed something virtually identical to what was presented.

The AWOL Project (http://www.glcq.com/) looks a bit like Swiftfox's kind of web site.

I'd consider the allegations to be highly likely, if not exactly proven.

Well, I haven't entirely read this but I've sure heard enough about GBW's use of his connections to get things like drunk driving records expunged to believe there's something going on. A whole lot of smoke might indicate there's a fire.

Almost as bad as my Sentor's history of Drunk driving and using his family influence to get away with it.

And I saw a very convincing interview of a woman who was the secretary to the commander in the unit he served in that claimed that document that Dan Rather reported on was true in content. And that she had typed something virtually identical to what was presented.
It was convincing because you wanted to be convinced.
CBS located and interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who was a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956 to 1979, and Colonel Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. According to Knox, she did not type the memos and the memos were not written by Killian, though she believed they reflected the truth about Lieutenant Bush.[55] She also stated she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard.[57] Referring to the disputed memos, Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."

That's not very convincing.


I'd consider the allegations to be highly likely, if not exactly proven.
Of course you do.

Wow...you would suggest this of Kerry and completely ignore the neigh on Monarchial attributes of George Bush II would be King of all the land?

That is a interesting analysis.

You are so stuck in your own two party mentality, that that is all you see.

Oh, maybe the fact that he earned commendations and medals for his service in combat in Vietnam...or is the GOP attempting to rewrite history again?

You must have forgotten in 1999 when Kerry admitted to committing Mai Lai type war crimes. And said that all the troops he was with did as well.

That is a interesting analysis.

You are so stuck in your own two party mentality, that that is all you see.

I would suggest you're so stuck on hating anything Democrat, and your apparent love affair with Bush, that for a libertarian, you're awefully willing to allow His Imperial Majesty Bush the Mediocre to use the ubiquitous "foreign enemy" to gut our rights in the interest increasing his power.

You must have forgotten in 1999 when Kerry admitted to committing Mai Lai type war crimes. And said that all the troops he was with did as well.


/eyeroll.

Way to pull things out of your rear. This is exactly why I will never be a Libertarian. All of you crazy ****ers rely on ridiculous exageration or outright lies. In many ways you're worse than Republicans, who are at least honest in the fact that they are heartless bastards who want to rape America and turn her into a Theocratic Police State.

Libertarians pretend to be interest in civil liberties, when in the end they are happy to give up any liberty...they simply don't want to pay taxes.

In many ways you're worse than Republicans, who are at least honest in the fact that they are heartless bastards who want to rape America and turn her into a Theocratic Police State.
I think this might be the funniest thing Aidon has ever said. :D

That quote and that rant have no connection.

I suppose that was on purpose.


To answer your question(well what I infer as a question), theft of my labor and time is a loss of liberty.

We use to call that slavery, and was considered a bad thing.

But Liberals like you are perfectly ok with the fact that I am a slave for only 40% of the time. For generally, they are the arbiters of what the government gets to do with the product of my labor.

I think that is rather honest, don't you? For every one liberty taken by Conservatives, 30 of them have been raped by Liberals. Don't bitch to me, that I pick out you commies more than the religious fascists. If I am sending 40% of my income to pay for your lazy assed welfare programs compared and contrasted with maybe my daughter has to sing God Bless America in school, of course my slavery to you is going to be more of a sticking point. They both are, just one more than the other.

And don't bitch to me that you can't distinguish the difference between my satire, and traditionally core values of Libertarians. You are so closed minded to any opinions outside your party approved dogma, it would not make any difference anyway. You love the fact that I get ass raped by the IRS(and every other taxing agency) every paycheck, but cry about some poor American Rashid Al'Kaboom being put on an airline watchlist, or having his phones tapped. You are not buying any influence from me, and I sure as **** know that Rashid would love to stick a grenade up your ass, and pull the pin.

I suppose your love of spending my money and engineering my behaviors is just greater than your fear of them. Thank ya Massa, mees lubs da 60 percen yu lemme keep. Yu a gud massa.

I would suggest you're so stuck on hating anything Democrat, and your apparent love affair with Bush, that for a libertarian, you're awefully willing to allow His Imperial Majesty Bush the Mediocre to use the ubiquitous "foreign enemy" to gut our rights in the interest increasing his power.

Honestly, I am not really afraid of him, he is incompetent for the most part.

And when he gets lamed duck these last two years, I will even be less afraid of him.

He does not affect me or my life negatively. He does not affect it at all.

The rights you Commies have gutted affect me personally, day to day, than anything that he has done.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

To answer your question(well what I infer as a question), theft of my labor and time is a loss of liberty.You libertarians are even more messed up than I had imagined.

No one's stealing your time or labor; just the money you are given. Money which you are only capable of acquiring because of all of the benefits of society built on taxes.

We as a society are even extra nice to you, because we'll give you free stuff and services even if you don't contribute a dime.

If you like, though, you can reject society and go live in the wild. There are inhabitable places on the planet where you can try to survive on your own and not have to pay taxes.