Today hosts Dick Morris, who says people are debating whether Obama will be seen as "sleeper agent"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Today, Dick Morris asserted: "[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent?" Morris has previously stated that "the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system."
On the June 24 edition of NBC's Today, Fox News contributor Dick Morris asserted, "[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future?" Morris added, referring to his new book -- co-written with Eileen McGann -- "What we really do is we take what he said he'd do as president and really lay it out there." As Media Matters for America noted, on the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Morris stated: "And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright's views?"
On the June 10 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, Morris said, "[T]he question that plagues Obama is ... Is he pro-American?" Additionally, Media Matters has documented several media figures discussing whether Obama will be viewed as a "Manchurian Candidate."
From the June 24 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: It's a catchy title, but it might -- it might cause some people to say, "But, what's the main point?" What's your -- what's your main point you're trying to get across?
MORRIS: Well, there are about 10 or 20 of them, but the first chapter is probably the most important, which is that this whole debate about what kind of president Obama would make has swirled around an almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future? What we really do is we take what he said he'd do as president and really lay it out there.
LAUER: And you lay it out there with some pretty catchy words.
Several times in the past, I have posted a responce to many of the Toe-Suckers many appearances over at Fox Noise......
In those many posts, I had always said.... Only on Fox (can we find Dick Morris spewing his idiocy...... and that only Fox could be so pathetic to give this sleezeball time in front of a camera....
Guess I was wrong!
Hey genius - the telecoms BROKE THE LAW. They knew (from their lawyers) that they were BREAKING THE LAW. And yet, they still BROKE THE LAW.
This immunity is not only for the telecoms, its for congress (including Dems) to cover their own a**.
Did the intern put themselves in the wrong situation?
OK, I'll play along. Did the intern have a small army of high-priced lawyers to advise her?
Also there's this little thing that everyone should know about - THE CONSTITUTION. This so-called "post-9/11 mindset" is no excuse.
The poor telecomm companies. They paid these high priced lawyers to keep them out of trouble. The lawyers told them it was shaky and probably illegal. Yet only one company heeded that advice (Qwest). And they have had problems with the Administration ever since.
They broke the law. They violated the U.S. Constitution ! Did I miss something here? So how do you justify immunity for a lawbreakers. If I drove my buddy after he robs a 7-11, my defense could be that he told me to do it. Read the Constitution and then get back to us.
Of course, the absolute stupidity of this whole concept in no way precludes its unquestioned acceptance by the ignorant rubes that comprise the GOP base.
I suspect Freedonia.
Sort of makes one wonder what Lauer was letting Morris do to him in the green room before the shoot...
After all, he was held as a prisoner of war in Asia and tort...
Oh, wait, it was the other guy who was a prisoner. Never-mind.
Hey Dickless, If you've got to make lame analogies to great movies, at least get the analogy right.
I know Real Americans don't care about what anybody else in the world thinks about anything, but it's bits like this that always remind me that nutjobs like Dick Morris are seen, through Fox & other networks, all over the world.
And that's M-F'in embarrasing to me.We're supposed to be this Superpower, a nation at the forefront in technology and enlightenment, and we've got Morris treated as a respected commentator, promoting the idea that a significant percentage of the American voting populace is batsh*t deranged enough to believe that a senator from Illinois is a secret terrorist. Mind-boggling.
I know you're right, LWC, it's just tough to accept. We have the resources, almost everybody in this country has some access to actual news, to the internets, all they need to do is pull up those bootstraps and think a little.
Tough to admit that there are that many who will let Dick Morris & Rush Limbaugh do the thinking for them.The far right is spitting on the American ideals of excellence and self-sufficiency.
You two couldn't be more off base. I view our acceptance and freedom to allow all sorts of views and opinions from the ridiculous, to this crap from Morris, to the sane and substantive, as a strength, not a weakness. It is to our credit and to our resilience that we do not stifle or filter a free expression of ideas.
Would you rather there be some censoring of people like Morris, or other comparable voices on the other end of the spectrum? I am sure you don't.
Just look at the candidacy of Barack Obama, the fact that he is the Democratic nominee and has an excellent shot at being our next President.....that illustrates our strength as a nation, and even if you oppose him for the job he is seeking, we all should be proud.
Embrace the idiots and the ignorant, says Tommy. Wow.
Good for you, Tommy. And if , tonight,a national network news program has on some escaped mental patient who is considering the possibility that John McCain is a magical evil demon sent by Satan in the disguise of an old man to destroy America, you'll get a tear in your eye, and think "God bless America!"
And if it turns out that this mental patient is able to win over a sizable number of the American voters to his position, you'll be swelling with pride. I was really off base.
the writers need to be challenged and they need to back up their claims with more than "some people say".
And do what? What if they thumb their nose at you and say "No"?
Then their credibility is shot. If you can't back up your claims, or at least provide substantive analysis that actually makes sense, then you shouldn't be allowed on the public airwaves. It's a matter of trust. If someone out there trusts Dick Morris and he makes wild and substantive claims with no basis in fact, then that person is misinformed and, in my opinion at least, that hurts America. An informed electorate is essential to any democracy.
Oh, and more to your point. I believe this man should get a shot to make his case as President.
http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/Policies.html
and why not? He is a minority opinion, why can't he let his policies be heard on Fox?
I'm sure they'd love this one:
"11. To prove the United States of America has two Presidents and I am one of them Jurisdiction in Eye Spy Community-Military Intelligence (All Three) Government # 1 in Business and Commerce Intelligence National and International."
Do you see what we're saying Tommy? When you base your "analysis" on specious or clearly wrong information, that hurts America, especially if it's on the public airwaves.
But if the media is giving them airtime, the writers need to be challenged and they need to back up their claims with more than "some people say".
Exactly King. You just summed it up perfectly.
LOL - Where did you come up with THAT? Hilarious, Col.
The only point I want to make is that 99% of Americans would never come up with some of these wild assumptions about Obama on their own. They have to start from somewhere - And I've caught enough of Fox News to know that Morris is responsible for either starting or propagating more than his share. Whether it's a free speech issue or intellectual state of the nation question we should all be disappointed that THIS is what politics in America has come to - who can best convince the voters of a lie?
So, put your money where your mouth is Clams, instead of your incessant whining about the state of our media, what would you do specifically to improve it? Please tell.
And if it's the Fairness Doctrine, you won't improve anything, you will just increase the slime.
So?
I've posted about 10 times in the past 8 months, and somehow that qualifies as "incessant whining"? Got it.
My "money where my mouth is"? OK, don't look now but you are on a website that is designed to counteract the dishonesty and conservative bias in the media. That's part of the solution, which of course would make apologists like you part of the problem. Don't pretend that the Fairness Doctrine is the only way to counter conservative bias and misinformation. And do stop pretending that lies, distortions and baseless smears are "opinions" that present a fair counterbalance to the truth.
Allowing Morris to spew idiocy and lies on national television on a regular basis should not be proudly held up as some shining example of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that every dishonest slimeball gets to be on ABC for 15 minutes, and NOT inviting Morris on national television would in no way be considered censorship.
You are pathetic, and of course you won't answer. So I will ask you one more time, based on your whine here, what exactly would you do?
Your answer was this website counteracting conservative bias. Well, it's already doing that, it's here, and Morris is still spewing his stuff, now on NBC, as well as Fox.
You sure nailed that solution.
Thanks Chris, There is nobody that despises this inane crap that infiltrates our media today more than I do, but it is a byproduct of our freedoms to allow people like Morris to air his views, or sell his books, and it is NBC's right to have him on, and it is also their right to sit there and not challenge him and let him rip Obama six ways to Sunday. Of course I would love to see him taken to task for his idiocy, but wishing it was so doesn't make it so. So I just wanted to know what certain people would do about it, and basically was told the same thing over and over - "Lauer and the rest should do..........."
Voicing our opposing opinion is the best way, and why we should celebrate freedoms and the fact that those like Morris are allowed to say what they will. We may not like it that he says, but someday we will be grateful when our side is afforded the same freedoms to say what we want.
Informed people know who Morris is and what he does.
He's a terrorist and he's hoping for (and planning?) another attack on America like the McCain Campaign hopes for?
Allowing Morris to spew idiocy and lies on national television on a regular basis should not be proudly held up as some shining example of free speech.
