what is striking about this piece is that it is labeled 'news' rather than 'opinion' once again highlighting the author's odd relationship with reality

Actually, troll, this is a news analysis. And, long ago on the Yahoo! list for BC, it was decided that a news analysis constituted "news" as opposed to "opinion". Speaking for myself alone, I did not find this piece so biased as to call it other than news analysis, though I do think there ought to be a sub-category under all the major topics, called "news analysis". It would be rather helpful. Indeed my own pieces on Israel and affairs here are called "news" because they are analyses, rather than just my own opinion. When my opinion overrides the elements of news in the piece, I call it "opinion".

Ruvy - as a non author I'm not privy to THE RULES

my own rule of thumb is that if you can put 'in my opinion' in front of most of the sentences in a piece without changing their meaning then you're probably dealing with an opinion article...call it 'analysis' if you want

...'bias' has nothing to do with it (imo)

Troll, for your edification, here are the two top definitiosn for 'news' from Dictionary.com:

1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.

Dave - when you mix actual news with your speculation/opinion/analysis about what it might mean for the future what do you call it - ?

true it could be called news - news about Dave's latest take on things...to indicate this I suggest that you quote yourself in the future

if memory serves we've been here before...now I quote from the Statement of Ethics from various newspapers and you reply that BC doesn't operate by those standards

let's skip all that - my point is that when you go beyond strictly factual reporting with analysis or commentary you should clearly label the analysis either in the header or within the piece

...too bad you learned so little from your interaction with MR

Troll. You're just wrong here. You aren't looking at this clearly at all. The article is fact and extrapolation from that fact. You're acting as if it had some sort of bias or partisan opinion. It doesn't.

If we had a heading which said news/analysis I'd use that. But since we don't just assume that the news heading includes a certain amount of analysis. I bet you can do that.

You're chasing after an illusion here.

Dave

Troll..its sort of like the New York Times typical story...

Recent NY Times News Article
"The sun came up today but because of missteps and lies by the Bush and his Republican administration, it will set this evening and once again throw the American people into darkness"

JOM

"...too bad you learned so little from your interaction with MR"

I submit it was difficult to learn anything from her, because everything she had to say was so thoroughly coated in vitriol, it was unpleasant to read.

Most times, I preferred not to be annoyed...

McCain is unelectable...he has shrunk into an angry old man, a fake outsider and someone who is non-relevant into todays world...

He is a light weight on economics, immigration and has a reputation of sleeping with the likes of Ted Kennedy...In addition, anyone who is adored by the press has to be wrong for this country!

JOM

Troll,


I suspect that Dave has been taking news presentation lessons from FOX News, my hunch is that he thinks what they present is also News, as well as fair and balanced. Smirk

I can't speak for troll, but having not seen this story in my local paper it was certainly 'news' to me.

Great, one CFR stooge, endorsing another CFR stooge. Ahhh politics in America. D'amato has the sneer, piercing unfriendly eyes, and beak of many other predators. Am I suprised that Dave speaks highly of him? Nope not at all. News? Sure Dave, right along the lines of Charles Krauthammer another CFR stooge.
Keep em comin, I love it.

Dave said in post 5:

1.It's not my opinion that D'Amato endorsed McCain.
2.It's not my opinion that D'Amato is popular as hell in New York, NJ and Florida.
3.It's not my opinion that this will help McCain in the election.

1. True
2. Opinion unless he clarified which he did not that D'Amato is popular as hell among far right Republicans in NY, NJ, and Fla.
3. Opinion and speculation hardly news

I suggest that you stick to the opinion column Dave, as a newscaster you certainly aint. However Fox News might be able to fit someone of your calibre in being as they are about as fair and balanced in their presentation of news as you are.

NEWS

"Nalle's Illiterate Prose Rallies BC's Left Wing Morons into Action"


Now thats news!

JOM

Jom,

Being the paranoid coinspiracy theorist that I am, I assume that the above reference was hurled in my direction. Fair enough, but perhaps you could tell me what statements that I have made aside from casting sarcasm towards Dave and Fox News, what positions that I have taken that you could deduce are left-wing? I freely admit, unlike some others on here that I am a conspiracy theorist, I did not realize however that that phrase was limited to people of the left. I am all ears sir.Or do you just like throwing out labels without substantiation?
Pablo

Jom,

Positions on the Left that I disagree with.
1. Socialized medicine
2. More taxation
3. Open borders
4. UN
5. Nafta (Al Gore loves it, as does the Clintons
6. GATT (same as above
7. Hillary Clinton, I can't stand her
8. Barack similar to 7
9. Edwards Bilderberg stooge
-----------
Positions I agree with on the Left
1. Out of Iraq (most Americans agree with me except those on the far right)

Thats it.

As to being a Moron Jom, I will take an IQ test with you any day of the week, and put money behind my ability to beat you. So put your money where your orifice is. I am ready. :)

***** CORRECTION***NEWS****CORRECTION

"Nalle's Illiterate Prose Rallies BC's Idiots and Morons into Action"


Now thats news!

JOM

Lumpy - the endorsement was clearly news...so was Dave's 'extrapolation' in some weird push poll kind of way I guess

Jom,

Cute, and that is about all you can do, I rest my case.

Troll, have you ever actually been called in a push poll, because you seem not to understand how they work.

