Sure enough. But those books are saucy for a couple of social conservatives.

What the second libs believe in? Less govn and less taxes?

[quote=SonnyClips]Hate to beat a dead horse but...

When I was arguing that Krepinevich was a well connected insider ....[/quote]

I'm well aware of who Krepinevich is. I'm well aware that he's a critic of the current administration. The Pentagon hired a known critic for an outsider's view, nothing more. They should get a pat on the back for that.

[quote=SonnyClips]

You said the dude was some bumpkin colonel that didn't know what he was talking about, more or less.

[/quote]

I said nothing of the sort. I said I was familar with his book, The Army and Vietnam". I also said he's not on the ground there and you can't assume he speaks for anyone who is. I also pointed out that they tried his "oil spot" plan (it wasn't him at the time), but they called it "Strategic Hamlets" and they were an abject failure.

that should read "wasn't his at the time".....

The guy's well known in military circles. Among his ideas in the past was that we don't need armored forces (opps, then came the first Gulf War where we needed, you guessed it, armored forces) that the NTC (National Training Center) in Death Valley should be shut down. He never advanced beyond LTC and never commanded troops in Iraq. He's also connected to Democrat leaning think tanks like CFR and advised the Kerry camp.

None of those things make him a fool or evil, but they don't make him an expert w/o an agenda, either.

Having an agenda means that you are working with a preconceived ideology.  Nothing wrong with having a plan.  What is wrong is having an agenda which blinds you to the flaws in your plan and the idea that just possibly perhaps there might be another way to look at things.  Having an "agenda" means that you are also not willing to concede that other people may have valid point.

Going into a project or experiment or conducting a poll with the idea that you are going to get X results come hell or high water is having an agenda. Doing the same and being willing to accept that the outcome wasn't exactly what you preconceived is having an open mind.

The reason that agenda has become an epithet to be cast at the left is because most (pay attention I said most......not all) liberals and especially those on the far tin foil hat left have not got open minds and are there to push an agenda.

[quote=SonnyClips]Hey question, what is the conservative facination with the word agenda? It is as if having an agenda is synonmous with being liberal. I would hope that conservatives have an agenda too. Otherwise whats the point?

You don't seem to be spitting the word with the kind of indignation that is characteristic of most. I hoped you could give some insight on this. [/quote]

It's not something exclusive to the left or the right, it simply means you have to consider the underlying bias of a given person when they speak on a topic. Especially when they’re being critical of the opposition.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

For example, if I gave you the name and views of a person otherwise unknown to you, and said you should consider what this person has to say on, say, a Democrat backed proposal, and it turned out he was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans (just to use an inflammatory example), you might consider that person’s bias or agenda. Right? It would only be fair.

He’s not a bad guy, he has a history, and it should be part of the math when you go to consider his opinion. That’s all I’m saying.

Now, tell me, Sonny, who loves you?  Ain’t it great being pals? 

Let me bounce this off of you. I think conservatives have rather astutely adopted the word, and its negative conotation, knowing that it will ring as such in the ears of what might otherwise be left leaning journalists. Journalists that foolishly accept the false notion of objectivity would necessarily recoil at the thought of someone reporting (which can include making documentaries and working as a pundit) might give their own perspective.

This is not a bash on conservatives, its a smart thing to do which is in no way underhanded, so much as an observation. What do you think?

Sure, it is smart marketing of your product or your "agenda".  We should know this since it is what we do all day long.  The fact that the Republicans (leave out the fringe groups on both sides here, since I think they both go to the same tinfoil hat factory) are better at it is probably because many Repubs are business oriented and result oriented. While many Dems are idealists who while they may mean well don't have a real grounded view on the cause and effect of their ideals or even on how the world works 

In college, on debate team, (that sounded so much like....one time...at band camp.. lol...anyway) we learned to first of all be able to argue from your opponent's side so you can be ready to counter every possible argument.  Isn't that also what we do as sales people?  Anticipate all the objections and be ready with a counter.  This is where the Dems seem to be unable to counter.  They only seem to be able to see their own side and unable to even concieve that others can think differently without being "stooopid". We also learned that he who frames the argument gets to win.  Semantics is everything in persuasive arguing. Persuasive arguing is much different than just calling names (chimpymchitler, rednecks, christofacists etc.) and talking in a shriller voice than your opponent.