Allowing? Sorry Clams that comes close to suggesting censorship.
King [read his post above] made the best point I've read here thus far:
"But if the media is giving them airtime, the writers need to be challenged and they need to back up their claims with more than "some people say"."
Now isn't that better than suggesting some folks shouldn't be allowed to appear on national television?
That's it Jeter. People like Clams would love to see Morris censored, he is just too much of a wimp to admit it, so he and some others here hide behind theory and how the news media "should" act. It's all hollow baloney.
If Clams had a shred of honesty, he would fess up to his calls for censorship and stop trying to act cute, I know exactly what he wants.
Then what is it about?, I have been asking for specifics on what to do with the Lauers of the world who are derelict in their duty, but nobody can tell me - except to say "he should do this or that".
What is your answer?
"You're asking for authoritarian solutions from people who don't share your authoritarian view of the world."
VERY GOOD!
"Now isn't that better than suggesting some folks shouldn't be allowed to appear on national television?"
Jeter, I think as far as Dick Morris goes, he's lost all credibility to be fair to the facts. I don't think Clams was suggesting "some folks" I think he was just suggesting Dick Morris.
It's like Tom Delay's Saipan Sex Tour, in which he called the sweatshop laborers who forced poor Chinese immigrants into prostitution and forced them to have abortions "A shining example of democracy." After all that went down, should we now listen to Tom Delay on matters of international relations? Don't you think his prism of insight would be slightly skewed?
D,
I believe the networks should invite whomever they want as guests but that they challenge those guests if they spout off anything ludicrous, false, or questionable.
Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris because he generally offers little of worth...not because I wanted to keep him off the air for his beliefs/opinions.
Clams [and a few others here] keep talking about not ALLOWING certain folks on. Sorry but that smacks of censorship or the banning of certain voices because you don't like what they have to say.
Again King said it best: "But if the media is giving them airtime, the writers need to be challenged and they need to back up their claims with more than "some people say".
"Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris because he generally offers little of worth"
You probably won't see this, but I agree he offers little of worth, and I'd say that that's true across the board for 90% of Americans, at least. So why does he keep getting invited on? The "Marketplace of ideas" should have pushed him to the side by now.
D,
It seems to me there are so many more interesting guests out there that these shows could book, but for whatever reason Morris still shows up on the Today Show & of course FOX. Ever catch him anywhere else? I haven't.
Morris hasn't written or offered much of anything interesting/worthwhile in years so I'm not sure why he still makes the "guest list". It seems to me there has to be far more relevant folks out there to interview.
Don't forget Morris was the guy who wrote an entire book about how the 2008 Presidential contest would be Clinton vs Rice Ha! He didn't even get it half right ;-)
I know! which makes me believe that a for-profit media doesn't have the best interests of the public in mind because it's not a free marketplace.
And this coming from someone who works within that for-profit media.
"I believe the networks should invite whomever they want as guests but that they challenge those guests if they spout off anything ludicrous, false, or questionable...Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris because he generally offers little of worth...not because I wanted to keep him off the air for his beliefs/opinions."
So who exactly is suggesting he shouldn't be on the air because of his beliefs or opinions?
"Clams [and a few others here] keep talking about not ALLOWING certain folks on. Sorry but that smacks of censorship or the banning of certain voices because you don't like what they have to say."
Sorry, Jeter, but this is just ridiculous. "Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris..." Please do explain how that is different from not ALLOWING him onto your network. How is that not "banning" him because you find what he has to say worthless?
I think you're putting words in people's mouths here. When you want standards that prevent idiots like Morris from being on the air, that's just fine, but when someone else says he shouldn't be on the air then it's because they don't like his political views. Where the hell do you get that from?
Sorry, Jeter, but this is just ridiculous. "Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris..." Please do explain how that is different from not ALLOWING him onto your network. How is that not "banning" him because you find what he has to say worthless?
Aw Brab why not post my complete sentence:
Were I running a network I wouldn't waste my time with Morris because he generally offers little of worth...not because I wanted to keep him off the air for his beliefs/opinions
Brab, I would think that if a network books a particular guest they would expect that guest to offer something worthwhile/interesting to add to whatever topic to be discussed. But that's a hell of a lot different than not allowing someone on because you disagree with their opinion.
And as far as certain folks here not liking, wanting or approving of Morris or other Cons getting air-time because they don't agree with their political views...come on Brab, half the carping that goes on here is over this very subject. Hell even MMFA bean counts for us now & then. And yes before you chime in: they probably wouldn't carp as much if the media would challenge their opinions. On that we agree.
Based on what? Where is the evidence that all the complaints about conservatives lying and making inflammatory comments are really just about silencing opposing viewpoints?
Really, if you think you can make this sort of comment without any backup, then you can't very well complain when people say that you get paid to derail threads here. Fair is fair.
It's not a plan. It's up to the networks to enforce their own standards. People can give feedback to encourage that, of course, but I don't know what else you think is workable either.
"Code words"? What are you smoking today?
Aw, Jeter, why not read a complete sentence? I said "How is that not 'banning' him because you find what he has to say worthless?" I didn't misrepresent what you said at all, and I resent the implication. How is not putting Morris on your network different from not allowing him on your network?
"Brab, I would think that if a network books a particular guest they would expect that guest to offer something worthwhile/interesting to add to whatever topic to be discussed. But that's a hell of a lot different than not allowing someone on because you disagree with their opinion."
Your argument here seems to be that the word "allowing" somehow suggests that it is only related to matters of agreement or disagreement with opinion. I don't see where you get that from. If a network is upholding standards then anyone that doesn't meet those standards is not allowed on the air. Explain how my use of "allowed" in that sentence is incorrect, please.
"And as far as certain folks here not liking, wanting or approving of Morris or other Cons getting air-time because they don't agree with their political views...come on Brab, half the carping that goes on here is over this very subject. Hell even MMFA bean counts for us now & then. And yes before you chime in: they probably wouldn't carp as much if the media would challenge their opinions. On that we agree."
You're just putting more words into more mouths. Who disapproves of conservatives going on the air because they're conservative? It's about honesty and fairness. I expect you can paste dozens of posts from people to justify the claim that "half" of the carping here is about any conservative being allowed on the air regardless of their behavior. As for "bean-counting", a complaint about an imbalance does not suggest that there shouldn't be any conservatives on television.
Brab,
You're a good guy but I don't have the time to delve into minutia with ya...I'm at work.
Bottom line: If I was in charge of booking guests I wouldn't care what their political bent was, I'd simply try to get the most interesting guests. That doesn't mean I'm banning anyone. I'm simply opting for guests that are more entertaining or stimulating & would be of interest to my audience. Morris is a redundant bore, IMO. But since I don't run a network or book guests for any of them you need not worry...Others here are questioning why certain guests with a different point of view are allowed airtime. That smacks of banning for one's opinion.
Apples & Oranges Brab.
"If I was in charge of booking guests I wouldn't care what their political bent was, I'd simply try to get the most interesting guests. That doesn't mean I'm banning anyone. I'm simply opting for guests that are more entertaining or stimulating & would be of interest to my audience."
Any discrimination requires not allowing certain people on the air. And again, there's the bit about someone making this about political philosophy, while you can't explain how anyone said anything about that at all.
"Morris is a redundant bore, IMO. But since I don't run a network or book guests for any of them you need not worry...Others here are questioning why certain guests with a different point of view are allowed airtime. That smacks of banning for one's opinion."
How, exactly? You're making a rather serious accusation here and you're not showing how you think it's justified. Again, read the sentence in bold from my previous post and explain to me how my use of "allowed" is inappropriate. If you can't do that, then you are accusing people of advocating censorship based on political belief here without any merit at all.
I don't consider that "minutia". I don't consider your suggestion that I misrepresented what you said "minutia" either. You can call me a "good guy" all day long, but that's not going to make me accept your baseless insinuations about me or anyone else here.
Brab,
How many times have you read a poster say: He/She [fill in any Con] shouldn't be allowed on the radio,tv etc...or shouldn't have a column in any newspaper. Or suggestions to write to networks or editors to have folks removed from the airwaves or print.
I've seen it said about O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Dowd [and she ain't even a Con]...and others.