And Pablo, McCain is hated by FoxNews, so perhaps you should either do some research or try a different bugaboo to target your ire on. And BTW, being a CFR member just shows that these guys are minimally qualified for the job they're running for.

The way I figure it, if this bit of news pissed off JOM so much, that's a good sign that the MittZombies are worried.

Dave

As I understand it, a push poll question would go something like this:

"Given a choice between the loony-left, madrassa-educated, Mohammed-worshiping towelhead Barack Hussein Obama and the family values-oriented, fiscally responsible, polished-halo conservative Mitt Romney, which candidate would you vote for in November?"

A gross exaggeration, of course, but I think that's the general idea...

I can't see Thompson endorsing Mccain. He'll endorse Romney. Even if he didn't, the voters will. If they liked Thompson, they wouldn't like Mccain. Thompson was the purest conservative of the top 5. Romney seems to be 2nd, and a choice true conservatives could live with. Mccain is not a choice for true conservatives.

Dave,

I never said that Fox endorsed McCain, what I did say was that your presentation of News strikes me as being very similar to Fox. I think I will start referring to you as "fair and balanced" Dave. I like it!!

Btw Dave, I love how you put words into my mouth, you have a hard enough time presenting your own ideas sir, I suggest you stick with that.

Bilderberg?

I guess i'm not up on the secret societies that controll the world it used to be the skull and bones club, the freemasons, the illumintai, the rothschilds, the pnac etc etc etc

It seems like none of them are that powerful if a new one comes along and replaces the old one every two years.

Oh well...one thing is for sure....

I'd rather be a "Mittzombie" than a groupie for Illegal Smeagol every day.

After John Mccain has followed Bin Laden to the gates of hell I hope Mitt is standing behind both of them to push them through and slam the gate shut.

Arch Conservative:

I am not suprised that you are unaware of the Bilderberg group sir. If you have an open mind, I suggest an excellent book on the subject titled "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group written by Daniel Estulin. I have a copy but I don't lend out my books. BTW the earth is not flat contrary to what you may hear on your local news broadcast, it is filled with nuance, intrigue, conspiracy, and greed. However you certainly are entitled to continue to believe in the flat earth theory, it gives great comfort to simpletons.

Dave - I'm not saying that you are push polling but rather that by presenting your speculation as news you are directing the readers' attention from fact to interpretation - working (perhaps inadvertently) toward forming opinion and creating the future that you predict

that's what I meant by 'weird push poll kind of way'

Bilderberg? Isn't that a kind of cake?

Arch Conservative:

Many of these groups have interlocking members, here are a few examples of dual membership in the CFR and Bilderberg Group.

Henry Kissinger, Henry Kravis, Franklin A Lindsay, Jessica Mathews, James Steinberg, Marin J Strmecki, John L Thornton, John C Whitehead, James D Wolfensohn (former head of the World Bank), Paul Wolfowitz (PNAC and former World Bank head), Vernon Jordan, and Thomas (head of 9-11 coverup commission) H Kean.

BTW the lovely and talented Diane Feinstein sits on the Board of Directors, this group was founded by a former SS officer in the Third Reich.

As for Kissinger you will always find him in each and every one of these groups with the possible exception of PNAC. Such a nice fella the Dr. who reminds me increasingly of Dr. Strangelove.

I am glad that Dave feels so comforted knowing that these globalists are keeping America free, and sovereign. I wonder if the candidate that Dave voted for (Badnarak) last time would agree with his assessment, I highly doubt it. In fact I think that I will send him an email soon asking him, just to see the smirk on Dave's face. :)

Dread,

Your ignorance is showing again sir, try reading something other than the NY Times or Wall Street Journal. You might learn something that you did not know.

Arch Conservative:

I almost forgot to mention fome of the Skull and Bones members that also belong to the CFR, so you don't get the idea that these groups are really that separate.

Barry Zorthian, David L Boren, William H Donaldson, William H Draper, Alexander T Ercklentz, Evan G Galbraith, Harold H Healy, John (rollover and play dead) Kerry, Eric P Liu, Lord Winston, Raymond K Price Jr., Stephen A Schwarzman, John Shattuck, Frederick Wallace Smith, and William H Wright II.

Now if you find any of this interesting, ( I have my doubts that you do) you can do your own homework from here.

Philistine...

;-)

I am glad that Dave feels so comforted knowing that these globalists are keeping America free, and sovereign.

Do you not even bother to research the history and objectives of groups you're paranoid about. Learn something about the CFR from a source other than a book published by someone in their basement or an article you read on prisonplanet.com.

I wonder if the candidate that Dave voted for (Badnarak) last time would agree with his assessment, I highly doubt it. In fact I think that I will send him an email soon asking him, just to see the smirk on Dave's face. :)

Mike's last name is spelled 'Badnarik'. We know each other. He lives in the same small town I do just outside Austin. We attend local libertarian events together. I've worked the LP table at the gun show with him. You might enjoy reading my interview with him from 2006. It's here on Blogcritics.

I don't know where Mike stands on the CFR, but I do know that not all libertarians are automatically also conspiracy nuts.

Dave

My Dad, was a Yalie (Class of '37), and a Bonesman.

Unfortunately for him, he died in 1984 (!), before he could realize his lifelong dream of taking over the world and destroying the USA.

