Interesting, more people voted to override then for the original bill.
Republicans should support a withdrawal, if not because it is the right thing to do, but for their own enlightened self interest. A majority of the American people want a withdrawal based on recent polls and the vote giving Democrats a majority of the House & Senate.
Every single person who voted No on the spending bill, is going to see ads running in their district, "Congressman X voted to keep American's dying in Iraq when Democrats wanted to bring them home."
If American's are still dying in Iraq the next time voters go the polls, afterwards House & Senate Republicans will be able to caucus in a coffee shop. A very small coffee shop.
In the end, there will be a withdrawal, and Democrats will have the White House and a big congressional majority.Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 3.05.2007 @ 10:05
"Thatâ€™s three scenes in a 5 hour movie. Is that reason enough to condemn the entire project..."
Rick, if someone did a biography of you that was 100% accurate except for one little scene with you having sex with a goat, you would be okay with it? I mean, its just one scene that is not accurate.
I'm pleased to see not all of the Right has taken leave of their senses and understand that the issues raised for the Reagan Mini-series parallel this one :
I see you quote me on your blog--for the record, I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. I said as much on Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show (as did he, btw) this a.m. That ABC is stating "the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," is not at all comforting on this issue. 9/11 needs no fiction, nor does its buildup. It was all dramatic--and horrifically dramatic--enough.
Producer-Bill Bennett's Morning in America
Fellow-The Claremont Institute
Final note: Putting out lies that misinform the public harms this nation, whether it is about 9/11 or Reagan. And it diminishes the Right's integrity at a time when the public is growing increasingly skeptical of the Right's own narrative.Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 9.09.2006 @ 00:07
"Probably not but, following the precedent set by the Republican outrage over the Reagan mini-series, they would refrain from references to â€œthe Communications Act of 1934â€ or â€œtrustees of the public airwavesâ€.
I think it is alot paranoid to suggest the Democrats are threatening to pull anyone's license.
First, they didn't say that in the letter, just reminded the broadcasters that they have a public responsibility for accuracy that goes along with their use of public airwaves.
Second, as previously pointed out, they do not have the power to accomplish a license denial.
And tongueboy, if you're going to label me, make it "critically thinking US citizen". Not everyone who questions the fights the Right chooses to engage, or the tactics they use, is a Leftie. If a team member says to the coach "This play doesn't work." it does not make him a member of the other team.
I question whether capital should be expended for the right to tell a story as fact, that is highly controversial if it even happened (I speak now of the we have OBL surrounded and Clinton won't let us kill him portion of the broadcast).
What does it say about the Right's message that we have to fight to use possible lies to tell it?Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 8.09.2006 @ 16:13
I'm probably beating my head against the wall to even ask this. If the program supposedly contained an incident that made President Bush look bad, and was not reported by the 9/11 commission, and the primary players with the Bush White House said it was a fabrication, would the author of this site, and the readers let it happen without comment or indignation?Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 8.09.2006 @ 11:54
Rick, Maybe you shouldn't have linked to text of the actual resolution. You failed to mention only 2 of the 7 items were about setting a withdrawl date. The other four are things no politican would vote against. Had Democrats voted enmass against this resolution, you could have condemned them for voting against American soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people, and for expressing an the opinion America could not pervail again terrorism.
This resolution was a political torpedo of no useful purpose. You'd have damned Democrats no matter how they voted. Why are you burning your integrity posting this kind of nonsense?Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 19.06.2006 @ 15:50
Thanks for the response. Trolls must be frustrating, but I hope I've managed to suggest they are better ignored than bullied. The first impression you make newcomers you want to reach should be important to you.
As the political environment has polarized, it is tougher to find blogs that are fair to opposing viewpoints, not 100% on either side, and do not torture logic to support their views. There are a lot of people, myself included, who seek that.Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 7.03.2006 @ 17:23
"I could have done without the name calling and insults. Iâ€™ve come to expect better than that from most of the commenters on this site." - Rick Moran, Feb. 13, 2006
If you do decry name calling in your comments, you might lead from example.
Those not holding to your views, but open to all views, must be repelled by the name calling here, and the hostility to those raising questions and points not totally with your views. They likely flee, never to return. You miss an opportunity to influence and draw supporters. Instead, you preach to the choir; which by most polls is getting smaller every day.
Don't you want to use your blog to build support for your views?
And Miss Brown, dispite the provocation you too should avoid name calling. It works both ways.
Rick - you should consider making it blog policy to prohibit name calling and mocking from your comments and then delete ruthlessly ANY comments that violate that rule. Your blog is almost unique among those on the Right by actually allowing comments. Why squander the opportunity to be a place of earnest discussion where your views can be nurtured and spread?Comment Posted By Privacy Proponent On 7.03.2006 @ 11:13
Pages (1) :