The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Radhil]

There isn't much to say that is positive.

*sigh* [EDIT: personal, inflammatory comment].

And the people have never voted on the FEC and have never cared about campaign finance rules.

I don't know where you're from, but in NY, the people that vote care a fair bit about campaign finance.

No, you just have a system where nobody wishes to face the ugliness that exists within. And that is fine.

I'd try and be ironic here, but really, what's the point....

Burning books, it shouldn't get any more insane, g*dd*mnit.

Don't believe everything you read TM.

[EDITED a personal comment-Jan]

[Jan]

Just for the record, may I remind people that it was agreed long ago that this forum would discuss and debate politely? If you can't phrase it politely and without overly inflammatory terms, don't bother posting it.

We've done it before, let's keep it up.

Jan
Moderator

[Towelmaster]

Sorry, I sorta made a promise to Jan to step aside if things get too 'personal' for me.

As you can see in both our last couple of postings, a discussion between Der Mike and myself is quite impossible. Because of course there is no way that a convicted felon could actually say something true. Let me leave it at that.


About that one thing though Radhill, the 'don't believe everything you read' : Of course not!

But this edition was almost banned, the judge ruled against it though :

"This biography of President George W. Bush has been withdrawn, slandered, sued and suppressed. Fortunate Son has weathered this fierce storm to emerge triumphant in this new, second edition. Author J. Hatfield has updated the text in its entirety, but no information about Bush has been retracted or expurgated. The publishers have added over 80 pages of new material from leading progressive scholars and activists.

The original publisher received threats from Bush campaign lawyers, and saw their author discredited in public in October, 1999. They withdrew 88.000 copies from stores and promised to burn them. Soft Skull republished the book but ran into the mainstream media who took the bait laid out for them and focused on Hatfield's 1988 felony conviction. A Texas lawsuit shut down distribution of Soft Skull Press's new edition of Fortunate Son.

Fortunate Son gives us the truth about George Bush: how he dodged the draft, was a mediocre student at Yale, lost a lot of other people's money in boom times in the Texas Oil market, and was investigated by the S.E.C. for insider trading"

***

I don't believe this book would be still available is there was anything wrong or incorrect in it. GW's lawyers would rip the publishers and the author to shreds. But I guess if you take 5 people you get 5 opinions, you take 25.000 people you get...

And with that, if I may, I leave this thread alone for a little while, as I go out boozing on the town with my schweetheardt...

[Jan]

Do you have a link to what you quoted, TM?

Thanks,
Jan

[Dr Maturin]

Well, I can say something postive about Europe. If you're into traveling, it's a nice place to visit with many sights to see. But at the end of the day, we American vacationers don't have to live there and always have America to go back to.

[Karachi Vyce]

Because of course there is no way that a convicted felon could actually say something true. Let me leave it at that.

Really.

I see, so, none of us should have any trouble whatsoever taking the word of a man convicted of FRAUD - which, I should note, deals specifically with issues of truthfulness. Nope, we shouldn't be questioning the veracity of anything he says, NOT AT ALL.

I don't believe this book would be still available is there was anything wrong or incorrect in it.

Same way that Michael Moore gets away with printing the various lies, half-truths and blatant fabrications that he does. If he's called on it, or someone threatens legal action, he just disclaims that all of the tripe he spews is his "opinion" rather than the gospel truth.

[Der Mike]

I don't know where you're from, but in NY, the people that vote care a fair bit about campaign finance.

I only have every poll ever taken on the topic in the history of it being an "issue" to back up my assertion. I'll also note that campaign finance reform actually put MORE money into the system and made it MORE difficult to figure out who gives what.

As you can see in both our last couple of postings, a discussion between Der Mike and myself is quite impossible. Because of course there is no way that a convicted felon could actually say something true. Let me leave it at that.

If somebody is using lots of anonymous sources, that person has to be trust-worthy enough to believe.

When the person using anonymous sources is a criminal, no, he doesn't get benefit of the doubt.

But this edition was almost banned, the judge ruled against it though :

"This biography of President George W. Bush has been withdrawn, slandered, sued and suppressed. Fortunate Son has weathered this fierce storm to emerge triumphant in this new, second edition. Author J. Hatfield has updated the text in its entirety, but no information about Bush has been retracted or expurgated. The publishers have added over 80 pages of new material from leading progressive scholars and activists.

The original publisher received threats from Bush campaign lawyers, and saw their author discredited in public in October, 1999. They withdrew 88.000 copies from stores and promised to burn them. Soft Skull republished the book but ran into the mainstream media who took the bait laid out for them and focused on Hatfield's 1988 felony conviction. A Texas lawsuit shut down distribution of Soft Skull Press's new edition of Fortunate Son.

WHAT? Lawyers of a man who felt he was slandered threatened a book publisher with charges for publishing innuendo with no evidence behind it?

SHOCKING!!!

And, if you're going to post a PRESS RELEASE for the book, please actually mention it.

And, also mention that the outfit publishing this book also PROUDLY publishes a book that has already been definitively proven to be completely false and fabricated: Besilles' book on gun ownership in America.

If the book was even remotely NOT bullshit, it wouldn't have to go to a total joke of a publishing house.

I don't believe this book would be still available is there was anything wrong or incorrect in it. GW's lawyers would rip the publishers and the author to shreds.

You can legally buy the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in spite of it being blatantly lies.

You know, that whole First Amendment thing.

And Bush's people decided that letting the book wallow in obscurity was better than suing for slander and making the book somewhat notorious. Notice how Clinton didn't sue whomever that idiotic filmmaker was that claimed he killed Vince Foster or that he ran drugs out of Arkansas?

