BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:55 PM

"Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... "

This is the most asinine thread title (and twisted concept) ever.

I know that Limbaugh and Hanity and other folks are trying to make it sound as if "liberal" Newsweek made up the Koran-in-the-toilet story just to get Muslims riled up and soldiers killed, but I am amazed that people buy into this BULLSHIT.

Yes, the source is now backpedalling and leaving Newsweek swinging from a limb, but is the Koran in the toilet story so hard to believe? The Taguba Report (he's a soldier himself folks) documented "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" of Muslim detainees at Abu Ghraib, purportedly to set "favorable conditions" for subsequent interrogation. The report contains the famous photos of the abuse show Iraqi detainees stripped naked, hooded and arranged in a number of sexual or humiliating positions. Other photos and videos are mentioned, but are not included, and have not been so famously publicized because they are so graphic (including a video of a teenage boy screaming as he is sodomized). The report documents instances of detainees being punched, slapped, sodomized with a broomstick or chemical light (on video, with sound), and threatened with electric shock, loaded weapons and dogs.

Now Newsweek reports on something if not milder, certainly no worse, and when their source backs off, you claim that it is Newsweek and the "liberal media" that are responsible for Muslim rage? Are you really saying that it is Newsweek's reporting, and not the abuses themselves that are to blame? If so, are you prepared to start a thread entitled "General Taguba getting Soldiers Killed... "?

Reminds me of Rathergate. Dan Rather was run out of town on a rail, and made to look as if he made the whole thing up. Okay, maybe the memo in Rather's hand was not the original, but the woman who typed the original says that the contents are accurate. But the twisted bellowings of Hannity et al. get people with poor (or lazy, or ideologically blinded) critical thinking skills to come away thinkng that the whole thing was the fault of "The Liberal Media".

Now you actually believe that Muslim resentment of the USA is the fault of "The Liberal Media"?!?!?!?!?

Sheeesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:44 PM

edia reports blamed Newsweek alone for violent Muslim demonstrations; Joint Chiefs chairman disagrees


Following reports that a retracted May 9 Newsweek item contributed to violent protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, several news accounts simply echoed the White House's claim that Newsweek was responsible for the deadly violence while omitting evidence undermining that claim. The CBS Evening News, CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, and The Washington Post all failed to note that top military officials have contradicted White House claims about what caused the recent violence. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers stated on May 12 that the violence was "not at all tied to the article in the magazine," which alleged that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "flushed a Quran down a toilet."

On the May 16 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer stated that the Newsweek story "led to a week of violent anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan in which at least 15 people were killed." On the May 16 edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports, CNN correspondent Barbara Starr reported that the article "touched off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving at least 15 dead," while host Wolf Blitzer declared: "Unfortunately, there are dead people out there as a result of that report."

On that evening's edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume stated that "The story triggered protests in which 17 died," and Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron similarly reported: "The story sparked violent anti-American protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories. Seventeen people were killed." On the May 17 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep noted that the Newsweek story "led to violent demonstrations in the Islamic world," while arts reporter Neda Ulaby reported that "reaction to the story was almost immediate: Riots exploded, and scores of people were injured. Fifteen people died." And Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz stated in a May 17 article: "The May 1 item triggered violent protests last week in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, in which at least 16 people were killed."

In fact, top U.S. military officials contended that other factors led to the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Myers noted in a May 12 Department of Defense news briefing, according to Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, the violence "was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Quran" but was "more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President [Hamid] Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan." Myers directly noted Eikenberry's belief that the violence "was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

Not all news reports ignored other elements that apparently contributed to the violent protests. For example, in his report on the Newsweek controversy on the May 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC News correspondent David Shuster aired Myers's remarks that Newsweek was not to blame. Shuster added that "the reputation of American interrogators has been awful for more than a year. Last spring, there were the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and since then, there have been stories about Guantánamo Bay."