But, I pledged to him, though I'm neither a Yalie nor a Bonesman, that I would carry his important work on for him, in his name.

Which is why Pablo worries me so.

If he succeeds in alerting the rest of America of these plans, they'll stop us and my promise to my father will be broken...

Dave,

Thanks for the clarification and the link to the interview. I have emailed him and hopefully he will respond.

Clavos,

You do not have to worry, the sheeple are fast asleep, and even upon the verge of a nationwide or global depression, they enjoy their slumber.
No worries

Dave,

On the subject of the CFR, perhaps you could enlighten me, aside from your own OPINIONS, which I vehemently disagree with; and provide me with relevant links, or books (not written by the CFR)that support what you are saying; and I will gladly take a look at them. After all I like to think that I have an open mind. Do you?

"You do not have to worry, the sheeple are fast asleep, and even upon the verge of a nationwide or global depression, they enjoy their slumber.
No worries"

Well, we do work very hard at keeping them that way (HD TVs, Hummers, porn, Britney Spears, etc.), but we've always thought that you who KNOW the conspiracy exists were determined to stop us (not that you'll ever be able to).

But you ARE right; Americans are soooo stupid....

We've been at this for years (look at all the progress we've made!), and except for a very few sharp dudes like you, NONE of 'em are catching on!

EVEN when you try to tell 'em!

Idiots; all of 'em.

Not written by the CFR or based on things said by CFR members? So anything coming from the CFR like clear statements that they are pro-American don't count? No chance to explain or define themselves or defend themselves in any way, eh? Apparently one more part of the Constitution you're not a big fan of is the presumption of innocence.

If you want to read something relatively impartial (not published in someone's basement) about the CFR try Laurence Shoup's book Imperial Brain Trust, which is well researched historically and critical of the CFR on rational grounds, rather than on the grounds of conspiracist fantasy.

Shoup, of course, points out that the CFR is a pro-US and quasi-imperialist organization rather than an anti-US globalist group. Huge differnece if you're an American. Not much of one if you're not.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the recommendation, I will take a look at the book.

As far as innocent until proven guilty, that applies to a criminal trial, not the political arena. I wonder how you know (not that it makes a whit of difference) that Quigley's book was written in the basement. Your CIA connections must be showing again.

I suppose if I were inquiring about the real objectives of a secretive group, I should take them at their word as to what they actually represent. Surely Dave, you are smarter than that hopefully. I could if I chose to, which I don't at this time show you countless examples of CFR members openly calling for the USA to give up its sovereignty. David Rockyfeller comes to mind instantly, as does Zbignewwwwwwww Brzenssssski.

Hey I know! Why dont you show me ONE member of the CFR that proclaims themselves to be a Libertarian.
Theres a challenge for ya Dave! You and I both know that such an animal doesn't exist.

I am still waiting patiently for you to admit, which you have not, that you too are a conspiracy theorist, unfortunately the conspiracies that you believe in (9-11 done by al-ciada) for instance just don't hold water, and only a stooge or a mis-guided fool would believe them. A classic example that comes to my mind is the BBC live report on 9-11, showing (admittedly by the BBC) a live backdrop of the NY skyline, saying that building 7 had come down, with the building still standing in the background. Your naivete astounds me. Your conspiracy theories have no basis in reality whatsoever Dave. Just my two sense worth.

As far as innocent until proven guilty, that applies to a criminal trial, not the political arena.

You mean you don't think that conspiring to destroy US sovereignty is a criminal activity?

I wonder how you know (not that it makes a whit of difference) that Quigley's book was written in the basement. Your CIA connections must be showing again.

Yeah, my mom is writing my articles for me.

I suppose if I were inquiring about the real objectives of a secretive group,

Yeah, the CFR is soooo secretive that they have a magazine and a huge website and publicly proclaim their beliefs and plans for the world in every forum they possibly can.

I should take them at their word as to what they actually represent. Surely Dave, you are smarter than that hopefully. I could if I chose to, which I don't at this time show you countless examples of CFR members openly calling for the USA to give up its sovereignty. David Rockyfeller comes to mind instantly, as does Zbignewwwwwwww Brzenssssski.

So that would be two out of tens of thousands. And I bet the Brezynski quotes are out of context.

Hey I know! Why dont you show me ONE member of the CFR that proclaims themselves to be a Libertarian.

I'll work on it. I bet I can find a few. You know they syndicate content from Reason magazine on their website. I guess Reason is run by a bunch of globalists, right?

A classic example that comes to my mind is the BBC live report on 9-11, showing (admittedly by the BBC) a live backdrop of the NY skyline, saying that building 7 had come down, with the building still standing in the background.

Twaddle. Everyone knows that one has been definitively debunked.

Dave

Dave,

I have now read the introduction to the book by the authors.

"Over fifty years ago, in the wake of the First World War, a group of wealthy and influential Americans decided to form an organization. The Council on Foreign Relations, as it was subsequently named, was designed to equip the United States of America for an imperial role on the world scene. Great Britain had dominated world politics during the nineteenth century, not only through its colonial empire, but also
through an even wider informal sphere of influence. In a similar fashion, so felt these American leaders, would the United States play a dominant role in the years following the war."

This is simply factually untrue. The CFR was started by the RIIA Royal Institute of International Affairs, now called Chatham house and has been its sister organization from its inception to this day, this fact is even mentioned on the CFR's own website. If you are going to give me information, at least give me something I can chew on. This I have spit out as being disingenuous on its face. Next....