Why?

Because it's better to let the public ignore it than it is to attract attention by fighting it.

Discretion is the better part of value.
-=Mike

[phazedout]

And Bush's people decided that letting the book wallow in obscurity was better than suing for slander and making the book somewhat notorious. Notice how Clinton didn't sue whomever that idiotic filmmaker was that claimed he killed Vince Foster or that he ran drugs out of Arkansas?

Why?

Because it's better to let the public ignore it than it is to attract attention by fighting it.

Discretion is the better part of value.
-=Mike

That depends on the nature of the assertion, if someone published personally libellous information about me, I'd have them in court so fast their head would spin. You can take two sides on this, either they're ignoring it in the hope it'll go away (which some people may interpret as the 'oh then it must be true' camp) ot they're ignoring it for the reasons stated.

brief aside, could you please cite an example of where MM has told a half truth and subsequently retracted it as 'opinion' - I'm not douting your word, I'm just not aware of any examples.
Phaze

[Der Mike]

That depends on the nature of the assertion, if someone published personally libellous information about me, I'd have them in court so fast their head would spin. You can take two sides on this, either they're ignoring it in the hope it'll go away (which some people may interpret as the 'oh then it must be true' camp) ot they're ignoring it for the reasons stated.

If you're a major public figure, you'll ignore it. No good comes from a lawsuit.

brief aside, could you please cite an example of where MM has told a half truth and subsequently retracted it as 'opinion' - I'm not douting your word, I'm just not aware of any examples.Phaze

I can look one up and post it later tonight.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

I don't know who I can't stand more...Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock. Oh, and Robert Greenwald, whose Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price has been proven to be total bullshit, is up in the running now, too. Why do leftist propaganda films have to hide information? Why not attack the right with real information? Surely there has to be SOMETHING out there...

[Dr Maturin]

Here's an interesting one...in L.A. today, an "anti-illegal immigration" group is protesting at a Home Depot "day laborer" building. Their signs are totally non-racist and simply stating the fact that they disagree with the practice of hiring illegals.

Across the street, there is a group protesting this group's protests. Their signs charge that the white forefathers were racist and other things. Now, who's right and wrong in this debate? If Mexican-Americans love illegal immigration so much, then why don't they offer to have their own taxes raised in order to pay for the costs?

[Jan]

If Mexican-Americans love illegal immigration so much, then why don't they offer to have their own taxes raised in order to pay for the costs?

You mean aside from the fact that it's such a completly impractical, unworkable idea, right?

There probably isn't a clear right or wrong to this and the public's feelings about it seem to change with the wind from being adamantly opposed to complete indifference.

I notice that the protests these days that hit the news are usually about fairly decently paying jobs like construction. Have there been any protests that illegals are taking away the migrant farm labor or housekeeping or janatorial jobs from US citizens? I haven't noticed any.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

You mean aside from the fact that it's such a completly impractical, unworkable idea, right?

My point exactly. Their defense of people whom they have no real connection to, aside from ethnicity, is irrational.

There probably isn't a clear right or wrong to this and the public's feelings about it seem to change with the wind from being adamantly opposed to complete indifference.

It's regional, though. All of the border states' citizens are majority against illegal immigration, and more the the point, the state governments' inaction. There is a clear right or wrong...that being it illegal to cross the border without proper documentation.

I notice that the protests these days that hit the news are usually about fairly decently paying jobs like construction. Have there been any protests that illegals are taking away the migrant farm labor or housekeeping or janatorial jobs from US citizens? I haven't noticed any.

We NEED Mexican and other Central-American immigrants to fill these jobs, but there's a program to do it legally. When you have illegals swarming around like bees, you'll wind up with murderers escaping due to there being no real record of these individuals. See "'murder of a cop,' 'illegal immigrant,' 'colorado.'"

And the "pro-illegal" group isn't helping the illegals by protesting the protesters...they're just crying racism. The "anti-illegal" group is protesting because they disagree with a total lack of regard for the law. Baffling, isn't it?

[Dr Maturin]

FNC has uncovered that most of the counterprotesters are members of MEChA, who promote giving back Cali and other "Mexican territory" back to Mexico. What little legitimacy they had, if any, is gone. Like I said, they're not adding anything.

[Jan]

It's regional, though. All of the border states' citizens are majority against illegal immigration, and more the the point, the state governments' inaction. There is a clear right or wrong...that being it illegal to cross the border without proper documentation.

I gather from the rest of your post that you're only addressing illegal immigration by Mexicans and Central Americans. Here in Florida, there are contract labor/temprorary labor 'companies' whose workers are each a different group. So far I've encountered ones whose employees are almost exclusively Russian, Polish, Jamaican, Puerto Rican and Haitian. Given the amount of construction and the number of hotels in this area, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's generally assumed that the workers are illegals and that the companies themselves aren't exactly getting all proper business licenses and paying all the employment taxes.

We NEED Mexican and other Central-American immigrants to fill these jobs, but there's a program to do it legally. When you have illegals swarming around like bees, you'll wind up with murderers escaping due to there being no real record of these individuals. See "'murder of a cop,' 'illegal immigrant,' 'colorado.'"

I see a story about somebody who'd been living and working here for ten years when he murdered that police officer. How would his having been here legally changed that? It would seem to me that he'd have just as many ties as an illegal here for a long time as any legal worker would have.

And the "pro-illegal" group isn't helping the illegals by protesting the protesters...they're just crying racism. The "anti-illegal" group is protesting because they disagree with a total lack of regard for the law. Baffling, isn't it?

Without you linking to the particular instance you're referring to, I can't really judge for myself.

Jan