Moreover, NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams's report on the May 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News documented an assessment by Barnett Rubin, director of studies at New York University's Center for International Cooperation, that Karzai's openness to "a long-term military relationship with the United States" may have also contributed to the violent protests:

WILLIAMS: While the debate wages over Newsweek's journalism, some experts on the region say last week's protests have long been simmering and involve more than just the Quran story.

RUBIN: From the very beginning, the demonstrators also said that they didn't want any permanent U.S. bases on Afghanistan, which was a reaction to some statements by President Karzai that he would discuss a long-term military relationship with the United States.

Excerpted from http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003


A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 05 - 06:44 PM

Hub:

I am not redefining anything -- all the definitions I cited come from external, recognized collections, such the OED, or more modernly the Wikipedia web site.

It is folks like your good self and your hellish moronic loudspeaker like dear old pillhead Limbaugh and the Shrieking Harridan of the West, who have turned "liberal" into a curse word defining anyone who doesn't think unilateral invasions is a very American policy.

---

A few links on the dramatization and falsifications perpetrated by extremist righ commentators like yourself, Hub-me-lad:

More ethically challenged right wing commentators


Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How it Distorts the Truth . Excerpt: "One of the great values of Conason's book is that it corrects some of the most brazen misconceptions about the tradition of Liberalism. This is enormously important today because right-wing commentators have falsely portrayed Liberals as unpatriotic hate-mongers who, lacking any ideas or positive agenda of their own, are only capable of attacking those who disagree with them. This tactic is likely to be a central feature of the Bush 're-election' playbook -- that and "attack the media for not telling the truth about Iraq."

Conason recounts how Liberalism has contributed to the social and economic well being of the United States. Social Security, the diminishment of poverty among the elderly, the Civil Rights movement, extending enfranchisement to women and minorities, and environmental safeguards were all instigated and propelled forward by Liberals. Conservatism, on the other hand, has invariably sided against health and occupational standards for workers, regulatory oversight for financial markets, and public works programs that transformed this country from an agricultural economy to an industrial one."

Documentation of Ann Coulter's falsehoods can be found starting here among many other places.

---

I would say much more, but I have more pressing things to handle just now. I just want to go on record as saying that you not only misassess the actual usage of the word and its history, but you misunderestimate me, too! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 05 - 06:41 PM

Liberal media? What a joke...

This entire non-story has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it...

Retraction?

No, jus' another distraction...

Okay, lets jus' fir one instance lay the blame on 14 folks dieing because of a short paragraph in one of the 3000 Anerican meagazines... So like ya' gonna blame Newsweek fir the hundred thousand folks that have been killed in Bush's wars???

Give me a break, hubby... This ain't rocket surgery here... Let me ask you one question... Do you actually have any original thoughts? You sound to me like a on-the-payroll Bushite shill... I mean, I have never heard one danged thought come out of you that isn't 100% Karl Rove-ish partisan...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 05 - 05:16 PM

Well, I am 57 years old. I have been reading since I was about five--newspapers, books, etc. I stopped trusting newspapers, televisions, radios by the age of sixteen. I recognize bullshit when I read it, view it and hear it. Think about this: How many papers ya gonna sell if you don't appeal to popular opinion? So, what do these 'organs' of the media have to appeal to? If you said "POPULAR OPINION", you win the free trip to Boise for five days and two nights.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 May 05 - 05:14 PM

The Guardian is pretty mainstream in fact, and the same goes for the Tory supporting Daily Telegraph. Left bank and right bank mainstream, but it's the same river. I suppose the Telegraoh might count as a bit left wing in some places across the water...

I don't follow the US press closely enough to know too much about the other publications you list, Doug. The New York Timnes I've seen from tiume to time, and that doesn't exactly look left-wing.

What would count as a mainstream publication Doug?
..............................

"one of the prisoner's tried to flood his cell by flushing pages of his Koran down his toilet.


