News Stories

[Bad wolf]

So, anyways earlier i went on this news site and saw something about a us soldier killing 5 other us soldiers, but when i went back to find it just now it somehow disappeared.
Information control much?

through the power of google i did find a uk site that had it though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-shooting-iraq
And even THAT article, which is BRITISH, sounds like they were forced to write it under US orders.

Seriously. It sounds like they're trying to dehumanize the killing by reporting tons of other murders.
good thing we have the u military to protect us and the government to protect the military, eh?

[chikorita157]

I think Limbaugh's comment on wanting Obama to "fail" is completely asinine and will further hurt the creditblity of the GOP party. Like Reckoner have said, if Obama fails, the country will fail meaning the economy won't be fixed. If the GOP ever want to earn it's creditability back, they need to distance themselves from Limbaugh, Cheney and Fox News... but the possibility of that happening is very low.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Bad wolf

So, anyways earlier i went on this news site and saw something about a us soldier killing 5 other us soldiers, but when i went back to find it just now it somehow disappeared.
Information control much?

through the power of google i did find a uk site that had it though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-shooting-iraq
And even THAT article, which is BRITISH, sounds like they were forced to write it under US orders.

Seriously. It sounds like they're trying to dehumanize the killing by reporting tons of other murders.
good thing we have the u military to protect us and the government to protect the military, eh?

Information control? Taken down? I found it on cnn, msnbc, and fox with just a glance.

cnn:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...nce/index.html

msnbc: (video)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...90242#30690242

fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519788,00.html

[TooPurePureBoy]

That's great. Except that he said specificly that he wanted Obama's economic policies to fail unless he "adds reagan to his resumé". He flat out said he wants the economic situation to get worse unless it's fixed using policies that fit his belief system. As I said, it shows that Limbaugh cares more about his political views being right than the success of this country. Now I might be convinced by an argument that he wasn't thinking about what Obama's economic policies failing would mean for the country. I will not be convinced by claims that the liberal media elite are twisting his words. They aren't and I'm not either.

First off you're wrong he never said he wanted the economy to fail, he said if the country forgot about free-market economics and went with the more socialist Obama agenda that it would fail and then he went on to say that he actually thought that it might be good for the country long term if Obama failed because then the country would possibly switch back to more his way of thinking which is conservative. I don't know why it's so difficult to understand that looking at the overall health of the country long term (in his mind) means that Obama failing would be a good thing.

I also want to reiterate for you that I don't really know if conservatism is the right way either so don't go thinking I'm some crazy ditto head, I just happen to have to listen to him a lot when I forget my I-pod and I have really good retention skills. My dad is super-ultra-conservative small business owner guy so a lot of times we talk politics during rides to jobs and what not, he is not a fan of Obama so a lot of the stories that I post are things that we might have talked about. I actually try to keep a pretty open mind about things but lately I've been feeling pretty negative about our current President but I don't really want him to fail. It's just that I tend to try to provoke discussion from a more liberal leaning audience like this one because I don't get to hear their side as much. Which is really funny considering I live in Massachusetts which is supposed to be this massive liberal hot-bed. Funny thing is I meet a lot of people in construction between laborers, bosses, and home-owners/customers, hardly any of them have anything good to say about our liberal Gov. or our liberal President.

I always try to hear peoples views on political philosophy because I find it interesting, but I rarely get to hear a well thought out and "real" feeling version of Liberalism. I'm surrounded by conservative people except for when I'm going to college which is an off and on thing. The only time I ever meet a person that actually cares about politics they are conservative. When I talk to people that are more supportive of Obama it's usually people who don't really think or care about politics at all. So if I come of as just a simple minded, myopic conservative type it's really only because I want to get a reaction to spark discussion from people I really don't get to hear the opinions of often.

[Vexx]

I don't think many conservatives (particularly ones under 40) really understand just how far right the political conversation has moved since Eisenhower's time... nor how history seems to have been ignored in asserting the present so-called 'conservative' business tropes.

Calling Obama a "socialist" .... might as well label Goldwater, Nixon, and Eisenhower as socialists as well... :P

In short, if you're not a large corporation or a particular subset of executives, you really aren't invited to the party or the country club.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I don't think many conservatives (particularly ones under 40) really understand just how far right the political conversation has moved since Eisenhower's time... nor how history seems to have been ignored in asserting the present so-called 'conservative' business tropes.

Calling Obama a "socialist" .... might as well label Goldwater, Nixon, and Eisenhower as socialists as well... :P

In short, if you're not a large corporation or a particular subset of executives, you really aren't invited to the party or the country club.

How different is Obama from your typical socialist?