LOL. That was so easy I stunned myself.

Noted libertarian Earl Ravenal was a CFR member. I went to high school with his daughter and her boyfriend was my boss when I worked at the LP.

Ted Galen who is a VP at the CATO institute is a CFR member.

The (here unnamed) CFR member and family friend I had a long political chat with over Christmas break is certainly strongly libertarian in most of his beliefs.

I'll dig up some more if you give me time.

Dave

Dave

Dave,

Perchance you have the opportunity to greatly humiliate me in public. Please I beg of you to show me the BBC live building 7 collapse when it was still standing, debunked. Btw I just received a response from a formal complaint that I filed with the BBC's editing out of Daveid Frost's interview, and Bhutto's statement that Osama had been killed. The response was hilarious.

So here is your big chance Dave show me the beef. Show old Paul how The BBC building 7 story was debunked. Cmon I dare ya. :)

Oh and while you are on it, you might take the time to comment on your gunboat diplomacy article on how it was faked as reported in the Asia Times.
Some people will believe anything!!

Well your right Dave. I found Galen on the Globalist.com's website. Suprise Suprise.

2 outta 4000 isnt bad, you win that one. Now about BBC?

Sheesh, Pablo. Read more than the first paragraph and look up the word 'subsequently'. He didn't say it started as the CFR from the first founding, just that it ended up being called that. If you can't pass basic reading comprehension this discussion is pointless.

Dave

Dave,

So uh does that mean your not going to show me the bbc story debunked? I am not suprised.

Dave,

Just to preempt you in case you should decide to show me how the BBC building 7 collapse story has been debunked, (funny I can't find the story), after doing a google search on BBC building 7 story debunked, the only site listed on the first two pages that I could find was one written by debunking911.com. The "debunking" was laughable on its face, and even those clowns did not debunk it, they said "what most likely logically happened" and the rest was laughable. According to YOU Dave,
in your own words, "Everyone knows that one has been definitively debunked." Oh really???

Where pray tell is the evidence Dave, and last time I checked I am SOMEBODY, so apparently EVERYONE does not know what you do. So pleaaaaaaaaase share with me, so that I may become as informed (gag) on this story as you are sir. I will, for the record, ask you this question each and every time I make a reference to you in a response, or commenting on one of your stories until you do.

Wow, Pablo. Were you like born with no common sense at all, or is it some sort of developmental disorder?

Coitmancer:

Did you learn that one in third grade did ya? Not even cute, surely you can do better than that.

Pablo, the reason you can't find much debunking of the building 7 story is that it's so obvious that most people just laugh it off. None but the most deluded conspiracy nuts put any credence in it.

First off, there are about 4 different BBC videos and all of them have different versions of the report. Two main ones are usually references.

One BBC video was filmed in front of a backdrop of a montage of different shots of the towers from earlier in the day and the time of the report was off by an hour because that particular feed came from a Canadian cable channel which wasn't observing daylight savings time. So rather than being 23 minutes before the collapse, the report was actually 37 minutes after the collapse of building 7. And that's verifiable from date and source data embedded in the video.

The other popular one doesn't actually have anyone saying the building has collapsed, but instead has people reporting for about an hour that the building is on fire and is about to collapse, and then an anchor summarizes the events and says that it "seems" to have collapsed. Similar to a CNN reporter who said that it 'had collapsed or is collapsing". In this case what's clear is that the bozos in studeios hundreds or thousands of miles of way working from second hand reports and random videos were confused. It's also clear that because of fire and the massive structural damage to building 7 people knew it was going to collapse at least an hour in advance.

But you know, this article was about John McCain, not 9/11. Why don't you go peddle this silliness on some more appropriate thread?

Dave

Dave,

As usual you are wrong sir. Here are the links to the original BBC story, where the head of BBC World comments on the story. He admits that the backdrop was in fact real and live, and contrary to what you are asserting, there is only one clip, a live one, clearly showing building 7 in the background still standing. So in point of FACT you are wrong on all of your assertions concerning this story. I suggest you take a look at Richard Porter the head of BBC World trying to explain how this could have happened. He made a fool out of himself as well as admitting that some of the footage, on the most historic day in Anglo-American recent history had been lost! They must have been taking lessons from the Bush admin loosing certain relevant emails recently. smirk

I suggest the next time you attempt to challenge me on a 9-11 story you do your homework there Dave, as you obviously do not know what you are talking about. Here are the links should you decide to eat some humble pie.
BBC LINK1

BBC LINK2

"Pablo, the reason you can't find much debunking of the building 7 story is that it's so obvious that most people just laugh it off. None but the most deluded conspiracy nuts put any credence in it."

YAWN, so obvious that you don't know what you are talking about there Dave. Should you be so bold as to take a look at the BBC links while your at it why don't you also take a look at people's comments to Mr. Porter as well. I will also point out that if the head honcho at BBC World had to take time out of his precious day to respond, which he did twice (and very lamely I might add) that there is far more to this story than meets your blind eyes Dave.

PS.
I am not peddling anything, my efforts are free to those that have the eyes to see, and certainly not anymore peddling than you swallowing the lies that you so easily consume and peddling them as FACT. They are not.

