FNC Tony Snow Top Contender for WH Press Secretary

[Daisy]

Isn't "mediaresearch" a right-wing organization dedicated to proving leftist bias of the MSM?

Mission statement: The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

If you define "not far right" to be "leftist", then, no doubt, the facts will bear out your contention. Otherwise, you've shown nothing to bear out your contention. How do you know how they vote? How do the editors and, even more importantly, the publishers and owners vote? Do you believe that anyone who votes Republican or even more righter is incapable of reporting facts? Show me that those who vote Democratic or even more leftist are driven by ideology than those who vote Republican or even more rightist.

Show how they lauded Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Wasn't the phrase "wag the dog" coined during his administration? The press gloried printing Kenneth Starr's leaks the overwhelming majority of which came to nothing. Show me the percentage of favorable editorials of the first five years of the Clinton and Bush administrations in the mainstream press and the percentage of bad. Give me something other than your bald assertions....

By the way, that website I directed you to which you sneered at after glancing at one page, also criticises how the press covers Bush (link). One of his most interesting points on press coverage concerning Wilson's editorial on yellowcake is that he did not actually contradict what Bush contended - that Iraq had sought to buy it (linkie). Search that site on "Bush" and you could find plenty to support your allegation; search on "Clinton" and you'll find bad reporting on him (although the site starts in 1998, so most years are not covered). Read both and you just might conclude, as I have, that the Washington press corp as a whole is a lazy, self-serving group that cares more for gossip than fact.

 

[TomVols]

I've read in the Washington Post, the NY Times, and heard Sam Donaldson talk about the overwhelming media members who vote democrat. Are these folks right-wing haymakers?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by TomVols:
I've read in the Washington Post, the NY Times, and heard Sam Donaldson talk about the overwhelming media members who vote democrat. Are these folks right-wing haymakers?

Ok, post the quotes and link to them. Links are important so the quotes are not taken out of context.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Isn't "mediaresearch" a right-wing organization dedicated to proving leftist bias of the MSM?

Didn't I say to whack away at the site... so long as you dealt with the studies that were cited?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Mission statement: The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

If you define "not far right" to be "leftist", then, no doubt, the facts will bear out your contention.</font>[/QUOTE] No. If you define right and left by the way the issues are typically categorized... as the studies cited did... the facts bear out that the MSM is leftist... and strongly so.

Otherwise, you've shown nothing to bear out your contention. How do you know how they vote?

Did you even read the links? They cited surveys done by academics, polling professionals, and even the LA Times if I am not mistaken.

How do the editors and, even more importantly, the publishers and owners vote?

I think both are cited to some extent however publishers don't write stories.

Do you believe that anyone who votes Republican or even more righter is incapable of reporting facts?

No. I however do believe that no human being of any political stripe can report the facts without filtering it through their own biases and paradigm. It has been repeatedly shown that people see what they expect to see quite often even when it isn't actually there.

The same is true for reporters. The book "Bias" author (can't remember the name) probably has it right. The press isn't involved in some kind of conspiracy... it is just that liberalism is prevalent in that segment of that profession.... and people's perceptions and interpretations of facts are ALWAYS shaded by their biases. That includes you and me and everyone else on this board.

Show me that those who vote Democratic or even more leftist are driven by ideology than those who vote Republican or even more rightist.

I never said they were because I don't believe they are. There are very few media figures of any stripe that are even close to being objective- John Stoessel comes to mind as someone who is fairly close. Those who lean Republican come across that way to me.

I like Brit Hume. He is a pretty factual guy. But he decided leans right by the answers and analysis he gives and by the questions he asks.

FTR, I don't particularly like Rush Limbaugh. He helped give the conservative movement hope in the early 90's and I appreciate him for that... but his style is grating and pompous.

The simple fact of the matter is that 80% of the MSM self-identify as liberal. At best, that gives the media an 80% liberal slant.

Show how they lauded Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Wasn't the phrase "wag the dog" coined during his administration?

You'll have to take it up with the writer and address their proof.