The only difference is that he joined the Democratic Party which is somewhat of a party made up of both socialists and conservatives. For the matter, that doesn't change the fact that Obama is a socialist, it only implies that a number of his associates and subordinates are possibly conservatives. That does affect their party policies a bit; of course, Obama wouldn't want his everlasting party members to defect over to either independent seats or their opposition, the Republicans, does he? And thus, his policies aren't entirely socialist because of this huge reason.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

What?

Am I missing something here? Obama is the president, a leader of the U.S. If the president fails, in essence the country is failing. So by wishing Obama to fail, he is hoping for the country to fail.

Not exactly..

Just because Obama is the president does not mean his success is the equivalent of the success of a country and its people, whereas his failure is also the equivalent of his country and people. If Obama fails, he will be replaced. His country will not fall apart because of a single leader. The leader who is strong is the one who has the support of all his people, not just a handful or two. If Obama cannot win the support and cooperation from the Republicans, he will no doubt fail. Considering the huge differences in perspectives and policies, winning their support and cooperation is pretty much out of the question.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

How different is Obama from your typical socialist?

Define socialism. It seems to be a standard smear term used by the GOP and rightwing talk radio but often they make it fairly clear they only have a foggy notion of what it is. Some of the policies being railed against are concepts that Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon.... and even more recent sorts like William F Buckley supported.

The only difference is that he joined the Democratic Party which is somewhat of a party made up of both socialists and conservatives. For the matter, that doesn't change the fact that Obama is a socialist,

"fact"?????? Did Obama call himself a socialist? Is there some club membership or card? What KIND of socialist are we discussing? European socialism? Stalinist socialism? Is socialism automatically evil? Social Security and Medicare are "socialism"... so was the interstate highway system by some definitions. I could easily call a tribe or a small village a "socialist" group the way the term gets wielded.

My point is that the discussion has moved so far right that virtually everyone left of fascism or corporatism is being labeled a "socialist".

[yezhanquan]

In any event, the American people has always been able to do the one thing which really kills off anything: ignoring. If the GOP doesn't do anything about its rhetoric and thinks that people will return to the flock without the party having to do some serious house keeping, it's going the way of the dinosaurs.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Just because Obama is the president does not mean his success is the equivalent of the success of a country and its people, whereas his failure is also the equivalent of his country and people. If Obama fails, he will be replaced. His country will not fall apart because of a single leader. The leader who is strong is the one who has the support of all his people, not just a handful or two. If Obama cannot win the support and cooperation from the Republicans, he will no doubt fail. Considering the huge differences in perspectives and policies, winning their support and cooperation is pretty much out of the question.

Clinton was hated by the Republican party and they went out of their way to give him a "hard time" (sometimes they were correct, other times they were simply being petty (Gingrich was almost universally reviled by the beginning of the 1996 election in part because he was viewed as being too petty in regards to attacking the President's policies)). But, despite their constant lack of support, Clinton was still re-elected in 1996 with a large percentage of the Electoral College (admittedly, this was back in the time of actual 3rd party candidates, with Perot taking 8-9 million votes away from Dole (Dole was only 10 million votes away from Clinton, so it stands to reason that without Perot in the election, Dole would have gained a majority of those 8-9 million votes and would have been much closer to Clinton by the end of the election (I doubt he would have actually won, though)). So, the Republican Party constantly disagreeing with Obama (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) does not actually mean anything, it is just grandstanding from a party trying to recreate the situations that got them into power in 1994. To put it another way, it is the voters that elect a President, not the Congress/Senate, so, as long as Obama pleases the majority of Americans (which he is currently doing (judging by the recent polls)), then it really doesn't matter if the Republicans like him or not.

[Shadow Kira01]

US 'Heartened' By Iran's Release of Roxana Saberi

A great move by Iran!!

Originally Posted by Vexx

Define socialism. It seems to be a standard smear term used by the GOP and rightwing talk radio but often they make it fairly clear they only have a foggy notion of what it is. Some of the policies being railed against are concepts that Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon.... and even more recent sorts like William F Buckley supported.

"fact"?????? Did Obama call himself a socialist? Is there some club membership or card? What KIND of socialist are we discussing? European socialism? Stalinist socialism? Is socialism automatically evil? Social Security and Medicare are "socialism"... so was the interstate highway system by some definitions. I could easily call a tribe or a small village a "socialist" group the way the term gets wielded.

My point is that the discussion has moved so far right that virtually everyone left of fascism or corporatism is being labeled a "socialist".

Since arguing with you is a waste of time, I prefer not to do so. Besides, I could see the two of us going back on forth on the issue of "socialism" for a few hours, might as well find something better to do.

[Vexx]

I wasn't trying to argue so apologies if it came off that way... its just that I've heard "socialist" bandied about so much in the US over the last two years, I feel like I have to ask anyone who uses it what they think it means. It is quite remarkable the variety of answers I get ( or non-answers with lots of arm-waving ).