If you are having temporary amnesia about this then nothing I write will mean squat.
And Brab, I'm not going to spend the afternoon attempting to convince you of what you should already know has been written here.
That's not the point, though. You have to show how they're saying that just because those people are conservative. Otherwise it's about upholding standards and not allowing those people on the air because they are liars, idiots and flamethrowers. In other words, because they offer little of worth.
Still waiting for you to own up for your insinuations about me misrepresenting you, if you have time for such "minutia".
Of little worth to me means a bore. Or someone who adds nothing interesting or meaningful to the conversation. Or is redundant. It has nada to do with political bent or whether or not someone offers up a controversial idea or statement.
Morris falls under the category of dull & tedious, but I never suggested he be banned...I simply said I would opt for more interesting guests were I in charge of booking appearances. I'd book Limbaugh in a hot minute! Or Coulter! If others want Morris, good for them.
Folks here want to cut off Limbaugh's microphone because they don't like his views, which are Conservative & sometimes controversial. They want Coulter to lose her column because they feel offended by her remarks. Of course no matter what Limbaugh says, or Coulter writes, offensive or not, you guys react the same way...
Face it Brab, almost everything a Con says is pounced on simply because it doesn't match a Libs viewpoint.
As far as you misrepresenting me goes...my beef was that you didn't post my entire sentence, leaving out : not because I wanted to keep him off the air for his beliefs/opinions"
Omitting this changed the entire point of the sentence.
"Of little worth to me means a bore. Or someone who adds nothing interesting or meaningful to the conversation. Or is redundant. It has nada to do with political bent or whether or not someone offers up a controversial idea or statement. Morris falls under the category of dull & tedious, but I never suggested he be banned...I simply said I would opt for more interesting guests were I in charge of booking appearances. I'd book Limbaugh in a hot minute! Or Coulter! If others want Morris, good for them."
You would still leave Morris off of your network. He would therefore not be allowed on the air. Your personal standards of "worth" don't have to match up to those of the networks, either. They shouldn't have flamethrowers like Coulter on because she's irresponsible and poisons the dialogue. Morris shouldn't be on the air because he's incredibly dishonest.
"Folks here want to cut off Limbaugh's microphone because they don't like his views, which are Conservative & sometimes controversial. They want Coulter to lose her column because they feel offended by her remarks. Of course no matter what Limbaugh says, or Coulter writes, offensive or not, you guys react the same way..."
We react that way with people who have long histories of making controversial and false comments. So what? As if it's a great coincidence that the people we want out of the discourse are the ones who show up here time and time again. Sure, they behave disgracefully, but we just want them off the air because they're conservative. Ridiculous.
"As far as you misrepresenting me goes...my beef was that you didn't post my entire sentence, leaving out : not because I wanted to keep him off the air for his beliefs/opinions"...Omitting this changed the entire point of the sentence."
Are you kidding me? I've asked several times for you to justify how "allowed" suggests it's about beliefs or opinions. It's not like I ignored that. You said you would not put Morris on the air, saying that you wouldn't do it out of political prejudice doesn't change that in any way. The whole point is that nobody else suggested they wanted it for any other reason than Morris's worth either, so there's no difference between their sentiments and yours.
Would you rather there be some censoring of people like Morris, or other comparable voices on the other end of the spectrum? I am sure you don't.
Which, of course, doesn't stop you from implying (by the very act of asking the question) that we do support censoring opposing ideas. I see you've gotten your recommended daily allowance of Fox News already today...
What we want is for those people in the media who help shape public opinion not let fatuous garbage like that which Lauer let Morris foist over the public airwaves go unchallenged. Instead of effectively complimenting Morris on his "lively words," why not do some actual work and instead ask him just what he meant by calling Obama a "Manchurian candidate" and, just, by the by, what evidence if any he has for making the assertion. If he wants to call Obama a sleeper agent, how about asking him for some proof instead of just letting him throw out accustaions ad libitum? How about practicing real journalism instead of being the broadcast equivalent of the Weekly World News?...
I don't want the media to help shape public opinion, maybe you do, not me.
Face it, you all just can't stand opposing opinions and treat them with disdain because they don't follow your ideology. Well, too bad - take it up with the framers of the constitution.
I don't want the media to help shape public opinion(Tommy)
Anyhting else you don't want? Ice to be cold? Bears to sh*t in the woods?
Oh do please drop the deliberate-obtuseness horses**t, Tommy--I did in the post above! If you're interviewing a guest who is making outrageous claims, ask them to back it the hell up! Exactly what part of that is slipping past you?
Oh, forget it. You don't get the point nor do you want to. Fine--when someone goes on Today to shill their book theorizing that McCain is the Antichrist and Lauer lets him bloviate on it until Hell freezes over and gets the Nashville Predators, I fully expect you to do two things--shut. And up.
Well, you can running back to Hannity now...sheesh. What was I saying about stupidity?...
The answer is simple, Tommy. If the journalist isn't doing his/her job properly, you FIRE him/her. To me, doing the job properly would be to at least try to extract truth and probe deeper into complex issues.
Lauer should have been toast LONG AGO.
"I don't want the media to help shape public opinion..."
<> By not challenging the statements made by Morris, the media is, in fact, attempting to shape public opinion, by allowing it to stand.I really didn't put in any tags there to make that small, but, so it can be read maybe:
By not challenging the statements made by Morris, the media is, in fact, attempting to shape public opinion, by letting those statements stand.
I agree with your post. Whether Tommy wants to admit it or not, the media does (help) shape public opinion. That's the whole reason for Fox News Channel. It's all propaganda. Tommy's just being disingenuous, as usual.
I also agree with Gov, LeftWingCenter, and others who've written about not "allowing" Morris (and other gasbags, right- or left-wing) on TV. The news media has a responsibility to the public. By not asking follow-ups and probing questions, they are doing their viewers a disservice.
Tommy and Jeter, Morris doesn't have a right to be on television to spout his ignorance - just as you and I don't have that right. Being on television is a privilege. Being able to spout your nonsense on television is also a privilege - while at the same time, a disservice to America. However, Morris does have the right to stand on any street corner and scream about toe-sucking as much as he wants. He can write books, he can even blog, but to not invite him on television because he's a wacky SOB is not censorship.
Now, telling Morris to shut up - and "forcing" him (in whatever way) to do so, would be censorship.
Please show me where I have ever said the what the networks allow or don't allow is censorship, that is absurd. Their decisions based on programming is not censorship.
However, when one indicates networks shouldn't be "allowing" certain things, as Clams did, that is a backdoor, stealth call for censorship.
"However, when one indicates networks shouldn't be "allowing" certain things, as Clams did, that is a backdoor, stealth call for censorship."
How? Back it up. If you admit that they have the right not to put someone on the air, then they're not allowing them on the air. So if I say that a network should exercise their right to take someone off the air because they should uphold standards, that's censorship? It's no different from saying that they shouldn't allow someone on the air.
Huh? I just did. You always go off on these tangents Brab. I have been very clear on what the government's role should be in this area. Little to none, except basic decency standards that do not go to content or opinion in any way shape of form, that are already in place. Whatever other point you are trying to make in some elementary lawyerly fashion escapes me, sorry.
You have my opinion.
"Allowing Morris to spew idiocy and lies on national television on a regular basis should not be proudly held up as some shining example of free speech"
Sorry Swee'pea, not everybody, only you. You are definitely advocating more than giving the networks free reign to set their own standards. Own it, you said it. Stealth backdoor call for censorship, that is exactly what you did.
Except you don't justify the charge you're making. What he said is completely consistent with networks enforcing their own standards. Claiming that it's "stealth backdoor" doesn't mean anything unless you can show how there's no other reasonable way to interpret it.
And you complain about Governor's behavior? You wanted me to tell you when you were behaving like that, well I'm telling you right now.
Now that's funny. When I argue with Tommy it's a "catfight" but when you argue with him it's...?
He wanted me to inform him when he was behaving in a certain way, whether you agree that you behaved that way or not. So I'm informing him. No need for you to get involved beyond that message being sent.
Please stop crying.
You're the one who complained about your name being mentioned. What am I supposedly "crying" about?
I'm talking about your charge of advocating censorship. I have no idea what that would be tangential to.