In the other article I cited from that page, it documented this:

In fact, if you look back through the eight years of the Clintons, you’d be incredibly hard-pressed to find more than one Pulitzer awarded for exposing the ever-bubbling Clinton scandals. In 1999, a New York Times team (including ace investigator Jeff Gerth) won for disclosing the “corporate sale of American technology to China, with U.S. government approval.” Columnist Maureen Dowd won that year for her Lewinsky-era columns, but they attacked all sides with equal vigor. She railed against Ken Starr for “dragging us down to the point where we have to hear the sex secrets of crepuscular Republican swamp life” like Rep. Dan Burton.

My contention on the Clinton scandal coverage is that it usually amounted to either panels of Dems and Reps giving their contradicting views or else "news reports" that gave just as much time to Clinton's supporter's answers as to the accusations... and often more. The scandals ceased to be about "What did Bill Clinton do?" and was all about "Partisan warfare in Washington". Brilliantly, Clinton picked up on this, or else caused it, then "triangulated" himself above the fray. So the whole thing was about how dirty DC politics are... and he didn't even have to get mud on himself.

The press gloried printing Kenneth Starr's leaks the overwhelming majority of which came to nothing.

Ken Starr and Democratic accusations against him were daily news... even as he refused to discuss his on-going investigation. He was hounded and possibly even inhibited by Dem operatives and the media alike.

Show me the percentage of favorable editorials of the first five years of the Clinton and Bush administrations in the mainstream press and the percentage of bad. Give me something other than your bald assertions....

Editorials aren't presented as news... nice try at diversion, but no. Editorials are opinions about the news and make no bones about being politically biased.

No bald assertions. Just read the two links and look at the sources cited for the statistical proof.

I am not accusing you or even the media of conspiring against conservatives. It is just the reality of the way things are. Conservatives have done just fine with the press and liberals in denial about media bias... as long as the voters out here in "fly over country" know... they'll continue to do OK.

By the way, that website I directed you to which you sneered at after glancing at one page, also criticises how the press covers Bush (link).

Good for them.

One of his most interesting points on press coverage concerning Wilson's editorial on yellowcake is that he did not actually contradict what Bush contended - that Iraq had sought to buy it (linkie). Search that site on "Bush" and you could find plenty to support your allegation; search on "Clinton" and you'll find bad reporting on him (although the site starts in 1998, so most years are not covered). Read both and you just might conclude, as I have, that the Washington press corp as a whole is a lazy, self-serving group that cares more for gossip than fact.

Except for the nasty little fact that one cites surveys to support its contention.

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TomVols:
I've read in the Washington Post, the NY Times, and heard Sam Donaldson talk about the overwhelming media members who vote democrat. Are these folks right-wing haymakers?

Ok, post the quotes and link to them. Links are important so the quotes are not taken out of context. </font>[/QUOTE]I should've added that I don't have the links right now. Forgive me - I've been recovering from surgery and then took a vacation.

Next time I run upon these, I'll save them or scan them to a file to post. Honestly, I have no reason to make it up..I have better things to do!

My apologies, Daisy, for not posting that I didn't have the links in the original response.

 

[TomVols]

Show how they lauded Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Wasn't the phrase "wag the dog" coined during his administration?

But the media didn't accuse him of this - the media simply reported that the right was accusing him of "Wag the Dog."

My thought has always been that if mainstream media is liberal, it works and it sells because liberals love to be told they're right and have their thoughts reinforced, and conservatives love to be agitated

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by TomVols:
I should've added that I don't have the links right now. Forgive me - I've been recovering from surgery and then took a vacation.

What does surgery followed by a vacation have to do with having real sources instead of vaguely remembered anecdotes? When you asked, "Are these folks right-wing haymakers?" - do you seriously expect me to accept your version of what they might have said totally without context as fact?

Did you even try googling?

Next time I run upon these, I'll save them or scan them to a file to post. Honestly, I have no reason to make it up..

Gosh, TomVols, I wasn't accusing you of making anything up. My own memory is such that when I've gone back to an article I've paraphrased...well, I'm glad there is an edit button. I have no reason to think that your memory is any better or worse.

I have better things to do!

Glad to hear it.

My apologies, Daisy, for not posting that I didn't have the links in the original response.

No apologies are necessary, TomVols, but how did you expect me to answer the rather aggressive, "Are these folks right-wing haymakers?" as though your vague recollection meant anything?

But the media didn't accuse him of this - the media simply reported that the right was accusing him of "Wag the Dog."

Actually, it was both the right accusing him (with the noteable exceptions of Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott) and the media using the phrase as well.
</font>

• Elizabeth Shogren, The Los Angeles Times,4/11/98
  

  Clinton Puts Bully Pulpit Mike to Work
  (paragraph 2):
  But around the country, many Americans wonder, despite Clinton’s key role in the peace and power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, if there is not a certain “Wag the Dog” quality to Clinton’s travels--an effort to divert attention from his troubles at home, if not by manufacturing an international crisis, as in the recent movie, then at least by calling attention to other concerns.

  </font>
• Chris Matthews: Hardball, CNBC, 8/21/98
  

  Jo-Ellan, it seems like there were three pieces of apparel that have made the news this week with regard to the president, first of all this soiled dress which will eventually yield evidence positive or negative of the president’s sexual involvement with Monica Lewinsky, secondly there’s the strange story that was in the New York Times the other day of the tie he wore, apparently a tie given to him by the young intern, to signal her in a positive way, one way or another, of solidarity I suppose, some sort of solidarity, and third there’s this beret which seems to be the funniest thing in the world because if you saw the movie Wag the Dog, the young teeny-bopper the president in that movie had an affair with and got himself into trouble with wore a beret and...

  </font>
• DAVID CORN: Salon.com: Aug. 21, 1998:
  

  Did Bill wag the dog?
  It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: "Have you seen the movie?" He was referring to "Wag the Dog" and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.

  </font>
• Christopher Ruddy: NewsMax: Friday, June 14, 2002:
  

  Bill Clinton epitomized the concept of "wag the dog."

  </font>
• Clarence Page: JewishWorldReview: August 24, 1998:
  

  WASHINGTON — When a reporter responded to major American military action last week by asking Defense Secretary William Cohen if he had seen the movie "Wag the Dog," the holes in President Clinton's credibility were exposed like the underwear of a clown who had just split his pants.
  
  A year ago it would have been hard to imagine a reporter as respectable as Newsday's Gaylord Shaw raising such a tacky question in a Pentagon news conference.

  </font>
• Phyllis Schaffley: the EagleForum: Vol32, No. 8: Mar 1999:

  First, it's a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.

  </font>
• Joseph Farah: WND: Between the Lines Commentary: December 17, 1998:
  

  Wag the dog
  If ever there was a compelling illustration of why we need to proceed with impeachment immediately, Clinton has provided it with this "Wag the Dog" scenario. The Iraq attack shows why it is a pressing national security matter to remove Bill Clinton from office. This is a president who is putting U.S. servicemen and women in harm's way purely, solely, only because of concern for his own personal and political future.

  </font>
• John Cochran (filling in for Sam Donaldson): ABC's World News Tonight: Thursday night, August 20:

  "As the President was returning to Washington for a national security briefing, some of his aides worried that his critics would suspect he created an international crisis to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was uncomfortably similar to a recent movie, Wag the Dog, which portrayed a scandal-plagued President starting a war to regain his popularity. Defense Secretary Cohen said this is not a movie."

  </font>
• Brian Williams: NBC Nightly News: 8/20/1998:
  

  "NBC News In Depth tonight. Within minutes of the attack today some in Washington were openly questioning the timing of it. Here we had an American President, his second term threatened by scandal, ordering military strikes overseas, which effectively move his troubles right out of the spotlight. It had some invoking the title of a recent movie in which just that happens, Wag the Dog. It’s a work of fiction, but that same plot today had a real feel."

  </font>
• Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid: AIM: Media Monitor: October 9, 1998:
  

  Prepare For Another Wag The Dog
  There has been virtually no debate in the major media on this subject because, generally speaking, many Republicans want the Clinton Administration to intervene. Conservative publications such as the Washington Times and the New York Post have argued strongly for U.S. intervention in the conflict. Indeed, the Post actually ran an editorial titled, "Wag the Kosovar Dog," even though the paper clearly recognized that military action would divert public attention from the president's scandals.

  </font>
• Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid: AIM: Media Monitor: April 2, 1999:
  

  Kosovo: Wag the Dog
  President Clinton was accused by many of using the wag-the-dog strategy when he ordered Tomahawk missiles fired on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and terrorist Osama bin Laden’s training camp in Afghanistan. This was supposed to be reprisal for the bombing of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya but it is now clearer than ever that there was no justification for attacking the plant in Sudan. The claim that it was producing nerve gas was false.
  
  Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy. These targets were chosen and approved by a very few people who had limited or incorrect information. The missiles were launched more to divert the attention of the public in the U.S. from the Clinton sex scandal than to seriously hurt possible terrorists.

  </font>
• NewsMax: PRNewswire: May 8, 2000:
  

  Clinton's Wag the Dog Did Little Damage to Milosevic's Forces (headline)

  </font>
• Gary Wilson: WorkersWorld: 10-1-1998:
  

  WAG THE CLINTON
  U.S. moves closer to war strikes on Yugoslavia
  The number of pay-per-view orders for the movie "Wag the Dog" tripled in the week after President Bill Clinton admitted an "improper relationship" with intern Monica Lewinsky. They doubled again after Clinton ordered a missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan. And rentals of the video have remained hot for the last month.
  
  "Wag the Dog," for those who don't know, is a movie ...
  
  Some saw the missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan as following the "Wag the Dog" scenario. But one big difference is that these were no phony attacks.
  
  They were real. Innocent people were killed. An essential pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was destroyed.
  
  That was a criminal affair much more serious than any Washington sex scandal.

  </font>
• BBC News: Wednesday, 26 August, 1998:
  

  Clinton's timing called into question
  Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, the normally jingoistic Sun, cast a sceptical eye over Mr Clinton's motive.
  
  "Bill zips into action" was the typically tabloid headline used to carry the story.
  
  "Is this a ploy to distract attention from Zippergate - or a serious defence of the West?" comments the paper.
  
  The paper notes eerie parallels with the plot of a recent Hollywood movie, Wag the Dog.
  
  (caption: Life imitating art: Robert De Niro began a bogus war in Wag the Dog)

  </font>
• Jim Hanas: WeeklyWire: Memphis Flyer: FEBRUARY 2, 1998:
  

  Dog the Wag
  
  No pundit will miss the opportunity to wear out the art-imitates-life-imitates-art saw that the latest round of White House scandal inspires, falling as it does on the heels of the movie Wag the Dog. The movie features presidential-fixer Robert De Niro enlisting movie director Dustin Hoffman to “produce” a war that will distract the public from an embarrassing sex scandal in the White House. While gawking at the similarities with what the duller members of the press are quickly dubbing “Zipper-gate” is tempting, it unfortunately misses the point.
  
  The public is being distracted, but not by the White House.
  
  ...
  
  So why does the press continue to play “dog the wag” despite public ambivalence toward the story and its near lack of political implications beyond those caused by the media coverage itself? Lazy reporting is one reason. Compared to the inner workings of the stock exchange or the finer points of trade policy – issues that, get this, actually affect the lives of Americans – “doing it” is a concept that’s much easier to communicate to a mass audience.

  </font>

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rsr:
Why would he take a big pay cut to do the same job he's already been doing?

I've heard Snow here in Houston on talk radio; not impressed. </font>[/QUOTE]Your testimony greatly boosted my already high opinion of Tony Snow. Thanks for the ringing non-endorsement... it is high praise indeed. </font>[/QUOTE]Glad to be of help.

Actually, I would expect you to agree with Snow on most issues concerning the President. I know that just as Snow is known for towing the Administration's line, you are known here as being a strong supporter of Bush and most of his policies. I, on the other hand, disagree with much of Bush's agenda and therefore disagree with both you and Snow much more than I agree.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Hmmm....

A catholic supreme court. A catholic press corps.

Forgive me while I don't celebrate.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Hmmm....

A catholic supreme court. A catholic press corps.

Forgive me while I don't celebrate.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you hate all Catholics, or only certain ones?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I don't hate anyone.

Tony Snow's first allegiance is to the RCC, that is evident by listening to him. He will continue to let that cloud his judgement.

Do you hate him because he ain't a liberal ?

 

[TomVols]

Daisy, you seem to sound mean-spirited here. I wasn't asking you to accept anything as Biblical fact, nor was I trying to be "aggressive" when I jokingly asked if the NY Times et.al. have ever been mistaken for right wing propoganda tools. Honestly, no I didn't Google. I don't know how you'd find Sam Donaldson's quote from This Week.... and I am much more concerned about my wife than some media study that I honestly couldn't care less about. And I'd appreciate you understanding that my health problems and my wife's health issues and the ensuing vacation we took to get a break from the doctors and surgeons matter more to me than how reporters vote or how they register their political affiliations.

I'm starting to remember why I don't come into this "Christian fellowship" forum anymore.

If you did not mean to come off as mean-spirited, I'll accept that. I won't presume to put motives to your words.

 

[LadyEagle]

Tom, point of correction, this is a debate forum, not a "Christian fellowship" forum.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by TomVols:
Daisy, you seem to sound mean-spirited here.

How so? You asked a question which was predicated on accepting your statement as fact, so I asked you to provide some evidence. That's how it works in the Politics Debate forum - there is nothing personal in asking you to provide a basis for your contention; it's expected.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything as Biblical fact, nor was I trying to be "aggressive" when I jokingly asked if the NY Times et.al. have ever been mistaken for right wing propoganda tools.

Who said anything about "Biblical" fact? I was talking about the ordinary kind. How would I know when you're joking if you don't use a "

" or a "

"? The question sounded a bit aggressive - sorry if I misinterpreted.

Since you bring it up, yes, the Times was often a right-wing propaganda tool in the build up to the invasion of Iraq. The editors have subsequently expressed regret.

Honestly, no I didn't Google. I don't know how you'd find Sam Donaldson's quote from This Week....

You could try '+"Sam Donaldsnon" +"This Week" +bias +media +liberal' or some such combo. Or you could try searching the archives of the website of whatever channel he was on.

...and I am much more concerned about my wife...

I would think so.

...than some media study that I honestly couldn't care less about.

Why bring it up in a debate if you don't care about it (and then blame me for questioning it)?

And I'd appreciate you understanding that my health problems and my wife's health issues and the ensuing vacation we took to get a break from the doctors and surgeons matter more to me than how reporters vote or how they register their political affiliations.

Guilt-tripping...great....I'm sorry you and your wife are having health problems and I hope you were able to enjoy your vacation.

Since I didn't know anything about your health problems or your wife's how would I have understood? I'm still not sure what it is I'm supposed to understand about what your sad situation has to do with that particular post, except it seems I'm not to criticize your posts in any way, shape or form lest I come off as "mean-spirited".

I'm starting to remember why I don't come into this "Christian fellowship" forum anymore.

Oh well, that explains it - this isn't a "Christian fellowship" forum, this is a "Christian debate" forum - you know, where one goes to argue. Since the purpose of this forum is to debate I don't think you should blame me for doing just that.

If you did not mean to come off as mean-spirited, I'll accept that. I won't presume to put motives to your words.

Now that you understand that you are in a debate forum, you'll understand the spirit in which I challenged your statement, I hope.


[editted to add: Lady Eagle beat me to the post - I didn't see hers before I posted mine]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Actually, I would expect you to agree with Snow on most issues concerning the President.

More less true... both when he's said good things and bad. I think Bush is much to liberal/statist in many of his domestic policy approaches.

I think the Bush administration has been far more discerning on Iraq and the wider war on terrorism than they have been given credit for... or that liberals in the media or Dem party are inclined to give them credit for. I have little doubt that had Bill Clinton had the exact same circumstances and had taken the exact same actions the media would be singing his praises for having such grand foresight and even less doubt that they'd be apologists for every flaw.

Again, I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory or anything like that... we as human beings just naturally forgive more flaws in those who generally agree with us and find more flaws in those who don't. You'd be somewhat right in suggesting that I have a more critical eye toward say John Kerry than I do Newt Gingrich... although being aware of this tendency, I do try to negate my bias and be fair. Liberals, especially in the media, deny their bias and therefore have little inclination toward muting it.

I know that just as Snow is known for towing the Administration's line, you are known here as being a strong supporter of Bush and most of his policies.

I like Bush. I think he is right about Iraq and right about terrorism... though I wish he would be more direct in letting people know that this is a religious war but not because we made it one. The enemy did. I think Bush is right about taxes and tax cuts.

I don't think Bush has a good energy policy. As an international trade issue (even under the libertarian model) he has far more latitude and jurisdiction than he is effectively using. Two critical things he is right about but hasn't proclaimed loudly enough is that regulations need to be relaxed so more domestic refineries can be built and exploration needs to be expanded not only in ANWR but also off of California and in the Gulf of Mexico.