Its really becoming a meaningless word which works against the conservative voices who might have a legitimate beef about some policies. There are a *lot* of relatively conservative people (particularly small business owners) who feel thoroughly abandoned by both parties but especially the GOP.

edit: and yes, I'm very glad to see they're releasing Roxana -- that was a travesty of justice by some minor officials who don't quite seem to grasp they're on a world stage now. I won't feel quite complacent though til she's *home*.

I'd like to know the name of the poor girl who was flogged by the Taliban and it was video'd ... she unwittingly became an icon that backfired all over the Taliban's plans for Pakistan, driving many Pakistanis away from them.

[monir]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Listen, I said before I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh, but I work construction for my dad's company a lot, I have to listen to the guy on the radio all the time. I heard that broadcast and that's not what he said. He said he wanted OBAMA to fail not the country. If you don't see the difference then I'm sorry you are not being rational. Rush Limbaugh from what I've heard is an admitted conservative that believes that what Obama represents (in his mind anyway) which is a far left socialist bladdy blah agenda, which he believes is bad for the country. He is payed to give his opinion on politics and in his opinion Obama is bad for the country so he wants him to fail. How does that in any way shape or form get construed into meaning he wants the country to fail? You are either purposely putting words in his mouth or you just didn't actually hear what he said. Either way....not very accurate.

I'm only arguing this because I've seen a lot of people on news shows (other than super rightwing fox) trying to use that argument, but I actually heard what Limbaugh said, and that ain't it.



Was sending the financial district of New York city into an absolute panic for the sake of a photo op not "real" enough for you? Peoples lives were actually effected by that you know? I'd say that's pretty real.

While I usually don't mind reading about personal takes on thing, I just can't help but to point out after reading your post that everyone should make their own judgment after making a valid try at getting the best of information. People like Rush Limbaugh will have this country to the brink of obscurity if they have their way and they are also not the best source for your information that you can make proper conclusion about things.

After reading your post, it's also very clear to me that you don't know anything about New York City or it's financial crisis, and what lead to the meltdown. Start researching from 2001 and there on. Housing market is one of the main topic you can concentrate on for your research.

While ignorance is a bliss, it's also a sin!

Everyone should make their own effort at acquiring their own knowledge instead of swaying on others take and opinion whether such opinion is legible or not.

[TooPurePureBoy]

While I usually don't mind reading about personal takes on thing, I just can't help but to point out after reading your post that everyone should make their own judgment after making a valid try at getting the best of information. People like Rush Limbaugh will have this country to the brink of obscurity if they have their way and they are also not the best source for your information that you can make proper conclusion about things.

Sorry but you obviously didn't read my posts very closely. I don't get my information from Rush Limbaugh, the thought of that makes me laugh in terror. I said that I'm forced to listen to him a lot because it's on when I'm at work. I was only sticking up for the guy because I actually heard what he said and the what the media portrayed it as was completely different than what his point was.

After reading your post, it's also very clear to me that you don't know anything about New York City or it's financial crisis, and what lead to the meltdown. Start researching from 2001 and there on. Housing market is one of the main topic you can concentrate on for your research.

Ummm.....no. Again you didn't read my post obviously. I wasn't talking about the financial market being Obama's fault. I was talking about the recent news story where Air Force One was seen flying at extremely low altitudes over New York sending the city into an absolute panic and leaving the Mayor fuming to the point where he looked like his head was going to explode. It was a point about how bad this administrations public relations have been. So maybe you need to do some research of your own...like how to improve your reading comprehension.

While ignorance is a bliss, it's also a sin!

So is reading a couple words in a post and then thinking you understand enough to just go and make a post about how uninformed that person is when you obviously didn't even understand what the person was saying.

Everyone should make their own effort at acquiring their own knowledge instead of swaying on others take and opinion whether such opinion is legible or not.

Yes thanks for the life lesson, to bad I've no need of it as what you just said was obvious to me when I was twelve years old.

[yezhanquan]

For me, it is easier not to pass judgement too quickly. Ol' Ted says it better than I do.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

[KimmyChan]

UK jobless total hits 2.2 million -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8046128.stm

[MikaMiaka]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Listen, I said before I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh, but I work construction for my dad's company a lot, I have to listen to the guy on the radio all the time. I heard that broadcast and that's not what he said. He said he wanted OBAMA to fail not the country. If you don't see the difference then I'm sorry you are not being rational. Rush Limbaugh from what I've heard is an admitted conservative that believes that what Obama represents (in his mind anyway) which is a far left socialist bladdy blah agenda, which he believes is bad for the country. He is payed to give his opinion on politics and in his opinion Obama is bad for the country so he wants him to fail. How does that in any way shape or form get construed into meaning he wants the country to fail? You are either purposely putting words in his mouth or you just didn't actually hear what he said. Either way....not very accurate.