Dave,

One other point of FACT the commentator in the live shot on BBC contrary to what you have asserted, says in plain English that the Solomon Building (building 7) had collapsed in REAL time BEFORE it had. Your bending of truth, reminds me of how the fair and balance Fox News recently showed John McCain coming in 2nd in Nevada instead of Dr. Paul who in point of FACT beat him by a full percentage point. Are you taking lessons from them still Dave?

1. You didn't post video links. You posted links to BBC discussion of the second video I talked about. The second link you post gives pretty much exactly the explanation I gave for that video. To wit, that newscasters are as dumb as sheep, can't figure out what the hell to say when live news is coming at them fast, and ultimately guessed that the building they had been told was going to collapse had done so.

2. What you are peddling is fear, unreason and hate. Why you choose to do so I leave to other readers to guess for themselves.

3. I don't watch Fox News. I get enough Mitt Romney propaganda from other sources. For all my election info I use the web or for live results I watch MSNBC. So aside from really, really loving Romney, I have no idea what else FoxNews may be up to.

4. I do agree that the guy on the BBC blog who attempted to address this was pretty much incompetent. His first piece was entirely counterproductive and made things worse. It's clear that the BBC considers the conspiracy theorists so irrelevant that they didn't think they deserved more than a half-assed response.

5. I realize you just repeat what Alex Jones tells you, but you might want to actually look into the Building 7 situation in more detail. In point of fact, one side of the building, generally not shown in the videos, but visible in aerial stills that conspiracy theorists avoid, had already largely collapsed well before the rest of the building went down because it was hit so hard by wreckage from the larger towers. All it takes is a look at those stills to realize how ridiculous all the claims about Building 7 are.

6. This isn't the place to discuss this. Write an article on who you think was behind the 9/11 attacks and how they have gotten thousands of insiders to keep quiet for over 6 years and let's discuss it there.

Dave

Dave,

The guy?? Umm you mean the Head of BBC World. I never said the links were to videos Dave, they were to the page of the head of BBC World attempting lamely to explain the unexplainable.

I am not peddling fear, unreason, or hate, what I am doing is showing you that you do not know what you are talking about. You choose to keep your eyes closed, that is your business, mine are wide open. I will however take your advice and offer an article on this subject very soon, and I will take you to task point by point on the issues.

Paul

Dave,

One final comment on this subject here. You said:

"It's clear that the BBC considers the conspiracy theorists so irrelevant that they didn't think they deserved more than a half-assed response."

This is a classical example of what I have been attempting to point out to you regarding your reasoning faculties. This was not some guy, this was the head of the news organization, head honcho at BBC World News, taking time out of his duties as head honcho to attempt quite lamely as we both agree to explain his organization's activities on something that defied physics. So to call this a half-assed attempt is as you do so often to belittle rather than engage. Either with denegration which is your long suit, ridicule as a secondary tactic, and finally but not least dismissal. I think that you are more capable than that, call it a hunch, but I do. You nor I am the end all and be all of what is going on in the world, although you in my estimation often present yourself as you are the apex of knowledge. Show a little class and get off your high horse for a bit, you just might learn something new Dave. By the way I attempted to add a post on the comments section,the last post being 2 weeks ago, suprise suprise, Error 502 Service not available.

Unfortunately a server error occured whilst trying to retrieve this page.

The little garden gnome in Stan's front yard says that the BBC DID in fact, screw up and announce the demolition of building 7 before their head honcho had finished placing all the explosives, so I'm afraid Pablo's right, Dave.

However, Sendero Luminoso say they supplied the explosives to the Beeb, and they're apologizing because they forgot to include the detonators. Apparently the Beeb's head honcho was delayed in placing the explosives because he had to run down to the 7-11 at the last minute and buy some detonators.

Anyway, the building DID come down in the end, and although the Beeb's footage was premature, NBC and CNN got some really kick-ass shots.

Film at 11.

I do object to one false "fact" claimed by Dave in this piece: that D'Amato is popular here in NY, even among Democrats. Among virtually everyone I know, he is derided as a ridiculous remnant of uncouth machine politics. His endorsement may mean something to some NY Republicans, but I believe Dave is overplaying its importance.

Pablo does seem to be shockingly lacking in common sense. I wouldn't be surprised if he blames leprechauns when he can't find his car keys, rather than simply looking in his other pants.

We all vividly remember the confusion of that day. I recall rumors of seven hijackings, of planes crashing into the Capitol, the White House and skyscrapers in LA. Many of the rumors got broadcast on the news media without fact-checking, which in the midst of all the chaos was next to impossible anyway.

So it's really not surprising that a hapless BBC reporter - who was probably exhausted and distracted by constant chatter in his earpiece and, no doubt, people rushing about and gesticulating to him off camera - among everything else that was going on, would prematurely report the collapse of a damaged building.

I went to college in the New York area back when DAmato was in office. I knew a lot of union guys trhrough my job and though most of them were dems they really liked his New York conservative populism. I doubt that has changed in the last decade.

Oh and for Pablito. Do you hear the voices in your head or do they come out of your dog's mouth?

Dread,

And you will believe ANYTHING, I would love to hear your comments on BBC editing out (censoring as we call it here in the States) Bhuttos's comment in November with David Frost, where she said in plain
clear english that Osama had been murdered. Then the esteemed journalist Mr Frost didnt even raise an eyebrow, or ask her to clarify. Instead BBC decided to censor her statement. Gotta love that BBC.