"So if I say that a network should exercise their right to take someone off the air because they should uphold standards, that's censorship? It's no different from saying that they shouldn't allow someone on the air."
There it is again. What's the difference between "a network should exercise their right to take Morris off the air in order to uphold standards" and "they shouldn't allow Morris on the air"? The latter is supposedly code for censorship, but you can't explain why.
Incidentally, after all of these arguments which hinge on a very specific yet unsupported meaning for "allow", I look forward to the next time you and Jeter talk about how liberals "parse words" when they don't have a valid argument to make. That will be absolutely hilarious.
How do you imagine that is in any way analogous to what we're talking about? Nobody's advocating Morris be pulled because he's conservative.
I've flagged people from both sides here because their posts are worthless, and some of those people have been banned. That is a better comparison, because it's about standards. People who have nothing to offer but flaming should not be allowed to post here, just like people who have nothing intelligent or honest to say shouldn't be allowed on the public airwaves. It has nothing to do with political viewpoints, despite all the baseless assertions being made to the contrary here.
Oh please, don't be naive. It has EVERYTHING to do with political viewpoints. And the simple fact that some here want those they don't like silenced, in whatever roundabout way they can get their partisan little hands on. Between trying to shutdown Fox News, to calling for networks to up their standards, it's all the same glossed over, dressed up call for government involvement.
It most certainly is.
Yes, Tommy, your baseless accusations have been duly noted. When people want standards upheld, they really just want conservatives to be censored, right. It couldn't possibly be about having a responsible media, because you say so and nothing else.
And you are getting paid to post here. You don't really have any serious WITH questions to ask, you just profit from derailing threads. You most certainly do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just naive.
Doesn't work that way for other people, now does it? Only you get to make these baseless declarations about the motivations of people you have political differences with.
The fact is both of you have detailed the symptoms but neither has offered any cure. And your cure is some government involvement but you both won't admit it, so you attack me. You don't think I get that? I have been through it all with the two of you before, this is nothing new.
Instead, you dance around it, and parse your words, you refuse to be honest and say what you believe, which is quite typical for many liberals, especially the two of you.
I have been around you both long enough to know when you both start attacking and posting wildly trying to prop each other up, you're nervous. Sorry about that......
Whether anyone believes in government involvement or not is irrelevant to the fact that networks have their own standards and those standards should be set high. One thing doesn't influence the other. One could believe in the Fairness Doctrine and still make that argument, because the Fairness Doctrine isn't about getting Morris or any other conservative kicked off the air.
You're spouting accusations without backing them up. Where's your personal responsibility for that?
So are you proposing they implement such standards? Content censorship within their own four walks based on political truth telling? And if they fail, what do you want?
We all want high standards in all public areas, when we don't have it, we either live with it or involve the government to correct it or oversee it somehow, I suppose? What do you propose in the area of political analysis?
"What you are "wanting" is that networks enforce their standards based on content. You want them to monitor content accordingly by monitoring some level of truthfulness with regard to political discussion and analysis. And so what if they don't? As in what is happening now. As far as I know they have no such monitoring system in place to determine political truthfulness. But that isn't good enough for you, is it?"
If the networks don't act responsibly, then there's no direct remedy for that. People should put as much pressure on them as they can.
"So are you proposing they implement such standards? Content censorship within their own four walks based on political truth telling? And if they fail, what do you want?"
I'm not proposing anything.
"We all want high standards in all public areas, when we don't have it, we either live with it or involve the government to correct it or oversee it somehow, I suppose? What do you propose in the area of political analysis?"
Let me get this straight, you want people to pressure networks and sponsors in order to maintain quality, and that's "living with it"? You yourself listed ways you think the process should be influenced, and now you're saying that the choice is either do nothing or have government intervention. What the hell?
Why don't you just respond to yourself acting like it's me doing it? You're just about to that point already, it seems.
So when you're actively trying to change something through appropriate channels, you're "living with it"? That's an interesting definition of the phrase. Normally it means you accept things as they are.
Where am I blurring the lines between fact and opinion? I have no idea what you're talking about there.
You keep trying to ascribe some plan or sentiment about government control to people that haven't even implied anything of the sort. Quit whining because your BS tactics aren't working the way you wish they would.
I also have to add this little nugget from yesterday:
"I believe in websites like these that do much good to highlight real misinformation."
Doesn't this site arbitrate lies and distortion, with your explicit support? Aren't they monitoring your media? You agreed that what Morris said was garbage. We're complaining about something you agree is a problem, something that MMfA cites as a problem. You agree with their assessment and you think they should be monitoring the media, but our judgment is off-kilter for agreeing with them the same way you do?
Please clarify.
"You want them to monitor content accordingly by monitoring some level of truthfulness with regard to political discussion and analysis[...]As far as I know they have no such monitoring system in place to determine political truthfulness."
Boy, this is priceless stuff you're handing out here. The "system" is called journalism. Maybe you've heard of it? Are you actually unable to differentiate between fact and fiction? Do you truly see them both as valid viewpoints that nobody can prove or disprove? Because that's the position that you've backed yourself into here. Everything to you is just "opinion," and it's all deserving of the same level of consideration, isn't it? What a strange and confusing world you must live in.
"People who have nothing to offer but flaming should not be allowed to post here, just like people who have nothing intelligent or honest to say shouldn't be allowed on the public airwaves"
So says the omnipotent shade tree attorney Brabantio. So tell me, who decides what constitutes something being dishonest or not having any intelligence? Would that be you, the network, the government maybe? It doesn't matter who decides it though, because the mere act of disallowing someone air time because an entity examined their views and found them to be offensive is censorship, plain and simple. If they want to make that decision fine. But, don't call it what it isn't.
BTW if you actually take the time to read you will see that the post of mine you responded to regarded your comment "But then the network has the right to take him off as well. They have the right not to ALLOW him on the air. Why is that "censorship", then?" So the obvious question after that bit of wisdom was to hypothetically ask what if MMFA disallowd you from posting because you are liberal. The reality is that by doing so MMFA would in fact be censoring you because they find your opinion to be offensive in some manner. It really isn't that hard Brab. You don't have to over analyze everything and look for a deep or hidden meaning as if this is a freshman philosophy class.
"So says the omnipotent shade tree attorney Brabantio. So tell me, who decides what constitutes something being dishonest or not having any intelligence? Would that be you, the network, the government maybe?"
The network, influenced by the reactions of the audience. It's a subjective matter that can be determined. Remember Jimmy "the Greek"? He got fired for making racial commentary on the air. Was that the government in action? No, that was the network and the audience determining that he didn't belong on the air. It really isn't that hard...
"It doesn't matter who decides it though, because the mere act of disallowing someone air time because an entity examined their views and found them to be offensive is censorship, plain and simple. If they want to make that decision fine. But, don't call it what it isn't."
Explain the presumption that it's about "offensive views", as if it's based on political disagreement. Where are you deriving that from, exactly? If someone is fired for behavior, it's not censorship.
"BTW if you actually take the time to read you will see that the post of mine you responded to regarded your comment "But then the network has the right to take him off as well. They have the right not to ALLOW him on the air. Why is that "censorship", then?" So the obvious question after that bit of wisdom was to hypothetically ask what if MMFA disallowd you from posting because you are liberal. The reality is that by doing so MMFA would in fact be censoring you because they find your opinion to be offensive in some manner. It really isn't that hard Brab. You don't have to over analyze everything and look for a deep or hidden meaning as if this is a freshman philosophy class."
I read your post just fine. Your question was invalid for the reason I stated, that it has nothing to do with political orientation. Morris is an idiot and a liar, and that type of person from any political viewpoint should not be allowed on the air. Tell me, where in "But then the network has the right to take him off as well. They have the right not to ALLOW him on the air. Why is that "censorship", then?" is there any suggestion that it has anything to do with political views? What makes it "obvious" to ask a question about something I didn't even allude to, unless you're just making a wild and baseless assumption?
If you think it's a problem to look for deep and hidden meanings (which I have no idea how you think I'm doing here), then I expect you to chastise Jeter and Tommy for finding the hidden meaning in the "stealth backdoor code word" of "allowed". Actually it would seem you are finding the exact same hidden meaning of that word based on this very conversation.
"So tell me, who decides what constitutes something being dishonest?"