The lines between objective reporting and opinion pieces has been blurred for some time now.  So much so that it is even questionable if there remains such a thing as objective journalism.  When the majority of the "journalists" approach their stories with an "agenda", whether they knowingly do so or just can't help themselves, the result is a fiasco such as Dan Rather and the fake but accurate memos.  It used to be, before the internet, when we had only three channels on television, only a few newspapers and no talk radio, that they could get away with distorting the truth to suit the agenda they wanted.  No more.  Bloggers and the ability instantly fact check a story that is printed in the NY Times, which used to be the last word, can show the bias, faulty facts and just plain untruths in a matter of minutes.   I love it.

The thread of the century!

Nice to have a leader who does what he says... No bombs in America, 50 of top 55 terrorists dead or captured, freedom movement in Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Pakistan and Libya and the highest military retention in our history. Do the troops believe in our leadership I think so... Are these troops forced to battle with a draft, NO! Highest home ownership in our history. Low unemployment and interest rates.

Yet the left jumps up and down saying the sky will fall like "we will lose 50,000 marching into Bagdad" or "Social Security is fine" or "We will lose the war." I refuse to listen to leaders who obstruct or state these and many more terrible positions.

In the end I leave you with this happy note... GO UCONN & FIRM LEADERSHIP!

Libs just stated their position. Did you hear it?

[quote=SonnyClips]Objective reporting was a myth that came out of the eighteen eighties and the consolidation of news bureaus. Prior to this most newspapers had a huge and admitted bias. When the Pulitzers and the Hearsts conglomerated they streamlined the operations. I think that objectivity has gone the way of the dodo because it was synthetic in the first place.

Although both sides now can manipulate the perception of objectivity being the norm in order to paint the other with the agenda brush. I think in many ways you miss the mark though when you discount the left in their manipulation. No the big media org's aren't the tools of the left any more than the Carlisle Group is running the world. Sloppy maybe but conspiritorial in any guided fashion or through systemic design not so much.

This is a good point. The media has really never been objective... they just pretend to be while using their communication lines to put forward an agenda.   I don't mean each individual reporter. I mean the organization as a whole.

On the other hand mainstream alternatives such as Air America, The Nation, The New Republic, Rush Limbaugh or Fox News(which in many ways is now mainstream) do distinctly have an agenda and have made themselves more appealing to audiences in the process. The ironic thing is that they have come out of the New Journalism(or Hunter Thompson's Gonzo Journalism) and having had roots on the left it seems years of refinement on the Right has given them the edge.

The talk radio alternatives which are mostly right of center arose due to the perceived liberal bias of the main stream media and catered to people who wanted to hear alternatives.  When you listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh you know where he is coming from, just the same as when you listen to Air America.  The problem is that many people tend to listen to what makes them feel comfortable.  That is: some one echoing back to them their own views.  This is very dangerous.  We can't live in an echo chamber and NEED to hear other viewpoints even those we don't agree with.   I think this echo chamber effect is most obvious in the Hollywood culture and hence the declining revenues in movie sales

Don't be so quick to paint us Libs as pie-in-the-sky idealists. In doing so you show a incredible myopia given that so many libs do so goddam well in business. It is like saying that their is no Right wing intelligentsia even though the strategies at work in American Foriegn policy were born of a group of very astute Conservative thinkers. As far as business goes we should not forget all of the organizations that are not only effciently run by libs but started by them. How many Democrats have come out of Goldman Sachs? Lets also look at Intel, Berkshire Hathaway, Soros Fund Management, Microsoft, Occidental Petroleum, etc.

I think you are on to something but it might be a little different than how you have characterized the situation. I don't think that conservatives are across the board endowed with better discipline than libs although discipline is a factor. I think years of being the minority party and having to forge an organization to overcome these obstacles have created a set of best practices that in many ways translates as disciplined.

This is much the same as other movements. Take civil rights for example as successes were achieved message discipline and loyalty to leadership declined. The movement became a victim of its own success. Hundreds of years of group cohesion disipated in less than a generation.

Now look at the Conservatives years of groundwork done by Barry Goldwater and his small plane flights around the country to organize Republicans in rural areas. Ralph Reed contiuing this work by going right to the cilia on the grassroots organizing not only Republican town office holders but Republican school board members as well. William F. Buckley engaging Catholics and challenging their beliefs and whether they were at odds with the politics of the Democrats. All while the liberal politicos got fat off of their influence and power conservatives were pumping iron and getting lean for the fight.

We began to see the results with Nixon somewhat although he was a liberal appologist passing legislation for food stamps(written by Bob Dole), affirmative action(vehemently fought by Goldwater) and Title Nine. It wasn't until Reagan comes along that we see the power of the Conservative movement and the work done by its activists. But the charisma of Reagan outshined the movement of which he was but a charter member, given that Reagan was a force unto himself.