I will soon be writing an article on 9-11, I can't wait to hear your ridicule. As patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, ridicule is the last refuge of a person who's belief system is threatened.

I suppose the fact that BBC also has conveniently "lost" or "misplaced" footage from that eventful day, you will also excuse as hysteria. Some people will believe ANYTHING.

LUMPY,

I absolutely love the derision that you excrete, please keep it coming. I have yet to see anything of any substance whatsoever from your comments, or political beliefs. Did you install the cameras that Homeland Security has provided for you yet, to protect you from ummmmm YOURSELF!! Keep em comin Lumpy, I love you showing your true colors. Ignorance.

Oh and one more thing Lumpy, why don't you take the time to present an article? Or do you prefer to lurk in the background spewing out comments that as far as I can tell nobody finds even interesting. BTW I love your nickname it is ummmm so cute!! Almost as cute as your deranged political beliefs. You are adorable.

It's so obvious now!

Clavos=Davos

---

Dave, why would you assume that Fred or his supporters would go for McCain or Giuliani? Thompson was seen as a social conservative. My bet is that his departure will help Huckabee.

Pablo,

What other attitude should I have but ridicule when you dismiss out of hand all rational debunking of your conspiracy theories?

Dread,

I have not heard any rational debunking, I have heard only ridicule from people such as yourselves. I would bet, that you independently have not done more than perhaps 5-6 hours of looking into the blatant lies and inconsistencies regarding that day.

I would say that the vast majority of people that have looked into it, in any depth, at the very least believe the government has lied its face off, as all poll have indicated, and other millions suspect the government of far more complicity.

I won't comment on it more on this thread as
Dave, has asked me not to, so I will write an article soon, and you can have your fun there.

Lumpy,

Here are a few of what I call Lumpyisms for all to enjoy. I hope you do too!!

Your words not mine.

"Maybe this is why Halliburton gets no bid contracts, because they are at least not engaged in intentional fraud.

Wasn't there also some mention of jail time? Also I'd bet the fine is in addition to resritution. And all their assets are getting sold, right?


If you were about to be born would you want to be born japanese?

neither would I.

Might want to look within yourself as to why u saw an innocent remark like that which follows directly from the theme of the post as racist.

What the hell is wrong with the demcrats. Why would they put thousands even hundreds of thousands of lives at risk just to score political points on Bush or advance their presidential campaign? If Turkey invades they ought to be dragged off in chains and tried for war crimes, but in Iraq not the UN so they can face the death penalty.

Do you even understand the difference between killing innocents for trivial reasons and a just war of liberation? I'd like to see u in an Iraqi court as an al Qaeda fifth columist.

Those negatives don't sound like disqualifications to me. We could use more hostile, ranting, big haired buffoons in congress.

It's great to hear some positive news from that part of the world for a change. Can cloning and commercial organ harvesting be far behind? The future looks bright.

Pablito that last one is dumb even for u. How do u prove any crime? U get witnesses and question those inoilved and find evidence. With the number of leftist nuts out looking for evidence of voter fraud it would be found if it were happening. And in fact some has been found. Mostly democrats registering dead peopl

Iran's government will fall before they use missiles on Europe. Mark my words."


Like I said you are adorable. :)

I have not heard any rational debunking, I have heard only ridicule from people such as yourselves.

That doesn't surprise me in the least, Pablo.

I would love to hear your comments on BBC editing out (censoring as we call it here in the States) Bhuttos's comment in November with David Frost, where she said in plain clear english that Osama had been murdered. Then the esteemed journalist Mr Frost didnt even raise an eyebrow, or ask her to clarify. Instead BBC decided to censor her statement. Gotta love that BBC.

I actually find the BBC's explanation quite plausible. What would be the point in censoring when they knew full well that al-Jazeera, with whom they were sharing the interview footage, would likely broadcast it unedited?

Unfortunately we can't ask Bhutto to clarify whether, as some bloggers have surmised, she actually meant to say Daniel Pearl's name. As far as I can tell, no-one's thought to or been able to ask David Frost why he gave her comment a pass.

Oh, and by the way, the BBC has now put the unedited version of the interview back on their website. Gotta love that censorship.

Pablo - don't you find the ability of the 9-11 conspirators in the government to keep absolutely mum remarkable at least if not unbelievable - ?

Dread,

Yes I am aware of the recent move on BBC to put back the original footage of Bhutto's interview. This was done imho primarily because many people such as myself, made a formal complaint to them about it. If you would like, I would be happy to show you the email that they sent to me telling me why they did it, the main reason is that they "assumed" she was miss-speaking, and that they would because of all the uproar, put back the original footage.

As to Al-Jazeera, this so-called Arab news outlet is not more than a CIA front, and always has been. You can do your own research about that if you like, there is abundant evidence.

Troll,
I will not comment anymore on this forum about 9-11; as this being Dave's article on McCain. He asked me not to. I will be writing an article very soon on 9-11, and if I remember I will address your question there, if I forget, just ask me again, and I will happily respond with my opinion.

Thompson was one of the few Republicans in Congress who supported McCain's 2000 run. McCain basically is a social conservative, and an economic conservative, and of course a defense conservative [and occasionally semi-neo-conservative, unfortunately]. The idea that he isn't a conservative is just silliness, whatever Rush Limbaugh et al may want/need to pretend.