Really? You're also going to tell us that there's no way for anyone to determine the truth in any given situation? A journalists job is to relay to the public the truth of a situation through investigation and reporting. If Dick Morris makes a statement, then the journalist is supposed to ask questions in order to determine the veracity of that statement.
See, no government intervention necessary. You guys are a trip and half.
"Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future?"
Your problem is you can't differentiate between fact and opinion. This is Morris' opinion, this is not some fact he is putting out there. He could be challenged all day long and respond with all sorts of reasons why he holds this opinion, so what is the point?
All bluster from you.
"Your problem is you can't differentiate between fact and opinion."
Wow, talk about projection. Sorry, but you've already illustrated that this is one of your most basic problems. If Morris floats the idea that Obama is a sleeper agent, a real journalist would simply call bullsh*t. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? You want to write off every outrageous and baseless statement made by a conservative as just "opinion," but when the tables are turned you're crying foul and asking for proof.
So if I were to say that you seem like you might be a terrorist, would that be "honest"? If I have no basis for saying it, if I have no valid reason to believe it, it's hard to imagine you'd accept that even though it's an opinion.
Just because something isn't purely objective doesn't mean it can't be evaluated for honesty. You should know this by now.
For example, we have people demanding that religion be taught in science class because there are two scientific theories about the origin of man. There are not. There is one. The other side has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophy.
We have media outlets giving air time to whackos with ridiculous claims about senators who are secret terrorists, about veterans who were cowards, about appeasement, about how heterosexual marriages are destroyed by gay unions, about jewelry and displaying the flag. All of these points espoused by those who hide behind that flag as they push their philosophy onto the rest of society.
We need to discuss the issues of the day, but where are these issues being discussed? Surely not in the media.
The media is a swampland that needs draining before we're all infected with the diseases spread by larvae like Morris.
Face it, Worrierking,you just can't stand opposing opinions and treat them with disdain because they don't follow your ideology.
And making a distinction between ridiculous BS and real issues is just more of that "moral relativism" you moonbats are so crazy about.
You're retreating back to the censorship strawman, Tommy. My initial post was only saying that it's a little embarrassing that an idiot like Morris is taken seriously enough to be a regular guest on national TV shows.Now you think I need to offer the solution to getting rid of him?
The public gets what the public wants.I don't buy Morris' books or subscribe to his newsletter ,because I'm not insane. I'm doing what I can , as one person, to eliminate the demand for his propaganda.
Strange that you're impressed by and proud of the fact that Morris is as popular as he is, but I'm supposed to have a master plan for doing away with others like you simply because I'm not impressed by Morris.
Get over it Colonel, you and the rest here whining about Morris and how he should be asked this or that to be challenged, but then when you are asked how to implement your grievances, none of you can answer - I never mentioned censorship at all, so the strawman is in your head.
Tommy, you're not doing as good a job as usual of dressing up your BS. How much clearer could we make this. The state of the media is disgraceful, and this Morris bit is a good example. If you're asking others how they want to "clean it up", you're implying some forced change or censorship.
I think most here are talking about the demand for BS. That's not up to those of us who are sick of it to change, it's up to those who are creating the demand.
What do you, assuming you're drug free, think should be done about the demand for drugs? Do you just whine and complain? Do you think educating people about drug use may help? Do you think parents might be effective at preventing drug use in their kids?
As somebody else pointed out, this site is one source intended to expose the state of things. It's a small one, but I think pretty effective. The more the worst examples of our media are exposed, the less the demand for those worst examples will be.
I think I'll stop now, you must be getting tired of telling everybody else that they're missing you're point and not answering you.
Because you are living in theory lala land, saying the should do this, or should do that - well how do you go beyond your should do theories? How do you enforce what you say should happen?
This website is free to combat it, good for them - but that doesn't solve the irresponsibility of the media to do what you say they should. How do you enforce it?
You've been drowning ever since your first post here. You are so utterly defensive it's seeps from your every word. You offer all these "media should" scenarios, then when asked for specifics you backpetal and offer nothing.
If Chris want to claim that censorship is just taking someone off the air for any reason whatsoever, then he can make that argument. But then the question becomes;why is this a problem, then? If that's the case then keeping someone off your network for being an idiot would be "censorship" but it's perfectly understandable. Jeter himself said he wouldn't waste time with Morris if he had his own network because Morris doesn't offer much of worth. So by that definition Jeter would be advocating censorship as well.
And if that's the case, then it's hard to explain how Jeter was all up in arms about suggesting censorship when he expresses the same sentiment. But no, Jeter called the comparison between choosing who you put on the air based on standards and not allowing someone to be on the air to be "apples and oranges", so obviously Jeter wouldn't accept that broad of a definition.
Maybe Jeter and Chris can hammer out their disagreement here.
It's not going to happen. But is that what the media has become. You describe a national Geek show. Pull up a chair and watch as Morris figuratively removes the heads of live animals with his teeth.
Shows like the Today Show, and others that use the public airwaves have a duty to challenge whoever is feeding them a line to sell a book, whether it's Morris, Coulter, Obama or one of the Clintons.
I don't remember Dave Garroway, Johnny Carson, or any other TV host in the past, sitting still as someone tells such an asinine tale and claims that it's the truth.
What you're saying is that the media is nothing but a tool for people to sell books to losers.
WK,
It's still more shoulda, coulda, woulda, of course we all wish this and that.....but what is the solution, what would you, or anyone here, propose to fix it?
The most boring thing I can imagine watching is a writer selling his opinion book and no one challenging any of the specious claims the writer is making. I grew up watching authors argue with hosts and other authors and even throwing punches.
I'd take that any day compared to idiots selling opinion books while they're being fellated by the host.
Worrier,
I would love the same thing, but considering we have the freedoms we do there is no way to enforce that. That is my point. So what we do is speak with out sponsor support, etc. But to keep saying they should do this or that is futile, it's a byproduct of our freedoms, not perfect but damn better than the alternative.
I was asking for concrete, specific sources Tommy. This is not a trick. I just want to know.
LA Times, LA Daily News, washingtonpost.com, topix.com, redstate.com hotair.com, national review, new republic, The Nation, CNN, USA Today, thinkprogress, andrewsullivan.com
Some more than others, and not all at once. :)
Hmmn, interesting list. But not surprising.
What books have you read in the last year?
What is this? And why is it so important to you?
You asked, I answered, and then you include some cute little "no surprise", and you expect me to keep answering your 20 questions? Sorry.
Oh Clams, I was just trying to get him to think a little.
I don't think he reads books so that was a trick question.
This whole argument is silly anyway. There is censorship in the media by the very fact that it is owned by large corporations and moneyed elite that get to control the flow of information, guests and show formats. That was evident back when Phil Donahue, Charles Grodin and Ashley Banfield (all who deigned to speak the truth about the war) got canned from CNBC and MSNBC. And even Jesse Ventura who was supposed to have taken Phil Donahue's place had to have his contract paid off (and got no show) when it was learned he was not for the war.
See, it didn't take 200 plus posts to figure out that general concept that people like Tommy can not grasp. There is no freedom of speech in this country.
This thread was one big, stupid pissing contest. Sometime you men need to get a hold of yourselves.
"Would you rather there be some censoring of people like Morris, or other comparable voices on the other end of the spectrum? I am sure you don't"
Heck no, let him lie all he wants. What *I* want is for him to be CHALLENGED, questioned...made to defend his opinion with facts, with proof. Stop the deification of OPINION. We'd see the end of all this kind of baloney, real quick, if their "interviewer" took a line from Dragnet: "Just the FACTS!"
And I don't give a rip if it's "only his opinion" If he wants to exercise his right to spout off his opinions, let him do it on the street corner. When he's on OUR airways, he should be made to defend his reasons for his opinions.
Is he ever challenged? Not as far as I can tell.
"I view our acceptance and freedom to allow all sorts of views and opinions from the ridiculous, to this crap from Morris, to the sane and substantive, as a strength, not a weakness. It is to our credit and to our resilience that we do not stifle or filter a free expression of ideas...Would you rather there be some censoring of people like Morris, or other comparable voices on the other end of the spectrum? I am sure you don't."
Enforcing standards isn't censorship. Why do we need ridiculous viewpoints on the air? We can have a free expression of ideas with intelligent and honest people. Having a broad diversity of IQ and rationality is completely unnecessary to that concept.