No it would not be until the election of W that we see the full power of the movement. (Although one has to conceed somewhat to the manipulation of the movement by Lee Atwater in the election of the elder Bush) W though is the pinacle of the movement a technocrat that would not have been possible without forty years of diligent hard work by underdogs. But the conservative movement like the Civil Rights movement in the sixties looks at its most powerful when it is at its weakest. The infighting and jockeying for position has started.

Now all that is left is to see if the libs will rise to the challenge. The peril for the country though is that without a cohesive movement on either side who will fill the void?

I don't believe that the Democrats as they are functioning now in catering to the extreme left wing of the party are going to survive as a viable party.  Read Dailykos sometime to see the vitriol and sheer moonbattyness of the left.  These people are supposed to be representing the party of liberalism????  I have never read more hateful bigoted remarks. 

You already see many disillusioned centrist Dems looking for other alternatives.  The same goes for the Republicans.  Having been the party in power for a while, they have drifted far from the goals that got them in power (Contract with America).  Its like that song from the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.   What I expect will happen in the next 5 to 10 years is that new centrist party made up of left of center Dems and right of center Repubs will come about, jettisoning the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.   This happens all the time......shifting of the parties.  

I personally like some of the current administrations fiscal proposals and business friendly attitude, but am not happy with others such as out of control illegal immigration and huge government spending that hasn't been vetoed once.  Entitlement programs (socialism, unfunded Social Security) will bring this country to its knees.  Both parties need to get control of the graft and corruption going on and take some of the Senators and Representatives to the woodshed for a good beating. On the other hand if the Dems get in to power (God help us) over regulation of businesses, excessive environmental controls that are community and business killers and further increases in the feel good entitlement mentality will also bring us down.

Most ordinary people have no grasp of economics or the ability to look at the long term effects of their actions.  Unfortunately we have elected  boobs and ethical pigmies to Congress.[/quote]

Plain ol' democrat...not ashamed but I don't bash people with it either way.

[quote=7GOD63]

The thread of the century!

Nice to have a leader who does what he says... No bombs in America, 50 of top 55 terrorists dead or captured, freedom movement in Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Pakistan and Libya and the highest military retention in our history. Do the troops believe in our leadership I think so... Are these troops forced to battle with a draft, NO! Highest home ownership in our history. Low unemployment and interest rates.

Yet the left jumps up and down saying the sky will fall like "we will lose 50,000 marching into Bagdad" or "Social Security is fine" or "We will lose the war." I refuse to listen to leaders who obstruct or state these and many more terrible positions.

In the end I leave you with this happy note... GO UCONN & FIRM LEADERSHIP!

[/quote]

Yeah, let's go kill people who have done nothing to us (there is still no clear and definable link between Saddam and Al Qeada, no WMD etc...), lie to the American public about our motives, generate greater animosity among the Islamic world and sacrifice the lives of our children.  You probably thought that the Vietnam War was a great idea too.

Afghanistan was fine and understandable.  For Iraq Bush should be impeached, for one of two reasons:

either

1) Extreme incompetence and lack of understanding of how to use intelligence (not using it to justify an already made decision, but to inform for better decisions)

Or.....

2) Plain 'ol lies and deciet

Yeah, let's go kill people who have done nothing to us

Aside from giving financial aid, places to plan and train, and a retirement haven for terrorists, shoot at our planes, plot to kill a foemer president, refused to comply with a cease-fire agreement he'd signed...

(there is still no clear and definable link between Saddam and Al Qeada, no WMD etc...),

There are in fact very clear and definable links between Saddam and Al Qeada. No less a source that Richard Clarke pointed them out. As did the 911 Commission. Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did.

 lie to the American public about our motives,

Let me guess, there's a "IT"S FOR OIL, MAN" sign there somewhere...

".. generate greater animosity among the Islamic world ..."

Because everyone knows the people no longer living under that Taliban and Saddam just hate us, (they used to love us) and that the terrorists would have all pulled down their tents and gone off to a peaceful life had we just not gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, wait, they had been attacking us for better than a decade before that...

"...and sacrifice the lives of our children. "

You mean our volunteers who see the truth closer than you and I do and re-enlist at amazing rates to continue to press the fight? Why would you call those people "children", except in an attempt to downplay how they disagree with you?

Afghanistan was fine and understandable. 

Another fine example of success having many fathers. There was an awful lot of "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "THIS IS ALL ABOUT A PIPELINE" ranting on the left before we toppled the Taliban.

For Iraq Bush should be impeached, for one of two reasons:

I hope the Democrats follow your advice and go down that path...

1) Extreme incompetence and lack of understanding of how to use intelligence

I think what you mean to say is "for believeing what the prior administration and every intel agency on the planet believed"

Or.....