I disagree with him about faith based initiatives, continued funding for several non-essential gov't agencies, growth of non-infrastructure/defense spending, healthcare liberalism,.... and I am quite sure I could think of several more things.

The biggest one I disagree with him on is education. I absolutely believe that teachers and schools should be held accountable. I absolutely disagree that the federal gov't should have any involvement whatsoever in education. The best thing he could have done to improve education was to pass laws disarming the teacher's unions. They stand in the way of holding teachers accountable. They have fallen down on the wrong side of curricullum issues consistently- ie. Outcome based education, whole language reading, evolution-only, homosexual indoctrination, etc. Those issues should rightly be determined by officials no higher than the local school boards.

I, on the other hand, disagree with much of Bush's agenda and therefore disagree with both you and Snow much more than I agree.

I had great hope in the Bush ideal of the ownership society. Foreign affairs got him completely off that track much to the detriment of the country. In essence, the idea was to change and invest in government programs in such a way that they became self-terminating rather than self-perpetuating. IOW's, that gov't programs should actually work to resolve problems rather than create government dependency. Sadly, this idea was abandoned pretty early on.

If the Dems would pick up on that idea and change their stand on abortion and a few other social issues then they could win my vote again. Otherwise, I can't see myself voting for a party whose core ideals if instituted would turn us into a much more pathetic version of French socialism. In fact, I think Democratic policies implemented unrestricted would very quickly collapse our economy altogether.

 

[TomVols]

You asked a question which was predicated on accepting your statement as fact, so I asked you to provide some evidence. That's how it works in the Politics Debate forum - there is nothing personal in asking you to provide a basis for your contention; it's expected.

Once again, I apologize for not posting the links to document the sources. I made an off-the-cuff post about some things I'd read and seen and the post included a rhetorical and satirical question. While you're right to query me, don't you think we've belabored this a little much? If you want, I'll ask that my post be deleted. If I could delete it, I'd do it myself. I'll glady disavow, retract, whatever you wish. I just would've preferred you accepted my apology about not footnoting and dropped it, which is what I want to do. I really don't know what else I can do to atone for my error

How would I know when you're joking if you don't use a " " or a " "? The question sounded a bit aggressive - sorry if I misinterpreted.

You're right. I should've used some graemlins. Forgiven on the misinterpretation. I didn't help you any by not using a smiley, did I? (see, I learned my lesson)

Since you bring it up, yes, the Times was often a right-wing propaganda tool in the build up to the invasion of Iraq. The editors have subsequently expressed regret.

Do you have a link to this?

Why bring it up in a debate if you don't care about it (and then blame me for questioning it)?

I didn't bring up the original study. I brought up something I'd read and heard years past. I don't blame you for questioning it; I took offense at what I perceived was a mean-spirited way in which you demanded chapter and verse, or else the entire veracity is rendered void. I could ask for links to your quotes on "Wag The Dog" since for all we know you're making those up. However, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Guilt-tripping...great....

I'm sorry if you feel guilty. I didn't intend for you to feel that way. I was just telling you why I had no particular interest in spending hours looking for something that may not be able to be found since I have other priorities.

Since I didn't know anything about your health problems or your wife's how would I have understood?

You did know. Your post that seemed so vitriolic came after I tried to offer an explanation as to why I wasn't going to spend hours looking for streaming video and links that may not be available.

this is a "Christian debate" forum - you know, where one goes to argue.

Ahh...here we go....see, first of all I believe that we should conduct ourselves as Christians in a "Christian debate" forum. You have explained you meant no ill will and I'll accept you at your word. I've spent enough time on this board to not expect warm fuzzies in here, but I do think it's not out of the question that we behave as Christ-followers. I am not trying to call you less than a Christ-follower, but I'm merely explaining why I believe in a higher standard of civil discourse. I know you meant to engage in this, so I hope you are not offended.
I do disagree with you on one thing: debate does not mean "Argue" necessarily. That's the problem in this country. We no longer care about rational discussion of issues; we want to argue and fight. I'm not saying you're guilty of this - there are far worse on here. I won't call names

In fact, you seem to have shown more level-headedness than most.

When I was a regular in here, I was looking for civil & Christ-honoring discussion, pro and con, on the issues of the day. I no longer frequent this forum because I do not believe this is even close to the norm in here.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by TomVols:
Once again, I apologize for not posting the links to document the sources.