I wouldn't want them to put some left-wing nut on the air either. What amuses me is that you've objected to articles here because mentioning liars and nuts gives them "credibility". But putting idiots on the air doesn't give them credibility? If not, then why is it the case for websites but not network television? If so, how is giving such people credibility a "strength" in any way?
It's up to the networks, obviously. You won't accept a government-run solution here anyway, so what's the point? Your attitude seems to be that if we can't enforce the standards directly then talking about it is futile. Isn't that just suppressing "certain voices", honestly?
I'd like a response to the rest of the post, please. Why is it that people who are highlighted here for poor behavior are somehow given "credibility" while those put on network television (without having any poor behavior highlighted) are not given "credibility"?
I won't accept? Who cares what I accept, if it's your opinion, then say it. We can disagree. Do you want some government run solution?
Your question? I have no idea what you are comparing or why it is relevant to anything???
Let me spell it out for ya, sweetie.
You're a HYPOCRITE.
There. I said it.
Who's next?
Whether you accept it or not is central to the legitimacy of your continued hounding of people to offer a solution, obviously. If you demand a solution and you won't accept anything offered, then you're being disingenuous. We shouldn't talk "theory" because we can't offer up a solution. We can't offer up a solution because you won't accept it as an actual "solution". So we can't talk about the problem because you say so, basically.
The thrust of my other question is even more obvious. You were either making phony complaints about "credibility" then, or you're making the argument that giving credibility to someone who doesn't deserve it is somehow a wonderful thing.
I still have no idea what your point is with your question about credibility for some anonymous poster here???, except that you didn't answer, do you want government involvement or not?
If I came here and said some media person should be this or should be that, and then when asked for more clarification on how to implement that, respond by saying I don't know, it's just a wish of mine, how do you think that would be received. It would worthless. Theory is fine, in theory.
"I still have no idea what your point is with your question about credibility for some anonymous poster here???, except that you didn't answer, do you want government involvement or not?"
It's not credibility about an anonymous poster, it's you talking about how items here give credibility to people like Coulter. Yet according to your original post, the fact that people as crazy as her can get on the air is what America so great. But getting on national television would give her credibility, by your logic. That can't be great.
"If I came here and said some media person should be this or should be that, and then when asked for more clarification on how to implement that, respond by saying I don't know, it's just a wish of mine, how do you think that would be received. It would worthless. Theory is fine, in theory."
Why would anyone ask you for clarification on how to implement that? It's not a reasonable question, so your response would be perfectly acceptable.
Tough to admit that there are that many who will let Dick Morris & Rush Limbaugh do the thinking for them.
Colonel, you and I are probably both old enough to remember Rush's first surge of popularity--and even now, his fans proudly proclaim themselves "dittoheads". As in, "hey, I'm proud to proclaim that I have literally no thoughts of my own and get all my opinions from a slobbering drug addict!"...
I love how Lauer calls the 39-word title of Morris's book "catchy."
"Fleeced - How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists For Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us...And What to Do About It."
Yeah, that's real catchy. Amazon is even forced to insert ellipses just to fit the entire title onto their page.
I love how Lauer calls the 39-word title of Morris's book "catchy."
Catchy it is not...it's just long. However other than the ridiculous reference to Obama, how off base is Morris here? I don't often have too many nice things to say about the guy but what I bolded below from his book title is certainly worth debating/discussing..
"Fleeced - How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists For Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us...And What to Do About It."
I see the deliberate-obtuseness train has pulled up to the station today...or do you really not know that the inclusion of Obama at the very head of teh title is the whole point to the book? Trot out the usual right-wing complaints about the (insert ominous music sting here) Liberals (and Obama is the most--duh-duh-duh--liberal of them all) trying to muzzle us good Gawd-furrin' Amer'kins and paste Obama's name right at the top of it.
AndI trust you have some proof that those claims you boldfaced are true. And no, neither Fox News nor Rush Limbaugh count as proof--nor Savage, Coulter, Ingraham, etc. etc. etc....
1) Did I say I approved of the book or thought that Obama should be included?
2) Did I say I had proof of Morris's other points or did I say they were points that could be debated/discussed?
3) Did you even read my post, or just post some kneejerk reply?
I know the answers to all 3 questions, do you?
No problem Leftwing. We've all gotten testy around these parts from time to time. Done it myself more times than I'd like to admit ;-)
...when in reality all I and several others here are advocating is that interviewers actually do their god****ed job and not just let these book-shilling morons--Morris, Franken, whoever--simply pour out their talking points unchallenged.
Well we agree on that 100%. I said as much in a few earlier posts. My objection was with Clams who kept using the word "allowed" or "allowing". That to me sounds like it's right on the edge of suggesting banning certain opinions or censoring them.
that I'm advocating censorship? For the umpteenth time, this isn't even remotely an issue about censorship or free speech, no matter how much you and Tommy want it to be. Accusing me of being on the brink of suggesting censorship is both dumb and dishonest, and it doesn't deserve any further response than that.
Tommy, you're being very cute, but ridiculous. To ask people here, anonymous posters on a website, presumably average citizens, what they "would" do to address the problems with our media, is a perfectly legitimate way to bring up hypothetical solutions.
To dismiss all of the answers you've gotten as "hypothetical" or "shoulda's" is a complete joke. What would satisfy you, a court order aimed at the commentators?
And since you agree that this BS in our media is bad, what do you suggest doing about it? Give up? Just enjoy it? If mentioning the poor state of things is just "whining", I guess the most manly and effective thing to do is shut up and not question anything.I think you may be the one who doesn't understand what America is (supposed to be) about.
I have already said many times. I don't watch it, I don't consider it, I don't respect it, but I accept it. It's there, it's reality, it's freedom of the press, it's a price we pay for those freedoms. I believe in contacting media outlets and letting them know. I believe in not supporting advertisers who buy time on these programs, I believe in getting politically active at the local, state and federal level to share your concerns and air your views. I believe in websites like these that do much good to highlight real misinformation. I believe in supporting vigorously those who offer up different points of view and opposing opinions. I believe in supporting media outlets who do offer reasonable and substantive debate through supporting their sponsors and letting them know, by contacting the good and the bad. I vote in every election, local or national.
Hope that helps.....
And nowhere on this thread is there any indication that anyone is advocating anything beyond what you just described. We can write letters and call sponsors in efforts to get networks to act responsibly, because they should not allow idiots on the air.
Oops, there's that "allow" word again. I must be speaking in code...
I don't see the media making a mockery of terrorist threats, unless by that you mean they make them harder to take seriously by continually overhyping what usually amounts to nothing.
I haven't seen the slightest sign of liberals trying to kill talk radio.
The do-nothing Congress is debateable. With 49 Democrats and the Presidential veto pen, grand initiatives won't be implemeted. That's just reality.
You wanna bet the companies that help Iran generally give most of their support to Republicans?
I haven't seen evidence of how any of those parties are "scamming us," but I haven't read Morris' book. Not likely to, either.
I don't see the media making a mockery of terrorist threats, unless by that you mean they make them harder to take seriously by continually overhyping what usually amounts to nothing.
I think you see it from certain quarters. Or for instance when Hillary's 3am ad made it's debut...Olbermann crawled all over it saying she was playing on fear. The chance of another terrorist act on US soil is still a real possibility & to mock those that realize that as being fear mongers is being naive.
I haven't seen the slightest sign of liberals trying to kill talk radio.
Try all this talk by Libs about the Fairness Doctrine. Many believe [me among them] that this is an attempt to, if not kill [Conservative]talk radio, then at least mute it.
The do-nothing Congress is debateable. With 49 Democrats and the Presidential veto pen, grand initiatives won't be implemeted. That's just reality.
Yes it is debatable. Of course when the Dems were in the minority they were using the same excuses as they do now that they're in the majority. Personally I can't think of much that Congress has done worth mentioning since the mid-90's. Doesn't matter who is in control.
You wanna bet the companies that help Iran generally give most of their support to Republicans?
Wouldn't shock me at all. Does Morris mention that I wonder? Could be not everything in his book is slamming Dem/Libs.
I haven't seen evidence of how any of those parties are "scamming us," but I haven't read Morris' book. Not likely to, either.
