Pangloss

Haha, does he really? That's a new one on me! Definitely. He's also a consumate spin artist. Well I have to say that I'm not a regular viewer, but I've never seen him attack those individuals. But I have seen him criticize Ann Coulter, and I have seen her reaction to that. It seemed genuine to me. (shrug) This is an issue for other public individuals as well, such as Michael Moore, but I don't think voter registration is a bellweather for ideology. You have to be registered in one party or the other in order to vote in the primary races. For example, I'm registered as a Republican in Florida, but I voted for a Democrat in the Senate and Presidential races in 2004. Extremists during the Great Political Awakening have been trying to equate the statements "I'm a registered X-ican/-ocrat" with "I'm a member of the X-ican/ocratic party". I think it's a mistake to follow that spin. True enough. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though. It's bad to overgeneralize, but it's not bad to attack media bias or discuss the extreme positions. (See below.) I agree with the first sentence, but I think you're confusing my political analysis with my opinion. I think it's clear that the country has become more polarized. Isn't the success of Fox a perfect example of this? I guess that would be a "yes" answer to my question above. (grin) I agree with the above assessment. My opinion about Fox (which I'll just reiterate here for the benefit of newer readers) is that it's nice to have some counterpoint in media bias, but I don't think the media bias in the other networks is deliberate the way it is at Fox. The fact that Fox chose its bias and enforces it as a selling point is detrimental to the industry. In short, it's a classic example of how two wrongs don't make a right.

No, he's pretty much in his own little world. He's also not a very good interviewer -- he's not a good listener, his choices for questions are poor, and he's generally more interested in repeating his own opinions than in giving his guests a forum. To his credit, he does invite guests with contrary points of view, he gives them a chance to speak their peace (mostly), and he traditionally gives them the last word (though he's not above cheap-shotting them afterwards). One thing I've always found amusing about BOR is the way he's portrayed as far-right conservative by the Loathing Left (it's amusing to watch them emo over him, ironically making him more relevant than he should be). He's certainly conservative on a number of issues, but he's in favor of gun control, gay adoption, and opposes a ban on flag burning (amongst other issues normally associated with the left). What would probably be more accurate would be to call him a "conservative populist". I applaud his bucking of the left-leaning mainstream media, but he demonstrates such a consistent degree of ineptitude for accuracy and cavalier disrespect for intelligence that I find him difficult to watch. Just to give one example, he favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classrooms, not because of his religious beliefs, but because he feels it's more fair to represent both sides and "let the kids decide for themselves". (sigh)

If he knew what it meant, I'd have to agree. But George Allen will be President of the United States when my mom can break AES using nothing but six feet of rusty barbed wire, a toothpick, and the front axle from a 1962 Ford Falcon.

Isn't it a little bit strange the way people keep digging up obscure words and telling us how evil they are to use? I'm not saying that there's no fire with the smoke here -- I think Democrats and Republicans get fairly equal treatment in this area (plenty of Demos have been sunk by poor choices in words). I just wonder where all these strange words are coming from. Is it a sign of these globalized times, or are there just is it just a result of extreme partisanship? Or some combination thereof? At any rate, I consider myself a fairly well-educated guy, and I'd never heard this one. But hey, maybe it's just me.

Some really great points being made in this thread. I think this is one of the more interesting discussions we've had lately.

Sev, if you want you can start a new thread for this, but it'd better be a well-constructed analysis; I don't want to see you hiding behind equivocal one-liners like the ones I see above. YT's question has been answered so I'm closing this thread (unless he didn't get everything he wanted, in which case he can re-open it if he wants).

Which of course is why the Suez crisis was Egypt v Canada. Nasser haded the hosers and their lackadaisical ways. Which of course prompted Ike's condemnation of the Smallwood government and the invasion and annexation of Newfoundland, which became the 51st US state in 1961. (This is kinda fun!)

No, I use the term "opposition party" only on international discussion boards.

I'll even add another one to your side of the scale: Hezbollah got a lot of PR yesterday when it announced that it would help pay for, and assist with, the rebuilding efforts. But I still think that POV misses certain key points, such as increased world attention and the destruction of open Hezbollah outposts next to the Israeli border. This also constitutes another "starting point", and so just as Hezbollah was condemned by the international community for starting this conflict, they'll be condemned even more strongly next time. Those condemnations have limited effect, to be sure, but it's better than not having them. Internationally, at the very *least* people see the present conflict as "both sides were wrong", and few think that Hezbollah's actions were justified by Israel's. That's more progress than we've seen in the whole two years since Syria pulled out.

That's a good one. I was just perusing Brendan "All the President's Spin" Nyhan's blog, and he has a pic up from the official web site of the Republican party, showing Howard Dean (a "Defeatocrat") in an angry, podium-pounding pose, with a very light shadow on his upper lip. (chuckle) I popped over to the GOP web site (here), but it's been replaced with a picture of George Soros ("The Defeatocrat Aristocrat" -- kind of a tongue twister!). And of course the Democrats.org site isn't any better this evening, talking about how "the GOP has made America less safe". Just glancing over the two sites, I'd have to say that the Democrat site is more focused on negative message, and the Republican site is more focused on making Bush look good. Interesting... I just noticed that the Republican web site uses Microsoft's ASP.NET web app technology (all the pages end with .aspx). The Democrats are using LAMP (all the pages end with .php). What an amusing example of ideology-meeting-technology!