That sounds very like the kind of traditional case where injuries to prisoners are explained as self-inflicted. Except that in this case the explanation is so remarkably unlikely that literally no one in the Muslim world will believe it - all it does it confirm that a copy of the Quran actually was desecrated in an American jail, which has to mean that it was done by a guard or "interrogator".

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 05 - 05:04 PM

Of course the purpose here is to continue pressing the right-wing campaign to redefine the word "liberal," not with any kind of precise, meaningful definition, but with vague associations to things that a large enough segment of voters regard as negative.

For example, this is the kind of tactic that Karl Rove used when he managed George W. Bush's campaign for governor of Texas:   associating one of the most popular governors in Texas history, the fairly liberal Ann Richards, with "promoting the homosexual agenda" in the minds of the large number of religious fundamentalist Texas voters. There was no basis in fact for this. Nevertheless, with his typical regard for the truth, Karl Rove had volunteer campaign workers descend on church parking lots on Sundays and stick fliers under windshield wipers saying that Ann Richards had a policy of hiring homosexuals in her administration. She had no such policy, either pro- or anti-homosexual. But "repeat an outrageous lie often enough and loudly enough and people will believe it."

Karl Rove (quite possibly the reincarnation of Niccolo Machiavelli) is still Bush's political advisor for obvious reasons.

The administration in power (no matter which way it leans, right or left) and the press should always be in fundamental opposition. The administration wants the public to go along with its policies, no matter how ill-advised. It is the job of the press to point out when and how the administration is trying to con the public. The more secretive and dedicated to special interests an administration is, the more it is the responsibillity of a free press to expose what the administration is up to. This makes government and a free press natural enemies. The administration complains bitterly whenever the press exposes its sculduggery and it invariably accuses the press of being biased in favor of the "out-cumbents."

Occasionally the press goofs, and that's the administration's opportunity to pounce on them like hyenas. Dan Rather and CBS should have checked the provenance of the documents about Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) more carefully, and Newsweek should have done more digging on the Koran incident and other abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Graib. But--you will note that the administration's (or its supporters) response to this is to attack the "liberal media," not actually dig into the truth or falsity of the allegation. The point is to muddy the waters and divert the public's attention from the real issue.

One of the current administration's policies is "The truth be damned!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 05 - 03:19 PM

"Susu's Hubby", the guy new to the forum two months ago knows all the posters and their political leanings" Doesn't anyone but me find this a bit fantastic?????



Mick, Amos,

Quit trying to change the subject. If a subject change is what you want, go start your own threads.

Amos, you are an intelligent man. Your forever spouting off literal definitions does absolutely nothing for me. I am aware of what the literal definition is. It's just like using the term cock, or ass, or queer. We all know what the literal definitions are but when you hear it, honestly, what do you think?

You know, in fact, I wish the term "liberal" would actually be accurate in describing what the majority of you believe today. But sadly, what you actually believe is pure hatred and jealousy of the highest order. You just seem to hide behind the facade of the "problems of the common man".

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 May 05 - 03:11 PM

Susu's Hubby: Amos has defined the word "liberal" for you. His definition is correct. It is unfortunate that some people have decided to lump together all of the things they hate and attempt to redefine a perfectly good word to cover all of them. There are very few people who meet each of the criteria in this redefinition, but those who choose to pervert the language seem to believe that anyone who fits one must fit them all. The reality is that "liberal" means a person who thinks for himself and respects the rights of others to do the same. It isn't unusual for an individual "liberal" to own guns and abhore the death penalty, or to advocate some degree of gun control and, under some circumstances, favor the death penalty. Other "liberals" favor both affirmative action and immigration control, while others are both practicing Christians and understand the need for birth control and abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: just john
Date: 17 May 05 - 02:04 PM

(Yeah, how dare anybody report stuff?)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 17 May 05 - 01:42 PM

Dang. Sorry, again. Guest 11:29 was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 05 - 01:30 PM

Doug,

You make sense to Republicans. Take comfort in that.

IMO, Newsweek is right-wing journalism.

The Eastside Other was liberal press, IMO.

Oh how we differ. C'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: DougR
Date: 17 May 05 - 01:20 PM

McGrath sees NEWSEEK as pretty much "mainstream." Not surprising for a liberal to think so. Most liberals also see The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, even London's The Guardian as being "mainstream." Of course they also define "mainstream" as liberalism.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 17 May 05 - 12:59 PM

Sort of rings a bell across the pond in this UK that I live in, where we went to war on the basis of a lie, and it is killing our boys too. Not so many I know, but that's because we've got the quiet bits, which is the opposite of the zones allocated to the allies after WW2, where the Americans got the pretty bit, the Brits got the shitty bit, and the French got the bit nearest home.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 05 - 12:52 PM

Yah, why can't America invade a foreign country without suffering casualties? Its just not fair!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 05 - 12:50 PM

Hi heric. This is me verifying my 16 May 05 - 07:27 PM post in this thread.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 05 - 12:33 PM

"Just because they lied once means that we can believe them now since they admitted it?"
                                          
This above sentence should apply to the people who are ACTUALLY getting People killed...
......The present Administration not a Newsweek magazinge article!!

In my opinion it should read: " Because the Whitehouse lied about WMD's means that we cannot believe them now since they won't admit to it."

Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
Yeah right...keep saying that over and over and then click your heels three times and the FACTS will disappear, like the WMD's did!

The ultimate in irresponsibility....is not a Magazine report.....Violence and hatered breed Violence and hatered....
and in all honesty, come on now...do you really think that after the pictures emerged from Abu Ghraib that flushing a Quran down a Tiolet is beyond thinking about..
get a grip.
Sorry......me thinks the White House protesteth too much on this one....in fact it is the ultimate in hypocrisy..
Donald Rumsfeld, who most definetly should have beed dimissed from his position after the prison Scadals came to light, standing there saying what he said about a Newsweek article...is the ultimate in just plain arrogance and blind hypocricy.

This WAR...and it's toll on Human Life isn't something that the Rightwing, Pro Bush crew can pin on the Left Media....you wanted War, you got what you wanted......

Time to fess up and admit that FACT

The Scapegoat hunt continues but cannot and never will detract from the Actual Source of WHY people are dying....
WE ARE AT WAR AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION!
I think that as time goes on the Quarn incident will pale in comparison to what is actually going on at Guantanamo Bay.

Then again if they just hold all these Prisoners there forever without trial....we might get lucky and no-one will ever really know!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: mg
Date: 17 May 05 - 12:09 PM

I am more inclined to believe it happened than it didn;'t and i am horrified..this is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't even consider doing as the backlash could be and will be and is enormous. Something is really rotten in intelligence, etc. I can't fathom some of the things that have been done...

And for anyone at newsweek or in the military or the public to think this kind of religious abuse won't have dire consequences to a profoundly, and often fanatically religious people, they are too dumb for me to contemplate even. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: frogprince
Date: 17 May 05 - 11:51 AM

"Why don't we ever hear of the people that are NOT getting attacked? Why not report on the progress of the children that are back in school? Why not report about the endless opportunities that the Iraqies are lining up for to take advantage of? NO. Instead, all we hear about are the three or four people that were killed due to a suicide bomber. We hear about the numerous people that have been killed due to the enemy kidnapping and slaughtering scores of people for supporting the US."
   The population of Iraq is just about one-fourteenth that of the U.S. We are not hearing of 3 or 4 deaths daily; more like 19 here, 60 there, daily. Imagine for one moment that this, multiplied by 14, is happening in the U.S. on a daily basis. Then tell us that you would be thinking just as much about the "children who are back in school" as you would about the stark horror of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 05 - 11:29 AM

"But you know, in the back of your mind, it makes you feel better about yourself and your situation, whatever it may be, to see others in their plight and moments of greatest tragedy. If you say anything different, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. If you're not going to be honest in here, at least be honest with yourselves." susu's hub

See, no matter how often or even WHO says that, I don't believe it and seriously question the character of the person who does feel that way. Judging by my own experience in life, the times when I have been sad the whole world has seemed sad and hopeless; when I see an accident my heart sinks; when I hear a siren I could weep.

And it's not because I am so soft hearted or sensitive- it's that I recognize that our life here is tenuous and without guarantees.

So go ahead and suggest that I have some serious soul searching to do. I've already done it and will continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 17 May 05 - 10:29 AM

"Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed..."

There is a fallacy in the thread title

1) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact
2) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact
3) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact

SH, work on the above mantra. Make it your own.

PS Unless times have changed substantially, which papers/TV stations/radio stations are 'liberal'? Inquiring minds wish to know. (I will get an idea who to read/view/listen to.

Thanks ever so much.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 May 05 - 10:25 AM

Mick, Amos,

Quit trying to change the subject. If a subject change is what you want, go start your own threads.

Amos, you are an intelligent man. Your forever spouting off literal definitions does absolutely nothing for me. I am aware of what the literal definition is. It's just like using the term cock, or ass, or queer. We all know what the literal definitions are but when you hear it, honestly, what do you think?

You know, in fact, I wish the term "liberal" would actually be accurate in describing what the majority of you believe today. But sadly, what you actually believe is pure hatred and jealousy of the highest order. You just seem to hide behind the facade of the "problems of the common man".


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 May 05 - 10:20 AM

Not worse, Mick. The same as. And the point is that it should be equally unacceptable but is not. Instead, it is rationalized as "might be true anyway". Rather than being equally outraged at the damage Newsweek's careless "journalism" incited, the anger is instead turned toward someone who dares call Newsweek on it. Instead Newsweek is defended because it's no worse than...(fill in the right-wing blank).

I strike you as a bigot, eh?

Amos' convenient redefinition of "liberal" doesn't change the poliical reality of which sid is which. It is Amos' (and others who would likewise obfuscate -- {much as I love amos}) who has entered the false premise into the discussion.

SH's POV view does not automatically qualify him as an intellectual lightweight not a bigot.

Here, robo, is a discussion re: liberal/conservative from the distant past.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 17 May 05 - 09:32 AM

Your blindered vision continues to show you for the intellectual lightweight you are, Susu's Hubby. And it also shows your proclivity for shifting the premise to suit your view of "truth". Amos exposed the false premise and you have neatly ducked it. Old trick, really. But I will draw you back to it.

I would like to know why this incident of twisting information, which has caused a riots, and a people who already hated us to hate us more, is any worse than the lies and deceptions which were used by the administration (who now, in the best traditions of bigotry take the high road) to take us into the war which has killed so many?

It is this kind of ideological "morals of convenience" which is exposing the right for the bigots they are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 17 May 05 - 09:26 AM

Amos:

Assuming it hasn't already been done, your post would be suitable for starting a thread on what constitutes liberal, and someone else could do the same for conservatism, and those across the pond could respond with the English version of same:

From Iolanthe:

"I often think it comical, fa laha la fa laha la.
How nature always doth contrive, fa laha la la
That every boy and every girl that's born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal, or else a little conservative
Fa, la, la."
- Gilbert And Sullivan

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,AMos
Date: 17 May 05 - 09:16 AM

Your use of the word liberal is puffed up and inaccurate, Hub-me-boy.

Here's a thread on the origins of liberal thought.

HEre are a few definitons:

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties


a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets


Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(politics)

ANd here's an excerpt on the origins of liberalism as apolitical school of thought:

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal had long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776–88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant."
The first English-language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" according to the OED dates from about 1801 and comes from the French libéral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". They give early English-language citation, "1801 Hel. M. WILLIAMS, Sk. Fr. Rep. I. xi. 113," presumably Helen Maria Williams, Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated."
The editors of the Spanish constitution of Cadiz in 1812 may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to state that they opposed the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy.
[edit]
Usage of the word liberalism

The word liberalism has several different, but generally related, political meanings. In its original political meaning, the term "liberal" refers to a political philosophy, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights. In the present, a variety of ideologies attempt to claim the mantle of 19th century liberalism, from libertarianism via social-liberalism to American liberalism.
Liberals throughout the world understand liberalism as embracing a tradition rooted in the Enlightenment, the American War of Independence, the more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution, and the European Revolutions of 1848, with philosophical roots going back to the Renaissance traditions of empiricism (Sir Francis Bacon), humanism (Erasmus), and pragmatism (Niccolò Machiavelli).
The original Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, attempted to establish limits on existing political powers by asserting that there were natural rights and fundamental laws of governance that not even kings could overstep without becoming tyrants. This was combined with the idea that commercial freedom would best benefit the whole of the political order, an idea that would later be associated with the advocacy of capitalism, and which was drawn from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The next important piece of the triad of ideas of liberalism, was the idea of popular self-determination. Most liberals support a combination of these ideas, although many would ascribe more importance to one of them than to the other two.

---

Note that the use of hateful generalizations is not included.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:28 AM

To hark back to an earlier thread, what other group would react in such a barbaric way to such a small unproven allegation? More Moslem intolerence.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:23 AM

Number one, and here we could be in for severe philosophical drift, "what is the truth?"

The truth comes with a point of view, both physical and psychological. Not for nothing did a well-known physicist, when asked about the color of a car he witnessed in an accident, answer, "the side I saw was green".

Now whether as part of an interrogation, or a softening up procedure, someone flushed a Koran, or pretended to flush a Koran, I don't think we can say at present. Whether the story of the flush was intentional in that it was believed, intentional in that it was wished to be leaked, is another facet of this deceptively simple story.

What is most clear to me is that it ain't easy to be a journalist. It isn't even easy to try to be a journalist.

It is always easy to attack someone trying to be a journalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:07 AM

Minor thread creep here but who the hell is Lepus?


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 May 05 - 08:03 AM

"And NO. It has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative points of view. It has to do with what is truth."


Ebbie,

I have thought and thought about your statement above and the only thing that I can do at this point is call it as it is, BS. By this statement, are you saying that no matter the consequences, for the matter of reporting news, you don't care what they print as long as they print the truth?

I think that even by journalistic standards, you have to weigh the situation that you're faced with and think about what could possibly happen on the other side of this story being printed. I'm not against speaking the truth. Don't get me wrong. I want the truth to be reported at all times. (It's the liberal spin on the truth that pisses me off.) But when reporting a story that will incite violence or help to educate the enemy or even give them a leveraging tool to use against possible POW's is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

Could the enemy just be looking for an excuse? Of course he could and probably is. And in the absence of a good excuse he can just say that Allah made him do it. But to throw fuel on the already sparking fire is just plain foolish. This story, if true or not, does nothing to further any truth about anything out there. It only goes to show that the media is centered on bringing forth as much bad news as they can get their hands on.

Why don't we ever hear of the people that are NOT getting attacked? Why not report on the progress of the children that are back in school? Why not report about the endless opportunities that the Iraqies are lining up for to take advantage of? NO. Instead, all we hear about are the three or four people that were killed due to a suicide bomber. We hear about the numerous people that have been killed due to the enemy kidnapping and slaughtering scores of people for supporting the US.

Now don't misunderstand me. All of the above is news. And it should be reported. But when the news is filled with nothing but death and destruction, it starts to wear on one's heart and makes one think that that's all that's happening. I don't think that one person that reads this post is really stupid or naive enough to think that there is not ANY good that is happening in the countries of Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, I'd almost be willing to bet that there is more good than bad happening on a daily basis. But if it's never reported, then it's along the same lines of out of sight, out of mind. If it isn't shown on the news then it isn't happening. Is that what everybody in here really thinks? I really hope not.

Is all the good that happens in these countries newsworthy? Probably no but you know what? Death and gore sells. If it didn't, then why do you slow down and look everytime you pass a car crash on the highway? Chances are going to be slim to none that you know the person. But you know, in the back of your mind, it makes you feel better about yourself and your situation, whatever it may be, to see others in their plight and moments of greatest tragedy. If you say anything different, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. If you're not going to be honest in here, at least be honest with yourselves.

The news media knows this. That's why they always look for the worst and report on it as the rule and not the exception. And if it makes the guy in office that they hate look bad then extra points for them.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 05 - 07:59 AM

Lepus, you have outdone yourself with this ridiculous character! Keep it up. People actually think he is real!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 May 05 - 07:13 AM

"retracted" not "denied"

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 May 05 - 07:02 AM

I'm confused. So the report of the flushing of the Koran is correct, though denied, but the report that the murderous rampage was in resonse to that report of flushing the Koran is incorrect, though the murderers claimed it as the incitement?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 17 May 05 - 05:12 AM

It's really me. I was not directing the 'bent out of shape' comment at anyone here, but making a general comment on all us folks who draw conclusions without checking the source, be it heard on the street or read on the web. In other threads there have been fantastic allegations made and treated seriously before being blown out of the water.

Consider that someone with a 'magnetic fish factory' might very well put together various web sites promoting each one. Sort of like the novelty shop that will sell you red or blue license plate borders or "friends don't let friends vote (-insert-)" on the same rotating rack.

It's the other side of capitalism from Lenin's observation that: "You can always buy the rope from the capitalist you are going to hang him with"

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 17 May 05 - 03:21 AM

okay then    :)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 16 May 05 - 11:37 PM

LOL, heric. I almost sprayed my orange juice all over my keyboard when I read your post.

;-)

But it is true. That is what I believe about the US media, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the upper echelons of the military. Sorry.

(I'll verify this post when I can get back in through the front door. But thanks for assuming the best.)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 May 05 - 11:28 PM

Newsweek is media, but that is about all that was correct in SH's post. Newsweek is sound-bite side middle-of-the-road industrial journalism. SH just wants to try to smear the term "liberal" with the blood generated by some bad journalistic decisions, all in the venue of war created after Bush and Rove and Rice (and their pal Bolton, nominee for the U.N. post) and their monstrous lies. This is no surprise, having read other of his right-wing knee-jerk posts.

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 16 May 05 - 11:19 PM

Okay then.*fn. (It was in the same post by robomatic that you were objecting to! I can't figger what you are objecting to in his comments.) I guess CarolC was serious as well. . . .

*fn. (to steal a quote from Karl Childers.)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 16 May 05 - 11:08 PM

hhahahha Sorry, heric. It was me indeed. And I like the "rampaging murderous Nigerian", although I don't remember that subject.

Thanks, brucie. More than you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 16 May 05 - 11:03 PM

This is getting weird. Ebbie never made a comment about fish in the first place. If that's really her immediately above, her umbrage must be related to her being a rampaging murderous Nigerian? And I find it hard to believe that CarolC would write "They all lie. They're all just a bunch of media whores and pimps. And all of the politicians and bureaucrats and military people lie, too."

Ah, well. Maybe so. When the system is up and they can sign in with their own names, I'll believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 16 May 05 - 10:55 PM

Ebbie is one of the sanest people around these parts. Never have seen her get bent outta shape. Always considered and considerate. FYI and IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 16 May 05 - 10:33 PM

"Getting excited to the point of murderous rage is the same but more extreme animal as getting bent out of shape because some guy on the net wants to sell you a magnetic fish." robomatic

Gratuitous comment, robo. Go check it out. I'm not "bent out of shape"

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,Charley Noble
Date: 16 May 05 - 10:05 PM

Wow! We sure know how to clear ther air here!

I did think it a stretch to call NEWSWEEK "liberal media" but then I don't read it much any more except in doctor's waitingrooms. I did note that "conservative" CNN, which I do seem to watch, seemed to delight in targeting NEWSWEEK over this story.

Apparently one of the damage control stories is that one of the prisoner's tried to flood his cell by flushing pages of his Koran down his toilet. Too bad he didn't have a Bible!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 16 May 05 - 10:03 PM

I wouldn't put it past some smart businessman to be putting out the "Bushfish" and the "Darwin" lizard and a bunch of other fishes. That's what being an entrepreneur is all about.

I do not classify Newsweek as the "liberal media". It was a blurb in a small story, they had asked the Pentagon to review it before it went to press. Overall, they were imperfect but acted responsibly. They are not responsible for the idiots who go on a rampage at the idlest bidding. Don't forget that dozens if not hundreds died in Nigerian riots when on on-line 'zine made some innocuous comment about the Prophet finding worth in the contestants for a Miss World contest, about a year, year and a half ago.

Getting excited to the point of murderous rage is the same but more extreme animal as getting bent out of shape because some guy on the net wants to sell you a magnetic fish.

With apologies to Pres. Jefferson:
"I tremble for humanity when I reflect that God is just."

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 05 - 09:39 PM

Thanks for the link, brucie. I haven't often seen anything as downright tacky and gauche as the 'Bushfish'. The Christian 'fish' is a small discreet logo; the Bushfish is a monstrous thing,
4" x 8". What is the matter with people!

In Christianity the fish is used as a symbol of the Christ and some people in the Letters section were dismayed at the thought that the promoter was saying that Bush "is the Savior"; so much so that the promoter published a disclaimer disavowing the notion.

Most of the letters they published were equally appalled. But there are some zealots who drool over the Bushfish. One bit of irony tickled my funny bone though. The writer said he likes the Bushfish then added: "Although I think it looks much better if you rotate it 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Because, frankly... it looks just like a bomb with our beloved President's name on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 16 May 05 - 09:23 PM

Why you holding back, Willie?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Willie-O
Date: 16 May 05 - 09:11 PM

I'm sick of stupid assholes like "Susu's hubby". Why the fuck aren't you in Iraq getting shot at like all the poor ignorant kids from your small towns who got sucked into your fucking killing machine by your lying government swine whom you no doubt voted for, you shithead?

Fuck blaming the media. It's assholes like you who vote for assholes like Bush and his band of ghouls and then whine about the "liberal media" when a snippet of what is probably true comes out to bite you in the ass. You deserve it.

In case you haven't noticed, real people, NOT including U.S. soldiers, have already been killed in the flap from this. But we already know you don't care about them.

Oh did I cross the line? Too fucking bad. Blow me.
W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 16 May 05 - 08:53 PM

Media.

While we're on the subject, get a load a this:

http://www.bushfish.org/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 05 - 08:22 PM

Whether the allegation of Koran desecration is true or not, I doubt that it will cause the death of one soldier. Radical Muslims have plenty of reasons to hate Americans - some are true, and some aren't. One more reason isn't going to make a difference.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 16 May 05 - 08:13 PM

During the Falklands war Brian Hanrahan the BBC reporter who was with the main deployment fleet had to be warned about his reporting. In this case he went on air stating the number of our ships that had been hit with 500 or 1000lb airial bombs which failed to detonate because the fuzes had been set wrong.

Had the Argentinians been listening to the Beeb they might have re-fuzed correctly and the result would have been very serious. Or maybe they did listen and just think it was BBC propaganda.

Either way jouralists have a difficult job to do to report a war. If it was left to the miltary then we would know even less. However when such an inflamatory statement such as the Qurans on toilet seats stroy is released they should somehow be made to take the concequences. Perhaps the profits for the week of that issue should be donated to the families of those affected. Not much but something.

Dont forget some of the troops have not been above either falsifying photographs (Daily Mirror) or even actually being involved in taking and posing in them.