I've never read any of his books, & won't read this one either. Bill, IMO, we are getting scammed big time by our leaders. Both sides.
"I've never read any of his books, & won't read this one either. Bill, IMO, we are getting scammed big time by our leaders. Both sides."
You and I couldn't agree more.
I think we should try a different system instead of just two parties. Both sides see that they're right and the other is wrong, and there's no reconciliation between the two. It's a backwards mentality that came about in the '60s and that baby boomers won't get over.
It's one of the main reasons why I'm for Obama, because he's a post-boomer. You can call it silly if you want, but it's the baby boomers who are dragging this country into a s**thole bickering over two completely different realities.
Dicki Morris is making an accusation, in disguise, saying that a US Senator is a "sleeper agent". I demand a Congressional Inquiry into this charge. In the meantime, I am sure that Dicki will be happy to have his book release delayed until this charge is investigated. I think Dicki, in the spirit of FREE SPEECH, should be summoned to Congress to give his information to get to the bottom of this charge.
Where was Obama raised, Arkansas? That is a third world country (I invoke FREE SPEECH).
In conclusion, it is a sorry state of affairs when the Conservatives continue to push their idiocy into and through the Republican Party. Once again, I call for the Cons and Ne0-Cons to quit leeching off the Republicans and start their own party. Look at the fine ticket...Rush for Pres....Crowley for VP....Hannity, Speaker of the House....Ingraham,a Secretary in some State....Homeland Security...Savage. There are sooo many combos for this new party.
The shoulda, woulda, couldas are all over the place today, so what? They should, but they don't.
That is like asking for a solution to lung cancer and being given the answer, "well people shouldn't smoke".
You know what Tommy, I have an idea. Perhaps every moderator or news anchor should have a team of trained professionals to actively monitor the discussions in real time while the interview is taking place. And then, via ear-piece the producer could alert the anchor to any specious arguments and suggest ways to refute them.
Just wish I was a producer for a news network...
Of course, this would contend on the news anchor being fair and playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate. If they have an agenda, my plan is shot.
When is the last time anyone saw Chomsky on the MSM blab-fests? Or Gore Vidal? Yeah, yeah, I know, they probably wouldn't even play the sound-bite game at this point, but ... .
When is the last time you saw a labor economist on TV? They still exist, you know. Not all economists are Wall Street mouthpieces.
When is the last time you you saw, say, a professor of theology or an Episcopalian bishop being asked about religious issues, rather than the nearest Elmer Gantry?
The giant media do indeed shape public opinion -- by limiting the spectrum of ideas and views which are covered and/or discussed. They put on a couple of sound-bite hustlers who are supposed to represent "conservative" and "liberal," do a 5-minute catfight, and voila! Fair and balanced pablum.
Sure, it keeps getting worse, but McDonald's was better 50 years ago, too. My point is, if you GO to MacDonald's, you know what to expect, and it's convenient. But filling up there all the time and thinking you're being well-nourished isn't ... well, it's not too bright.
Prissy Dickey has just as much right to appear on TV and vomit his "ideas" as anyone, with the exception of everyone else. You have to be a known celeb-brat-ty of whatever ilk to get a shot. If the Colonel or Dbeden or Mary wrote a book with outrageous bile and stupid mutterings, then you could get on the mat with Matt. We ain't nobody. My constant warning to all is that however insane or silly the comments get on Fox or Matt or whomever, there are large numbers of idiots "out there" who BELIEVE this s**t. They will go to the polls and vote based on what they see on television and hear on the radio. They did it twice and will do it again. The media is, as Jon Stewart so perfectly said, "hurting America".
The one important thing Prissy Dicky left out was that third eye in the middle of Barack Obama's forehead, the one that his professional make-up guy covers up before any public appearance. And what about Obama's secret visit to a well-known dermatologist to see if it could be surgically removed in time for the general election? And what about those trips to that Afgan abortionist Michelle made several years ago? Huh? Huh? (Watch for my appearance on Lauer's show soon.)
He believes in total and complete freedom, except for those brown-skinned people who are trying to provide a better life for their families.
You know what Fog you're a real piece of work. You may not like Tommy [personally I think you're intimidated because he can spar with the best of the Libs here]...BUT for you to accuse him of being some sort of racist is beyond the pale. It's total BS & you should be ashamed of yourself of throwing that kind of unsubstantiated smear out about him.
you should be ashamed of yourself of throwing that kind of unsubstantiated smear
Jeter, how would you implement your plan to make Foghorn ashamed of himself?. Specifics, please, not some wishing-well theories. ;0)
Let's fix that up a bit:
You know what Jeter you're a real piece of work. You may not like Clams [personally I think you're intimidated because he can spar with the best of the Cons here]...BUT for you to accuse him of advocating censorship is beyond the pale. It's total BS & you should be ashamed of yourself of throwing that kind of unsubstantiated smear out about him.
That's much better.
Thanks Jeter, appreciate your words. One thing we do know, is that whenever iberal, Thanks Jeter for your kind words. The intimidatio specifically our tasty little "Clam" Thanks J, you can always tell when our little seafood entreed is losing an argument, he always hauls out his infamous racist charge. I am surprised it took this long however...but he found a way to work it in, good for you "Clambake". Oh "Clamsy" considering the number of posts you've had yanked from these boards in the past for doing just that, I am slightly surprised by that as well. But look at the desperation you've exhibited in your less than stellar return today......so it's not unexpected.
Welcome back you sand dweller you, I missed you .
If you can say he advocates censorship because he used the word "allow", then he can call you a racist based on just about anything you've ever said. All he has to do is say that you're using some sort of code or backdoor whatever, and his point is made.
Right?
Nice post, Donald. I know I shouldn't get on the Tommy-go-round, but it's just too much fun to see him flip around.
This was one of the weirdest threads in a while.Tommy started out saying how proud he was that Dick Morris was on TV, that it symbolized what makes America, America.
Then later he decided that he was as sick as anybody of this nonsense in our media. You know, the stuff he defends here daily.
Then he went into a pass-the-buck mode, demandingd that everybody else provide him with a specific plan to clean up the media, but without suggesting responsibility on the part of anybody in the media or their audience, or infringing on anybody's rights.
weird.
Dear God Colonel, you still don't get it do you? I said I was proud to live in a country where all points of view are allowed, that is something every American should celebrate, I don't care how much you despise what is being said.
If you can't grasp the concept, that is your fault. And you're still cute.
You keep addressing the validity or the truthfulness of what they are saying? That is not the point, unless you think lies and political spin shouldn't be protected speech? OMG, that is what you're advocating, isn't it? WOW, that is even more scary, now you want who or what to determine what is a lie and what is a truth? Who does that, the government?
Wow, I mean, WOW!
You keep saying they are dishonest smears, well newsflash CC, nobody is disagreeing with your grasp of that obvious point, duh. The point is what do you want done about such a viewpoint?
Why do I ask?, you're just getting angrier and angrier for being caught in your bobbing and weaving because you won't answer.
Tommy, what tipped you off to Clams' anger, the CAPS, exclamation points or hysterical girly OMG !! 's ?
(sorry, projection-boy, couldn't lay offa that one)
"The point is what do you want done about such a viewpoint?"
No, that's not the point. That's just the question that you keep asking over and over again in a ridiculously transparent attempt to accuse people of censorship. You are an authoritarian zombie who is always calling out for punishment and enforcement, and it never occurs to you that other people don't possess that same mindset. When I say that Morris shouldn't be given a platform to spew his lies unchallenged, your mind immediately leaps to government enforcement scenarios. Your authoritarian worldview is silly, simplistic and scary.
More empty flag-waving BS, Tommy. We're all proud to live in a country where different points of view are allowed. You're just in a smaller group that is excited that insane and dishonest opinions are popular.
I get it. Most people get it. We're pulling for you.
"We're all proud to live in a country where different points of view are allowed"
Really? You wouldn't know it by all the liberal hand-wringing over your so called pride Colonel.
You're just blurting out random words about things you've hallucinated now, Tommy.
But you just made me realize something with that last incoherent post; where's AnotherAmerican been lately? Think maybe he went off the deep end?
