Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/56684.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/postopin ion/opedcolumnists/56684.htm</a> >>The paper's excerpt of Cpl. Starr's letter leaves the reader with the distinct impression that this young Marine was darkly resigned to a senseless death. The truth is exactly the opposite. Late last week, I received a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story — and the parts of Cpl. Starr's letter that the Times failed to include: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." Reader Michael Valois questioned the Times' reporter, James Dao, about his selection bias and forwarded me the exchanges. A defensive Dao (who didn't respond to my e-mail inquiry) argued, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr." He then had the gall to berate the reader: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?" Dao sounds a bit unhinged playing the far-left chickenhawk card. Only people who have traveled to Iraq can criticize a paper's war-related coverage? <<
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Why are you flabbergasted Patrick? Welcome to the joy of being the person with the pen. Isn't manipulation of the facts great?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Wait - you mean that selective quoting of written sources can result in changing the meaning of what the original author intended to say? Especially if you don't tell people where the edits occurred? That's very interesting.
Originally Posted By gadzuux There's a pattern emerging among defenders of the GOP party line - accuse the other side of doing exactly what the GOP side is doing. In this case, paint the NYtimes as a 'liberal mouthpiece' - nevermind that the editors are still defending judy miller to this day. But you won't see them acknowledge that miller (and by extention the NYT) was complicit in the bush administration's efforts to disparage ambassador wilson as retribution for exposing the white house lies that iraq was seeking nuclear material from niger - a claim that bush himself has since been forced to retract. We also hear from the GOP that the dems are preventing them from "shrinking the size of government" and that "being responsible with taxpayers dollars is painful" to the democrats. Fact is the democrats eliminated the deficit, as well as deficit spending, until the GOP ballooned federal spending and took the deficit to unprecedented heights in less than five years. Republicans speak of the lack of honor and integrity among democrats at the same time as their own executive and legislative leadership is being indicted on crimes of lying, corruption and abuse of power. So who's buying this? Only those who lack basic critical thinking and reasoning skills. But I'll say this much for them - it takes some crust to turn around and accuse people of the exact misdeeds that their party is currently being indicted for - and at the same exact time. What chutzbah.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Fact is the democrats eliminated the deficit, as well as deficit spending, until the GOP ballooned federal spending and took the deficit to unprecedented heights in less than five years.> That's not a fact. Please name one year in the last 100 that a Democrat-controlled Congress passed a balanced budget.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm sure you'd love to lay claim to the 'clinton' economy. But then you'd have to accept responsibility for the current historic deficit and national debt too. And skip the GDP ratio argument - that only works because of government war spending. You don't really want to use the iraq war as the example of "GOP fical responsibility" do you?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Especially since they often don't count it in their "official" deficit numbers - as though we weren't spending the money.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sure you'd love to lay claim to the 'clinton' economy. But then you'd have to accept responsibility for the current historic deficit and national debt too.> In other words, you can't name one year in the last 100 that a Democrat-controlled Congress passed a balanced budget. And yes, Republicans are to blame for the current historic deficit and national debt. They've been far too willing to agree with Democrat spending plans. <And skip the GDP ratio argument - that only works because of government war spending.> Nonsense. It works because our population is constantly growing and our workforce keeps getting more efficient. Thanks to Republican tax cuts, our economy is growing to match.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In other words, you can't name one year in the last 100 that a Democrat-controlled Congress passed a balanced budget.>> I can name four years. In the past 50 years there have been 8 years with a balanced budget. Democrats controlled Congress four of those years and Republicans also controlled Congress four of those years. Republicans are no better at passing balanced budgets than Democrats are. In fact the ONLY years the Republicans managed to pass a balanced budget were the years enjoying the benefits from the Clinton administration. Democrat Balanced Budgets: 1956 1957 1960 1969 Republican Balanced Budgets: 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source material: <a href="http://traxel.com/deficit/" target="_blank">http://traxel.com/deficit/</a> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/pagelayo ut/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm</a> <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html" target="_blank">http://clerk.house.gov/histHig h/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And yes, Republicans are to blame for the current historic deficit and national debt.<< Well thanks for admitting that. It's very refreshing that someone is willing to hold the party that is in control of the White House, senate and congress responsible for the mounting debt and defi-- >> They've been far too willing to agree with Democrat spending plans.<< Sigh.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder ">> They've been far too willing to agree with Democrat spending plans.<< Sigh" But you know what, though? The hell with them. Let's assume that's what happened. it's stil their name on the door, still their administration. And for all this blather about Democrats "never coming up wiht a plan" about anything, suddenly on this issue the Dems have one and the Republicans caved in on it? They need to make up their minds what the spin of the day is going to be, rather than try and have it both ways.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And for all this blather about Democrats "never coming up wiht a plan" about anything, suddenly on this issue the Dems have one and the Republicans caved in on it?<< LOL! It's funny to watch that, isn't it? I think some Republicans have been so busy spinning stuff, they're even confused by much of the plotline they constructed. If this were a movie, the comments that the Democrats are somehow to blame once again would be seen as a continuity error.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's assume that's what happened. it's stil their name on the door, still their administration.> That's absolutely correct. Hopefully, things are changing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And for all this blather about Democrats "never coming up wiht a plan" about anything, suddenly on this issue the Dems have one and the Republicans caved in on it? They need to make up their minds what the spin of the day is going to be, rather than try and have it both ways.> Conservatives don't speak in unison, just as liberals don't. I haven't made a charge that liberals don't have any plans. It's obvious they have a few. Trouble is, they don't have plans to solve the important issues facing this nation, and the plans they do have rely on the same methods that have failed in the past.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Trouble is, they don't have plans to solve the important issues facing this nation, and the plans they do have rely on the same methods that have failed in the past.>> How have they failed in the past? Social Security and Medicare made a huge improvement in the way our seniors live. Various social programs may not have eliminated poverty, but the 'poor' today are MUCH better off than the poor of 50 years ago. Government investment in medical research has provided significant improvement in both life expectancy and quality of life. Environmental laws have had great success in improving the quality of our air and water. Government mandated fuel economy standards have changed the average auto's fuel economy from about 12 mpg in the late 60's to over 20 mpg today. Equal opportunity laws have not eliminated racism in our society, but they have certainly minimized its impact. Women now have opportunities available to them that would never have been dreamed of 50 years ago. And all of this has been accomplished WITHOUT diminishing the availability of capital or taking away the incentive of private enterprise. Small business owners today are a greater percentage of the population than they have ever been. Despite conservative protest, those in the upper income brackets have not been hurt by these measures. In fact those in the top 10% now have a significantly greater share of the nation’s wealth than they did only 10 years ago. Please tell me about the failed Democratic methods. I'm having a hard time finding one.