Why? Twice before, I've said no apology is necessary for that.

I made an off-the-cuff post about some things I'd read and seen and the post included a rhetorical and satirical question. While you're right to query me, don't you think we've belabored this a little much?

Perhaps you have.

If you want, I'll ask that my post be deleted. If I could delete it, I'd do it myself. I'll glady disavow, retract, whatever you wish. I just would've preferred you accepted my apology about not footnoting and dropped it, which is what I want to do. I really don't know what else I can do to atone for my error

I don't know you well enough to tell but your groveling apologies come across as insincere and sarcastic - are they? I've already assured you that none were necessary, for that; you even quoted it the second time I said it: "Once again, no apology is necessary. You said I seemed mean-spirited to you so I was trying to explain, not blame you." What do you think that means?

Do you have a link to this?

Sure: Link

I didn't bring up the original study.

And who said you did?

I brought up something I'd read and heard years past. I don't blame you for questioning it; I took offense at what I perceived was a mean-spirited way in which you demanded chapter and verse, or else the entire veracity is rendered void.

Hm, again you call me "mean-spirited" for asking for an actual citation instead of a vague memory. Touchy much?

I even tried to soften it by telling you I didn't credit my own memory. If you found that mean-spirited, well, perhaps you're projecting your own motivations on me.

I could ask for links to your quotes on "Wag The Dog" since for all we know you're making those up. However, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I gave you references, author, publication (or media), and date as well as the complete paragraphs. I can give you the links as well, but I don't think you're interested enough actually click on any of them. Do you actually doubt their veracity or do you just want to claim to be generous?

I'm sorry if you feel guilty.

I don't.

I didn't intend for you to feel that way.

Well, sorry I misread your intentions in your posting your and your wife's health problems as a bid for pity.

I was just telling you why I had no particular interest in spending hours looking for something that may not be able to be found since I have other priorities.

Or even minutes...fine, you don't have to explain. A simple, "No, I don't have the actual quotes" would've done very nicely.

You did know.

Baloney. You merely mentioned that you had had surgery - there are all kinds of surgery, some serious, some not - and a vacation. Nothing about your own continued ill health and not a peep about your wife, just a "

". So, no, I didn't know and I don't care much for your saying otherwise.

Your post that seemed so vitriolic came afterI tried to offer an explanation as to why I wasn't going to spend hours[*or minutes*] looking for streaming video and links that may not be available.

Vitriolic? "Gosh, TomVols, I wasn't accusing you of making anything up" is your idea of so vitriolic?

Ahh...here we go....see, first of all I believe that we should conduct ourselves as Christians in a "Christian debate" forum.

Are you implying that anyone has not?

You have explained you meant no ill will and I'll accept you at your word.

Yet you just got through saying my posts were "mean-spirited" & "so vitriolic" - yet meant with a good will? There seems to be a contradiction here.

I've spent enough time on this board to not expect warm fuzzies in here, but I do think it's not out of the question that we behave as Christ-followers. I am not trying to call you less than a Christ-follower, but I'm merely explaining why I believe in a higher standard of civil discourse.

So, you think it is "lower" to ask someone for a source for their contention, but "higher" to call someone mean-spirited and vitriolic?

I know you meant to engage in this, so I hope you are not offended.

I meant to engage in a debate on the topic, not on on the motives and personalities of the debators; I was not offended until I was characterized as "mean-spirited" and "vitriolic" for questioning your lack of a reference.

I do disagree with you on one thing: debate does not mean "Argue" necessarily.

Um, what do you think "argue" means? You seem to think it means something bad. The root of debate means "to beat" (link); the root of argue means "to demonstrate or prove" (link).

That's the problem in this country. We no longer care about rational discussion of issues; we want to argue and fight. I'm not saying you're guilty of this - there are far worse on here.

Gee thanks. I'm sure there are worse than you, too.

When I was a regular in here, I was looking for civil & Christ-honoring discussion, pro and con, on the issues of the day. I no longer frequent this forum because I do not believe this is even close to the norm in here.

So calling someone "mean-spirited" and "vitriolic" because they dare to question you is civil or Christ-honoring somehow while asking for a citation is not?

I really don't know what you mean by that in this context. What would a "Christ-honoring" debate about Tony Snow be?