Much of the media has relinquished its independence and acceded to government power and increasing control of big business. Under expanding corporate ownership, the media has a monetary incentive to play it safe and go along with White House propaganda. Goebbels of Nazi Germany set the tone: "Think of the press as a giant keyboard on which the government can play.
* Federal policies that govern media ownership allowed a handful of corporate giants to swallow up independents and control the media industry.
* Now over 80 percent of independent newspapers are owned by corporate divisions of conglomerate companies, which are more concerned with profit and their political affiliation than with the need to keep the public well informed.
* Americans receive a censored version of reality and the watchdog of our democracy has become a docile instrument of government authority and big money.
That was from a longer article from: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/894
Some more quotes from Goebbels:
The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.
We have made the Reich by propaganda.
Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
And here are some more at: http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
Anybody who still gets their news from MSM, beware!
Well, I should ammend that last statement for people who are very concrete. There are some people doing their jobs in the print media but their stories are usually on pages 16 or 17. Buried in the paper somewhewre. There are some programs like Bill Moyers journal that do a good job at getting to the meat of issues.
What I meant more specifically was most TV shows on major networks that are passed off as news.
Dear Dick,
<>You were quoted as saying about Sen. Obama :Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent?
<>This is an interesting hypothesis but it would be much more appropriate for Sen. McCain who, as everybody knows, was POW for 5 years. At that time he could have been made into a sleeper agent of a foreign agent.
The fact that you implied Obama instead makes no sense to me given we have the first time ever truly Manchurian candidate "candidate" in MCCAIN. You should really go with this. It has lots of potential to make you a star - but only if you switch to the candidate that it makes sense about.
Otherwise, you just look like a stupid swift boat mud slinger.
HEY DOES JOHN MCCAIN YOU KNOW WHAT SMELLS? YOU WOULD THANK THIS MAN DOES NO WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEDIA. MY GOD WHAT WILL THE MCCAIN MEDIA TELL US NEXT THAT OBAMA DID WRONG? I WILL BE SO GLAD WHEN NOV. GET'S HERE SO THERE SECOND GOD MCCAIN WILL WIN. THERE FIRST GOD WAS BUSH.
I'm glad that Dick Morris has expressed these concerns. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I'm not saying that Obama is a sleeper cell, but the thought that he could be troubles me. He runs around with the hate America crowd. He refuses to wear a flagpin and he refuses to salute the flag.
I am not convinced by his denials that he is not a Muslim. One can say something over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. The fact that the liberal media repeats what he says doesn't make it true either. Let's face it, there aren't too many Christians who are named Hussein. I am concerned that he is lying about his religious beliefs.
I think there is only about a ten percent chance Obama is a sleeper cell, but 10 percent is in my opinion too great a chance to take.
I personally can't stand McCain, but at least he is not a risky proposition. Obama is too risky for this country.
"I'm not saying that Obama is a sleeper cell, but the thought that he could be troubles me. He runs around with the hate America crowd. He refuses to wear a flagpin and he refuses to salute the flag."
What "hate America" crowd? Does that include his Christian minister of twenty years, I presume? And if he was a terrorist, wouldn't he make the effort to act as superficially patriotic as possible in order to fool people?
"I am not convinced by his denials that he is not a Muslim. One can say something over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. The fact that the liberal media repeats what he says doesn't make it true either. Let's face it, there aren't too many Christians who are named Hussein. I am concerned that he is lying about his religious beliefs."
You'd have to show how there's any real reason to believe that he is a Muslim in the first place. Otherwise you have no reason to doubt the denial. Do you think that he kneels and prays towards Mecca five times every day and nobody's ever noticed it, or what? And the name he was born with doesn't mean anything regarding his beliefs forty-some years later. You could have the middle name of "Moonbeam", it doesn't mean you are a hippie, now does it?
"I think there is only about a ten percent chance Obama is a sleeper cell, but 10 percent is in my opinion too great a chance to take."
Are you talking about Muslims or terrorists? They're not the same thing, you know. Ten percent seems like very high odds that he's a terrorist, I'm wondering what makes that probability so distinct in your mind. If you're just concerned he's Muslim, then why would that be a problem in and of itself, exactly?
I need a bowl of popcorn to go with this AWESOME thread. ;P
Hey, Carn, I was going over this thread at work today when I had time, but had to check it out again.I basically like Tommy , I think he's an ok guy, just attention starved and some weird politics. He can occasionally post some very insightful comments, and can be pretty funny at times.
Then he has days like this, that are hilarious. Demanding panacean answers for solving all of the problems with the media from anybody who would exercise their right to criticize it. Don't have a master plan? you're just dreaming, so shut up!
Good stuff.
Dick Morris is a disgusting pig and a Judas. He is just the type of personality that the propaganda news media needs to peddle its swill. How many people know that this guy is full of crap and is taking money to betray the American people. There are many low-lives in this world, and Morris is one of the lowest. Ever since he discovered that there was more money in attacking democratic candidates and elected officials he jumped sides. Why he is given air-time by the so-called mainstream exposes the true intent of what should be labeled as the corporate media.
There are three political entities in America, the Democratic Party, The Republican Party, and the most anti-American, the Corporate Party. The reason some people are confused about the media causing some to think of it is liberal leaning and others think of it as radical right leaning is that the corporate media only leans one direction its own, so when the republicans are doing its bidding it is on their side. When the democratic representatives are doing its bidding it is no their side.
The corporate media usually aligns itself with the radical right, because it has found that the right does not resist corruption at all, partially because the radical right perceives corruption as a benefit of office rather than something to be avoided. It appears that at least 105 democratic representatives want to be on the same gravy train as the republicans. The majority of today's representatives are merely lawyers bought and paid for by their corporate masters, and a minority of representatives continue to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.
There is a silent coup taking place in our country where business interests control the agenda, the legislation, and the representatives. The special interests have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past thirty years to corrupt the political system that was once intended to protect the many from the few, but not protects the few at the expense of the many. These same special interests have the gall to believe that they can both rip off Americans and expect them to behave patriotically at the same time. Such arrogance is delusional, but so far they have not suffered any consequences for their delusions. They believe that they can control everything through BS and manipulation and in so doing are weakening the resolve of U.S. citizens.
Most of what is occurring in America results in the opposite of what certain ideas are claimed to be. What the propagandists refer to as strength is weakness, bravery is cowardice, the good of the people is sacrificed for the self-serving, bullying is cowardice, intimidation is tyranny, genius is criminal consciousness, secrecy is desperation, and many others that one can think of. It is shameful, a disgrace, and humiliating what our leaders are doing to America. Most of them belong in prison rather than supposedly representing the people. The whole world is watching as America's leaders betray the people and the principles of a democratic republic. Conformity to this betrayal brings in the big bucks, but it destroys the meaning of what it once was to be an American.
Current leaders do not see themselves as public servants, but perceive their relationship with the people as predator and prey or con men and suckers. The special interests, (neo-fascists,) want nothing less than the absolute right to screw the American people without consequence and if the people do not change the leaders' perception there is nothing else to stop them from destroying our nation from within. Karl Marx predicted this behavior exactly. Corruption, criminality, and insanity are dominant among our leaders. I don't know how long our nation can survive as the race to satisfy greed intensifies. In some sense it is very sad to observe.
I’ve been running into more & more people just like Tommy here who for some strange reason believe it’s in Americas best interest , to allow all ‘Opinions’ to be publicized and spoken…even if they’re 100% wrong & completely biased.
I don’t see where they find this a logical or reasonable thought because if you’re wrong about something, you’re wrong …that’s it.
So why should we allow the sick creatures who inhabit Fox News & other venues where creeps like this hang out to very deliberately Frame their 100% incorrect issues in a way that appears to many to be Facts and Fair & balanced News.
This most certainly doesn’t help or show our country in a good light.
When the world sees how we allow a tabloid news business like Fox & others of their ilk to make up anything they want about Obama , Al Gore & others and then have many millions of Americans believe that dribble …it makes us look like a bunch of ignorant clods.
So how does that help us on the worlds stage?
"He vows that if the South does, indeed, "Rise Again", he will see to it I am placed in Andersonville."
Well, that's the scary part, isn't it? We laugh at them now, but imagine a day when they're the majority and it's not so funny anymore. Because strict authoritarianism is their solution for everything. Given their druthers, they'd throw us up against the wall (or into Andersonville).