2) Plain 'ol lies and deciet

Well, when you have nothing else, when you have no alternatives to advance, when you have no facts on your side, when every quote from the prior Democratic administration contradicts you, you can always claim "BUSH LIED!!!!"

Just a point...Most Democrats do not want Bush impeached.  The words President Cheney scare the heck out of us!

Secondly, I would say that the previous poster has been listening to news through only Rush Limbaugh...(Who is by the way no better than the Michael Moore of the Right...same antics...same amount of b.s.)

"Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did."

Funniest line of the thing.  Anyone remember our impetus for going to war?  We asked Saddam's government to report to us about their WMDs and as it has turned out everything in that report has been proven true.  Yet now we are seeing Republicans tell us how he 'led us to believe he had them???"  Um...cough cough...hack hack...um...sorry...choking on the b.s.

[quote=go_rascals]

Just a point...Most Democrats do not want Bush impeached.  The words President Cheney scare the heck out of us!

Secondly, I would say that the previous poster has been listening to news through only Rush Limbaugh...(Who is by the way no better than the Michael Moore of the Right...same antics...same amount of b.s.)

"Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did."

Funniest line of the thing.  Anyone remember our impetus for going to war?  We asked Saddam's government to report to us about their WMDs and as it has turned out everything in that report has been proven true.  Yet now we are seeing Republicans tell us how he 'led us to believe he had them???"  Um...cough cough...hack hack...um...sorry...choking on the b.s.

[/quote]

Go go_rascals

I used to love Bush, until I started to really pay attention.  In fact I sounded just like MikeB. 

Although I'm no Michael Moore fan, I applauded his movie Farenheight 911 (even though there were some of the expected biases).  Why??  Well I knew early on about how the Bush Admin help the Bin Laden family leave the country while all air traffic was grounded (this was when I started to question Bush), and thought it was cool to make that info known to the world.  Yet how come nothing has really been done about it?  NO ONE could get even a domestic flight (transplant patients lost organs etc....) yet the only people who might truly be able to help us locate Bin Laden were shuttled out of the country?  Where's Bush's interests?  Are they in line with the American publics interests?

MikeB,  would you have let the Bin Laden family out of the country right after 911?

[quote=go_rascals]

Secondly, I would say that the previous poster has been listening to news through only Rush Limbaugh...(Who is by the way no better than the Michael Moore of the Right...same antics...same amount of b.s.)

[/quote]

Blah, blah, blah Rush Limbaugh, blah, blah....

[quote=go_rascals]

"Saddam had 12 years to prove he didn't have WMDs. He led every intel agency in the world to believe he had them. Perhaps because HE thought he did."

Funniest line of the thing.  Anyone remember our impetus for going to war?  We asked Saddam's government to report to us about their WMDs and as it has turned out everything in that report has been proven true. 

[/quote]

Earth to Democrat, Saddam never "reported". He stalled and interfered with the UN's inspection teams for 12 years. I have no idae what you're using as a source, but I suspect if you were better informed you wouldn't be a Democrat.

[quote=go_rascals]

 Yet now we are seeing Republicans tell us how he 'led us to believe he had them???"  Um...cough cough...hack hack...um...sorry...choking on the b.s.

[/quote]

Typical incredibly ill-informed Bush-basher... Perhaps you never heard the quote for the then-head of the CIA, a man appointed by Clinton, it was a "slam dunk" to prove Saddam had WMD. Every single European gov't intel agency, even those who didn't support our attack, said Saddam had WMD.

MikeB,

If you had committed a crime much less drastic than the 911 tragedy, and
were in hiding I can guarantee that the FBI would be all over your family
trying to find out where you were. But......... If you are a Bin Laden, you've
got special priveleges.

Just the kind of a*shole I want to run my country. You have an admirable
idol MikeB.

[quote=dude]

I used to love Bush, until I started to really pay attention.  In fact I sounded just like MikeB. 

[/quote]

You have shown anything to support the claim that you "pay attention". And the "I used to love Bush" line is hysterical. You mimicevery Democrat fringe talking point.

[quote=dude]

Although I'm no Michael Moore fan, I applauded his movie Farenheight 911 (even though there were some of the expected biases).  Why?? 

[/quote]

I'm guessing it's because you believed Moore's fiction. Let's see if that's the case....

[quote=dude] Well I knew early on about how the Bush Admin help the Bin Laden family leave the country while all air traffic was grounded (this was when I started to question Bush), and thought it was cool to make that info known to the world. 

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, your example is one the the first myths spun by Moore to be proven as fiction.  

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission"). In their final report, the commission noted: