| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2006/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:41738 Activity:high |
2/7 Best AG-in-front-of-Congress quote evar:
Alberto: "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson,
President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a
far broader scale."
Rumor was that Washington's handle was "cHeRrYcHoPpEr" on AIM, but
that was never substantiated ...
\_ Show me the quote. It's true that they all surveilled. I want
audio of him saying this precise sentence or you should retract it.
\_ http://www.crooksandliars.com is video good enough?
\_ Yes, thanks. So this is true but petty, right?
\_ it's funny.. what's your point?
\_ Government bureaucrats are allowed to be inarticulate
fools, as long as they support MY opinion.
\_ An example of a verbal flub from someone I detest is
when Ted Kennedy misspoke and called Barak Obama
"Osama".
\_ No, anyone speaking in public gets reasonable
allowances for verbal flubs, regardless of their
opinion.
\_ except for al gore
\_ You mean "creating the internet"? That's not a
flub. He was claiming more than was
reasonable.
flub. He was claiming more than was reasonable.
\_ So is Gonzalez. -tom
\_ Gonzales's point is that prior presidents
have authorized extensive surveillance.
He added an extra word, which is under-
standable given the circumstances - he is
testifying before Congress re electronic
surveillance.
Gonzales' statement is is VERY different
from statements that a candidate for
the highest office makes on the campaign
trail (a la ALGOR and Kerry) in order to
make themselves appear more favorable to
the electorate.
\_ Ass, find me a quote. That lie's so stale,
even Rove's turning his nose up at it.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
\_ Huh? The quote is real. "During my
service in the United States Congress, I
took the initiative in creating the
Internet." The point is he was claiming
far more that he really did (even though
yes he was for expansion of the internet
to a more public entity).
\_ So rather than launch into a 15 minute
history of DARPA, he used the shorthand
"the internet". You're being dis-
ingenuous.
\_ Next you're going to insinuate that
McCain has an illegitimate black baby.
\_ "I voted against it before I voted for it"
\_ Not a verbal flub. That was an attempt to
please both Kerry's base and yet say he
supported the war effort. He didn't say he
misspoke.
\_ Once again: Kerry voted *for* an amendment
to a bill, which failed; he then voted
*against* the legislation. The idea that
this was a flip-flop was created by
Karl Rove and the dittohead machines. -tom
\_ Yes, he voted for one thing, and then
against another. Not the same "it".
Trying to please both sides. Classic
Kerry.
\_ uh...so you think he should for
for everything or against everything?
-tom
\_ No. I think he shouldn't say
that he voted for something before
he voted against it.
\_ He didn't. Find the quote.
-tom
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html_
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
It was even more blatant than I realized. It wasn't "it". He
explicitly claimed to have voted for the bill before voting against it.
\_ http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/02_lakoff_gop3.shtml
Quote is out of context for political gain, of course. -tom
\_ Your reference fails to even quote Kerry's words on that part.
Talk about taking things out of context.
\_ It quotes just as much as yours does. Kerry voted *for*
an $87 million funding bill, which failed, and then
*against* a funding bill which included a $20 million
no-bid blank check for Halliburton. To represent that
as flip-flopping, or trying to play both sides, is absurd.
-tom
\_ He voted for the amendment to the bill, not the bill
itself, and then voted against the unamended bill.
\_ He also *sponsored* a troop funding bill, which
Bush threatened to veto, and which the Republican
Congress killed in committee. I guess Bush voted
against it before he voted for it. -tom
\_ or howard dean
\_ You mean the scream? Not a flub. The rant
about going to various states culminated in
the scream, and it was the whole rant that
made him look like a crazy person. Not to
mention 3rd place in the primary didn't look
so good.
\_ You really love grabbing things out of
context, don't you? The man was standing
in front of an overenthusiatic, screaming
crowd of fans who couldn't hear him
unless he was screaming. It was a
rallying cry.
\_ A rallying cry about how great 3rd
place was.
\_ Do you really believe that? Moron.
'dict rally'. It was about trying
to cheer up his supporters after
a disappointment. "This is just
one state, we're gonna go to X
and Y and Z so don't give up" etc.
\_ Flubs are fine. Repeated lying is not.
\_ he was hacking root... of the cherry tree.
\_ he was emancipating pr0n... which wants to be free.
\_ There was electronics in Washington's days?
\_ There was electronics in Washington's and Lincoln's days?
\_ Welcome to level 2. Enjoy the extra hitpoint. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.crooksandliars.com powerful message recently to try and end the conflict in Iraq. He had a clear-cut plan and a vision of what America should do in Iraq and he called for the immediate implementation of this plan. She labeled him a coward and a cut-and-run artist, paving the way for second rate hacks to pile on a barrage of lies and distortions about the case he made to get us out of this tragic war. swiftboat attack began but was quelled immediately by the Internet as the perpetrators turned out to be liars from the get-go. over six feet tall, he hovered over the crowd with a quiet calm that resonated deeply within the group. He spoke for a few minutes with a passion and clarity that was mesmerizing. What is clear and very dear to him is not that he held the spotlight for the moment, but rather his message... agree with Howie on this one: " Cable news is driving me crazy. What's been the biggest domestic issue of the last month or so? And yesterday was the first congressional oversight hearing on the controversy, with Alberto Gonzales as the star witness. The cable nets all made a great show of 'covering' the Senate Judiciary hearing by carrying the AG's opening statement, then maybe a question or two from Arlen Specter. Then they trotted out their legal analysts to talk about the meaning of the hearing, which by then must have been eight or nine minutes old. The hearing became video wallpaper as the cable talkers talked. They never even got to Pat Leahy, the panel's top Democrat, meaning that only Republican voices were heard. Glenn: I thought that when I debated Professor Turner this morning, I had confronted the most extreme end of the pro-Bush fantacism. Tomorrow at 2:10 pm EST, I'll be on NPR's To the Point to discuss the NSA hearings with Powerline's John Hinderaker... Transcript DEAN: Well, they certainly raised those questions in the hearing today, and a number were searching for answers. Gonzalea obviously didn't come prepared to offer any kind of resolution. And thats been one of the surprising factors all along, Keith. Bush is just saying to the Congress, it's an in-your-face situation, I think I have this authority, I'm not going to ask to have the law amended, and I'm going to just go ahead and do it my way. Well, you know, that's a little bit frightening, because of the slippery-slope argument. And it's also just so contrary to the fact that we have traditionally been a country that follows the rule of law, for a very good reason. The rule of law controls power, and in our system, we just dont give presidents unlimited power, we dont give Congress unlimited power. challenged him to defend traditional values by joining me on a trip to Darfur. and you'll finally be using your talents for an important cause." Mr O'Reilly declared in his column: "I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio. com or snail mail to me at The Times, and tell me how much you're willing to pay for Mr O'Reilly's expenses in Darfur. Offers will be anonymous, except maybe to the NSA Don't send money; Of Cabbages and Kings: Hybrid car technology was developed by an inventor named Victor Wouk in the 1970s and a bureaucrat with the Environmental Protection Agency killed it. Huffington Post: "Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November... I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls. GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget. Intoxination) Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale. full transcript: Scotty: --and cited the same--and cited the very same authority. Scotty: And we're going to continue doing everything we can -- Helen:You know what happened to Nixon when he broke the law. Scotty:--within our power to protect the American people. This is a very different circumstance, and you know that. Digby: "I've been digesting this morning's hearings and I am dumbstruck by the totality of the Republicans' abdication of their duty. These men who spent years running on Madisonian principles ("The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse") now argue without any sense of irony or embarrassment that Republican Senators are nothing more than eunuchs in President Bush's political harem. They have voluntarily rendered the congress of the United States impotent to his power... I had to put up this clip because the caller is batshit crazy. Obviously she doesn't understand what the conflict is and why there is a hearing going on, but her rhetoric is fueled by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and much of the hate filled diatribe's from someBush apologists that fuel this sentiment. The hearing is about protecting the rights of Americans from being unlawfully spied on- coupled with a power hungry executive branch-period. You know, the ACLU and all these people are so concerned about the rights of these terrorists-maybe they should have been in the building 9/11, instead of all those decent Americans who were murdered by these people you are so interested in keeping their civil rights--Thank you. Glenn discussed the real issue here while taking the partisanship out of the equation: Glenn: The reality is-is that the scandal is about whether or not we live under the rule of law and that is not a conservative or a liberal debate-that is an American value and for that reason there are numerous conservatives-and I don't mean wishy-washy conservatives. I mean hardcore doctrinaire conservatives from Grover Norquist and Bob Barr... Atrios: DURBIN: I just dont understand why they cant make what modifications in the law might be necessary, but instead are claiming powers that go way beyond what the statute allows and way beyond what anyone voted for on September 14, 2001. Q: But the attorney general says FISA allows intercepts that are otherwise authorized by statue. And he also says that that was authorized in the authorization of force act. DURBIN: Okay, I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with your publication. But I will just tell you this: the argument is the Constitution spells out the powers of the president, as well as the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And statutes will be followed if, in fact, they put exclusive authority. It creates the word "exclusive means" - exclusive authority. And they are reading more into it now than the statute obviously allows. Q: But did you hear Gonzales say- DURBIN: I'll check out Pajamaline, but I'm not familiar with your publication. Jeff Sessions brings out 9/11 victim's tragedy Jeff Sessions brings out 9/11 victim's tragedy All you hear from certain republicans is talk about how the democrats politicize the war in Iraq whenever they are criticized. Jeff Sessions actually brought out the sister of one of the fallen pilots in the 9/11 tragedy during an intermission of the hearing. Specter: The authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance. Specter: The authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance. Think Progress: RUSSERT: The administration says that they didn't need to, that they already had authority from Congress when, back in October 2002, Congress voted an authorization to go to war against Iraq, and this is part of that war. SPECTER: I believe that contention is... |
| www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Click Here Internet of Lies Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet. Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the I also invented the microphone technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings -- the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement. Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977. It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic). In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf. asp Urban Legends Reference Pages 1995-2006 by Barbara and David P Mikkelson This material may not be reproduced without permission. |
| www.factcheck.org/article155.html_ REFRESH(0 sec): http://www.factcheck.org |
| www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/02_lakoff_gop3.shtml September 2: Freedom, liberty, freedom Last night was red-meat night. This is traditionally a vice-presidential task so that the president can keep his hands clean. But this time Vice President Dick Cheney had the help of Zell Miller, a nominal Democrat who almost always votes with Republicans. It is important to distinguish between honest framing on the one hand, and framing by distortion and spin on the other. Arnold Schwarzenegger may actually believe that everyone and anyone can make it in this American economy, even though a quarter of the jobs pay very little money. But the frame that Miller and Dick Cheney were constructing last night was one that they could not have believed. First, Zell Miller's: Frame the Iraq War as indistinguishable from the September 11 attacks, as part of the Global War on Terror Frame the global war on terror as monumental and a defense of freedom itself, as defining the highest duty of our generation akin to World War II and the Cold War. Evoke Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan over and over Call opposition to the presidents policies opposition to the defense of freedom Call a vote against one appropriations bill as multiple votes against individual weapons systems. Represent votes against the weapons systems as votes against national security and hence as weakening America Represent Bush as strong ("a spine of tempered steel") and Kerry as weak ("fainthearted," "indecisive," self-indulgent), wanting to turn America into a helpless child The first three have been consistent throughout the convention, so there's no need to go over them again. Zell Miller: Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security, but Americans need to know the facts. Miller claims that Senator Kerry opposed the B-1 and B-2 bombers, the F-14A Tomcat and F-14D fighter jets by voting against them. Miller: I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel. This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our US Armed Forces? This list was mostly taken from a single Kerry vote in 1991 against a spending bill that was also opposed by five Republican senators. Outside the frame is the fact that Cheney, then Secretary of Defense and the overseer of the department's budget, around that same time killed a number of major weapons systems, including the Navys $30 billion to $60 billion A-12 Stealth fighter. Cheney tried but failed to kill the F14D jet the one that Miller proudly proclaims "delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora" and restricted the B-2 Stealth bomber program to 20 planes, when the Air Force wanted more than 80. Over and over in this convention, speakers have used the phrase "voted against X" to condemn Kerry. But a bill is a collection of many, many items, and a vote to pass it or not can be characterized as a vote for or against any of those items. Let's examine the most ridiculed Kerry quote about the $87 billion appropriations bill for the Iraq war, "I voted for it before I voted against it." Bushs bill contained a $20 billion blank check to provide no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other firms for Iraq reconstruction, and none of the $87 billion price tag would be paid using Bushs tax cuts. As the Washington Post has reported, Kerry voted for a different version of the bill that would have funded some of the spending by raising taxes on incomes greater than $312,000, while Bush vowed to veto a version that would have converted half of the Iraq rebuilding plan into a loan. Kerry's alternate version was defeated and Bushs original bill came up for a vote. Most Democrats decided to support it, as it would be sure to pass. Knowing this, Kerry on principle voted "against" it that is, he voted against the $20 billion blank check and the no-repealing-the-tax-cut provisions. Dick Cheney: Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief and that is to support American troops in combat Cheney also knows that the president had previously sent soldiers into battle in Iraq without sufficient flak jackets, and that one of the many provisions in this bill was to provide them at last. Kerry knew that, when the bill passed, the flak jackets would be provided. Cheney represents this situation as Kerry voting against providing flak jackets to soldiers, as if Kerry didnt care whether the soldiers were protected, when Kerry has criticized the president for not providing them in the first place. More distortion: consider what Cheney does with a portion of a speech by Kerry at the UNITY 2004 Conference in Washington, DC Here is Kerrys actual statement: John Kerry: I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists, wherever they may be, before they get us. In context, the word "sensitive" means "sensitive to the concerns of other nations we should be trying to recruit as allies." The whole context is about waging a strong and effective war on terrorism. Here is Cheneys rendition: Cheney: Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. At the Democratic Convention, Kerry said he would not only use force against terrorists, but if necessary, preemptive force. Cheney distorts the real position: Cheney: He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the use of military force. There we have the anti-Kerry frame: We are in a historic war to defend freedom itself. The war absolutely requires every possible advanced-weapons system. Kerry, by voting against a single 1991 appropriations bills, has shown that he is against national defense and the defense of freedom. A president in such a war must be strong and unchanging. Kerry is a flip-flopper he changes his mind and is therefore undependable and weak. He would turn America into a weak child throwing "spitballs" (Miller) and "asking for a permission slip" (Cheney). He thinks we can carry on a soft-hearted "sensitive" war against a ruthless enemy. Framing can be an honest expression of what you really believe. It has been for a number of speakers at this convention. But last night's speeches by Miller and Cheney are filled with classic examples of framing by willful distortion. George Lakoff's affiliation with the Rockridge Institute appears for identification purposes only. |