As to Al-Jazeera, this so-called Arab news outlet is not more than a CIA front, and always has been.

So let me get this straight. Bhutto gets censored by the British Broadcasting Corporation because we're not supposed to know that bin Laden's dead... yet al-Jazeera, a mouthpiece of the CIA (a branch of the US government, which if I understand your worldview is in thrall to the British), gets to air the whole thing without the edit??

Tell me why I shouldn't ridicule you again?

Why do you guys keep prolonging the agony by responding to him? He makes me miss Moonraven.

Handguy:

Are you using your hand again?

Dave, why would you assume that Fred or his supporters would go for McCain or Giuliani? Thompson was seen as a social conservative. My bet is that his departure will help Huckabee.

It's pretty simple. Thompson has a history of being rather libertarian on a lot of social issues. Much more liberal on those issues than McCain is, in fact. He played more conservative for the campaign, but the truth is that he's probably more liberal on social issues than any candidate except Giuliani. I wouldn't rule out him endorsing Giuliani, but my bet is on McCain. I don't think there's any chance of him endorsing Romney, because he's much more of a traditional, mainstream Republican than Romney is. Romney has a history of being a bizarrely left-leaning Republican and then flipping completely to become an extremely right-leaning Republican. Thompson wouldn't like either of those positions or the fact that he flipped. As for Huckabee, Thompson's main reputation is as a fiscal conservative with social issues being secondary for him. That being the case there's zero chance he'd endorse Huckabee. He might be persuaded to endorse Romney by the party insiders who are pushing Romney, but there's zero chance he'd endorse Huckabee and I'd put money on it. But give it a week or a bit more and we'll find out if I'm right.

Dave

Dave - interesting, as usual. I see Thompson as having entered the race because he didn't really agree with any of the candidates. He might not endorse anyone. It's not like he's got a lot of supporters who are waiting for his announcement. Any Thompson moderates are going to McCain or Giuliani anyway, and his conservative fans to Huckabee or Romney. Any conservatives who would be willing to make the jump to Rudy or John have already done so. That deep animosity still exists between McCain and social conservatives.

Better minds than mine have tried to understand the dynamics between Giluiani and D'Amato, and failed. I'd bet that D'Amato's endorsement has more to do with Rudy than John.

There's something to that last point. D'Amato just plain hates Rudy. They butted heads a lot when they were both in their respective offices.

But Thompson's endorsement IS meaningful. He was polling around 9% nationwide and that's a hell of a lot of potential votes in a close election. And I think he will endorse if only to encourage some few of his supporters who might go the wrong way to go towards a candidate he finds more acceptable.

I think Thompson ran mainly because he felt it was his turn, and keep in mind what I always shock people with. Despite his appearance, he's actually only 65. Young enough to make a good running mate for an antique like McCain, and I imagine that's in negotiation right now. Huckabee would be a better running mate, but I suspect McCain wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

Dave

Dread,

My reasons for my comment on Al-jazeera are simple. First of all conveniently most if not all of the so-called bin laden tapes have come out of there, coupled with the so-called beheadings that were on public display a few years ago out of Iraq, which were clearly staged, along with the fact that the headquarters of Al-Jazeera are located in the "City of London". I should have clarified and said MI6, not that there is a whit of difference between the two of them anymore, there isn't.

After watching Hardball tonight, I worry that Romney will win Florida [by buying it, basically], and that could happen in several other big states too. I should be happy to see Romney get nominated so the GOP will lose, but he just makes me really uneasy.

Tom DeLay was on the show pretending he was trying to decide whether to vote for Romney or Huckabee, saying McCain and Giuliani were off limits [he would vote for Giuliani in November but never for McCain, who would 'damage the party'...this logic still escapes me]. Chris Matthews pointed out that some rabid partisans like DeLay may secretly relish the thought of losing this year, believing they can win all the bigger in 2010 and 2012. Whatever, Tom.

The 'logic' of McCain 'damaging the party' is pretty simple. He's the one candidate who they're pretty sure won't put up with any bullshit or blackmail from the religious right. He's always been a loose cannon and they have no confidence that he's willing to play ball. IMO that's his main redeeming quality.

Dave

"He's always been a loose cannon and they have no confidence that he's willing to play ball. IMO that's his main redeeming quality."

I agree.

On the Democratic side, it looks like Obama is also scaring the party hierarchy; not because he too is a loose cannon, but because like McCain, he appears to be less of a party hack and more in it for what he can do for the country.

A general election choice of McCain versus Obama could be the closest thing to a win-win for the country that we've seen in Presidential politics in a very long time.

Call me naive, but their shortcomings notwithstanding, they both seem to be that rarest of birds in politics: straight shooters.

Either would be like a breath of fresh air.

But what are the chances of it happening?

Stan, much as I love politics and love talking and arguing about them, I've learned over the years that I have zero talent for predicting the outcome of political contests.

All I'll say is that today, January 25, 2008, it looks like there's a chance that could be the matchup come November.

But, tomorrow's another day...

The alternative to McCain vs. Obama appears to be Romney vs. Clinton. I know that I'd feel a lot better about the country if the former choice was offered to me than if the latter was all I was offered. Who's the libertarian candidate this year?