I see your point: Rush wants Obama to fail in his policies because he believes that Obama's policies are bad for the country, thus, if bad policies fail, then the country can succeed. Therefore, you argue that just because he wants Obama to fail doesn't necessarily mean that he wants this country to fail.

Although I see this logic, I believe it to be inherently flawed.

The fact remains that if a country's leader should fail, so shall his country. It's as simple as that. Negativity breeds negativity, failure, and chaos.

Why can't he just say that though he disagrees with Obama's policies, he hopes that they will succeed? He can criticize all he wants, but to outrightly state that he HOPES for failure is a bit much.The negativity coming out from that guy's mouth is staggering, to say the least. He wants Obama to fail, which would lead to a disheartened society, which would lead to more people running back to the GOP. This makes no sense at all when both sides spew empty words about bipartisanship.

This form of divisiveness and derision is hardly what we need, and I think it is futile to even attempt at defending him. What he wants is to see Obama fail so that he can say "I told you so." To me, it seems rather unpatriotic just because common sense dictates that we should come together and support the President in this time of economic distress. Instead of saying such vindictive words, he should find another way to offer advice.

But alas, this is not the role he plays, and we all know that.

[iLney]

Although I see this logic, I believe it to be inherently flawed.

The fact remains that if a country's leader should fail, so shall his country. It's as simple as that. Negativity breeds negativity, failure, and chaos.

Not really. His logic is just "if Obama succeeds now, the future of the country will suffer; if he fails now, it will be beneficial in the long run even though after such failure the country will be in terrible shape."

Amen. The man just speaks what he believes. It is by no means unpatriotic.

[Shadow Kira01]

Gov't protests to NTV for reporter's visit to Etorofu with Russian visa

A news program aired by Nippon Television on Tuesday night featured the bureau chief’s visit to Etorofu. ‘‘We have judged it would be important to report the current state of the Northern Territories during Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit to Japan. As we had no other choice, we obtained permission from Russian authorities,’’ the broadcaster said. Putin began his three-day visit to Japan on Monday.

I was going to post this in the A Laugh A Day section but I guess it is better to post it here..

"If it is necessary, do it. Otherwise, things will not get done."

Unfortunately, when things do get done; things do not sail smoothly, it usually comes with consequences. In this case, it appears that the Foreign Ministry is very unhappy of NTV's actions even though I think they made the right choice.

Of course, important figures of Japan such as the government, the military, and the media is best to avoid giving other nations the wrong impression when it comes to the claim of sovereignty. Thus, it appears that I am contradicting myself, even though this really isn't the case.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by iLney

Not really. His logic is just "if Obama succeeds now, the future of the country will suffer; if he fails now, it will be beneficial in the long run even though after such failure the country will be in terrible shape."

Amen. The man just speaks what he believes. It is by no means unpatriotic.

It's highly dogmatic - he believes policies he doesn't like are inherently bad, regardless of failure or success. As far as logic goes, he'd better believe that failing policies are bad, rather than bad policies fail, to paraphrase... Beckenbauer?

And he'd rather be right than have the country prosper - not a poster child for patriotism.

[MikaMiaka]

Originally Posted by iLney

Not really. His logic is just "if Obama succeeds now, the future of the country will suffer; if he fails now, it will be beneficial in the long run even though after such failure the country will be in terrible shape."

Hmmm, so Rush wants Obama to fail now right NOW, when we are in most need of success? He wants the unemployment rate to continue to rise above 8.6%? He wants the war to continue so more soldiers will lose their minds and fire on their comrades? Are these sacrifices that we must endure so that we can purportedly sustain a wealthy future? Sorry, I don't understand why that picturesque wealthy future can't start now.

I don't think Rush wants any of those things to happen (or am I wrong? I can't picture a "patriotic" person wanting those things for his country). To me, Obama and his administration are trying to develop policies that can alleviate the strain of these inherited problems. So, if these policies fail, that means that these problems will continue to perpetuate.

Does anyone really want that (well, besides our enemies)?

I don't even think Rush does. So, I don't really understand your quoted text.

Amen. The man just speaks what he believes. It is by no means unpatriotic.

True, perhaps I should have not spoken in absolutes. I looked up patriotic just for the heck of it:

1. of, like, suitable for, or characteristic of a patriot.
2. expressing or inspired by patriotism: a patriotic ode

So, that tells me nothing so I went to look up patriotism:

devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

So, simply defined as love and devotion for one's country. I suppose under that definition, he isn't not patriotic. I don't think Rush dislikes or is undevoted to this nation. I think he just dislikes Obama personally and wants Obama to fail personally. Do intentions directed at someone personally also mean that it is directed at him officially, thereby encapsulating the nation he leads? I don't know, but I would think so.

And, as Anh Minh said, he isn't a poster boy for patriotism either.