No, not reversed -- it actually has nothing to do with which party is in control. The opposition party is just as guilty of it as the one in charge. Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi is a typical Democrat demogogue, seemingly incapable of going three sentences on *any* subject without injecting the words "Republican" or "Bush". Why just the other day I saw her on Martha Stewart's show talking about how important it was to understand Bush's failed Iraq policy when making her grandmother's chocolate chip cookies. (You think I'm joking....) And don't even get me started on the lunatic fringe like Georgia House Representative Cynthia McKinney, who openly accuses the Bush administration of orchestrating 9/11! No. Really. Fortunately the voters of Dekalb County just threw her out of office (or will in November; she lost the Democratic primary last week). I'm exempting, of course, Howard Dean, because it's actually his job to bash Republicans, just as Ken Melman bashes Demos for the Repoobs.

Actually I take part of that back. I can understand the value to newcomers to politics. My own interest in politics was sparked by talk radio host Neil Boortz, who I would listen to every day while sitting in a Fotomat booth many years ago. He made me think about things instead of just accepting what I was told. I can certainly see the value in that. But it took a lot of years and a lot of reading to undo that damage. And there are a lot of ways (and one powerful way in particular) that young people today can bypass that whole derail.

If you're looking for a set of conservative talking points to ridicule, all you have to do is tune in Rush Limbaugh, afternoons from noon to 3pm Eastern (check your local listings). Similarly, Tony Snow's daily press conference for the White House is broadcast regularly in CSPAN, I believe. For the liberal equivalent, which is every bit as pointless and laughable, try Air America. You'll never find a higher concentration of ignorant, hate-spewing vitriol than you will on AA. Why anyone would see either of these POVs as actually useful, I'm not sure. They represent the extreme positions, and they're all about spin and deception. It's like getting a daily dose of Nancy Pelosi -- you know it's bad for you, but you feel mysteriously drawn to it by a sick feeling in your stomach. Kinda like finding turned milk in the fridge and making sure you get a good whiff. It's something to rise above, not something to learn from. Just to give you some idea of how ludicrous the situation has become, we have two radio stations in town that cover AM talk radio, one for Air America and the other covering Rush, Sean Hannity, and similar conservatives. The irony is that both radio stations are owned and operated by the same corporation, and share newsrooms and weather and traffic services. No, really. It's entertainment, not education. It's not even edutainment.

How interesting, I've never heard that before! A quick check of the Wikipedia suggests that UK will finish repayment of the LLA debt on December 31st of this year. Fork it over, YT! YoU oWe mE dUd3! 8^D

"Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet...a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evangelist heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn't for the bullet." -- Woody Allen

Yes, I think you're correct in pointing out a common thread in the current environment. I can also see how younger voters and pre-voters might see it as a "Republican" thing. The only thing you're missing, due to age, is that the Dems did the same thing when they had power. (That doesn't make it right for Republicans to do it, though.) The point you're making in general is a truism about politics, IMO. It's systemic. That's "beltway politics" in a nutshell.

I'm not an expert in this area, maybe someone else will chime in who knows more about it. I believe the standard "trio" of places where governments go when they run into trouble are the WTO (for complaints resulting from trade disputes), the World Court (for litigation), and the International Monetary Fund (for debt relief). All three are interesting organizations, and on my long list of things I wish I had time to learn more about. Beyond that, as far as I know, they log in to freecreditreportsforpresidents.com. (grin)

They do. It's not as frequent, but it happens. Interestingly enough, they even report each other to "credit agencies", and have to deal with the consequences of default and "bad credit reports".

I'm aware of the numbers, but I could have expressed my position more clearly. I was trying to make the point that, in my opinion, Lebanon's success was illusory because it was based on false premises, or a kind of "house of cards" due to the existence and fostering of Hezbollah. I think this is a valid point, though I respect disagreement in this area. It's just my two bits on it. I don't relish death and destruction, and as I've said before I sympathize with the plight of the Lebanese. They've suffered a fall that they didn't ask for, and it's a shame to see it. But it's not the first time in human history that a civilization has fallen which had achieved a level of success based on false, illusory or exploitative pretenses. So yes, if they are successful in removing Hezbollah from power, in recognizing the dangerous of supporting violent terrorists, and in achieving peaceful coexistence with their neighbors, then I think this will eventually be a positive step for Lebanon. How can it not be?

Poorly. This thread has degraded into straw men and name-calling. It's on a short leash and headed for closure.

Here's another aspect of victory by Israel: Lebanon is having a "national dialog" about disarming Hezbollah! That was inconceivable before this conflict began. And better still, Hezbollah is actively engaged in that dialog, and actually OPEN to the possibility. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aofH9TN7uv4I&refer=home

I agree with Skye, and more: My opinion is exactly the opposite of Bud's. I think it's possible that not only has someone won this war, but in fact two entities have: Israel and Lebanon. This may be the best thing that could have happened to Lebanon. This isn't addressed at anyone here, but how can someone who insists that terrorism can have a positive outcome be blind to the positive outcome of war? I guess it's better to be politically correct than to be logical? That seems to be the tone of many observers as this thing ends. "Oh no! War is horrible! Nobody benefits, it's ALL bad! There is no price for freedom, it should be free, just like money and healthcare!" Welcome to the Real World. The blue pill was tasty, wasn't it?

Who won the Israel-Hezbollah conflict?

I don't think Israel is righteous. I just don't think they should be losing any sleep over civilian casualties due to Hezbollah launching rockets from Granny Latifah's kitchen porch. That would have happened whether Israel had invaded or not, or whether Israel went "over the top" in responding or not. Any defensive reaction would have produced civilian casualties. Any. You say they shouldn't have reacted; that they should have tried peace/diplomacy. How's that working out so far? UN "Peacekeeping" forces have been BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Southern Lebanon for 28 years!