Dave

Clavos...you sound like the typical dumbocratic shill..." straight shooters"...you believe McCain is a straight shooter because CNN and The NYT told you so...you had better read a little more and not get taken in by the media propagana!


Heres a short list of the old angry white guys flip flops...

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won't back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he's both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.


Gee he make John Kerry look pretty good!!!


JOM

"McCain - A figment of the media's imagination"

Pablo, #80:

You fail to see that your conspiracy-theorizing has you disappearing up your own logic.

Look, you say that the BBC is a government tool, and that al-Jazeera is a front for the CIA/MI6 - also a government tool.

So, as plainly as I can put it: the Bhutto interview was edited for the BBC (a government tool), but aired IN FULL on al-Jazeera (a government tool).

And so the conspiracy here was... what, exactly?

Can't let sleeping Pablos lie, eh Doc?

Tsk, tsk...

Dr. You missed a key element in the conspiracy. Al qaeda also works for the government so when they killed bhutto the circle of life was complete (now we can all sing).

It's amazing watching liberals tell us how much they want Romney to win the GOP nomination and how much they fear Mccain because he is the only one that can beat Hillary.


They never learn.

Actually, Arch, I'd prefer that Romney didn't get the nod.

I wouldn't want to risk it.

Dave: Who's the libertarian candidate this year?

It's you, isn't it?

Clav: If you take a gander at the top of the article here, there's an animated box ad for McCain. The opening image: a bunch of nails.

It's an omen, I tell you!

A much more interesting endorsement came out today: the NYT endorsed Clinton and McCain. That should cost McCain 3-4 points in Florida, and put Romney in a good position.

Baronius,

How is an endorsement by the NYT going to cost a candidate points in a state full of Noo Yawkahs?

Especially when most of those Noo Yawkahs are old and grouchy and more inclined to vote for the old grouchy guy.

Dave: Who's the libertarian candidate this year?

It's you, isn't it?

Not this year, but considering all the money Mike Badnarik was able to raise in 2004 and then carry over to his congressional campaign, it's halfway tempting. I wonder if libertarian contributors would be pissed if I ran for president and then took their money and ran for Congress as a Republican two years later.

Dave

John Mccain is a lying scumbag and if there was any justice in this world he would have gotten alzheimer's instead of the gipper.

Fuck Mccain!

Amen Arch...Amen

JOM

"McCain - A figment of the media's imagination"

Hi Dave,

Just to set the record straight, none of the money raised by the 2004 presidential campaign was carried over, it was all spent on the 2004 campaign: 1.016 million.

The money for the 2006 congressional campaign was raised using the donor and inquiry lists from the 2004 canpaign, but all the money was raised after May 2005.

To answer your question, Yes, they'd be pissed. But that's not a worry, since despite your strengths you'd be seen as a party-flopper and probably wouldn't get the nomination.

Thanks for clearing that up, Allen. Guess I'd better stick to running against The Great Improsoner, Dawnna Dukes as a Republican.

Dave

Good idea.

Allen. I notice from your blog that you're becoming rather alienated from the frustration factory which is the LP. There's room for you in the Republican Liberty movement.

BTW, you ought to consider writing up some of your thoughts in article form and sharing them here on Blogcritics. We'd welcome your perspective.

Dave

As we approach the Florida primary on Tuesday, McCain has received two very important endorsements from senior Florida Republican figures.

Two days ago, Senator Mel Martinez, a "Pedro Pan" Cuban immigrant, endorsed McCain. Martinez, a former Orange County Commissioner, wields influence not only among Florida's all-important Cuban-American community, but is also very highly regarded in his home town of Orlando and the surrounding populous Central Florida area.

And last night at a Lincoln Day dinner in St. Petersburg, Florida's hugely popular Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, announced his endorsement of the Senator from Arizona.

Calling McCain a "true American hero," Crist said,

"There are a lot of great people running for the Republican nomination, for president," Crist said with McCain beside him. "After thinking about it as much as I have I don't think anybody would do a better than the man who stands next to me. That's an endorsement."

McCain now goes into Florida's primary with the endorsement of the state's two most powerful politicians.

"McCain now goes into Florida's primary with the endorsement of the state's two most powerful politicians."

Gee I wonder if that will overcome his support for amnesty and the fact that he can't string together two reasonable, insightful thoughts on what he would do for the economy as president.

Let's face it. If you're talking about Iraq Mccain is absolutely clueless.

Time for America to put this Mcamnesty nonsense behind us.

Gee I wonder if that will overcome his support for amnesty...

Er, Arch... Arch? Hello?? This is FLORIDA...!

Nice try, Doc. I can still hear the echoing inside his skull...ull...ull...ull...

Arch, was there a 'not' missing from your statement about McCain and Iraq up there?

You know, I really wish it were not McCain who was gathering all this momentum right now, but at least it's not Romney. If it ends up being McCain vs. Obama I'm going to have a hard time picking who to vote for.

Dave

Yes there was a missing "not."

If it comes down to Mccain versus whoever I'm going to praying for an asteroid to hit the earth.

Thankfully your prayers won't be answered because there's no big, magical, bearded dude up in the sky to listen to you, Arch.

Dave

"Thankfully your prayers won't be answered because there's no big, magical, bearded dude up in the sky to listen to you, Arch."

Whaaaaat???

There's no Santa Claus??

Noooooooooooooo...