Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html


Seems

to me that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.


--
Peter

On 2011-02-02 11:35:46 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html


Seems

to

me that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.

Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
appear to be basically groundless.

After all, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a Democrat who
contributes heavily to Democratic causes. Hardly an argument for
calling the network right wing, eh?

It makes intellectuals look stupid to be rolling around in the mud like
a bunch of drunken hillbillies.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2011-02-02 14:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

After all, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a Democrat who
contributes heavily to Democratic causes. Hardly an argument for
calling the network right wing, eh?

Murdoch is somewhat enigmatic regarding his political affiliations. The
best you could say about him, is he is a carpetbagger.
He only sought and gained US citizenship in order to gain ownership of
US based media operations, since as an Australian he could not own a US
TV operation. There was no desire for "The American dream" or liberty
from oppression. All he wanted was to expand his "news empire" and
fatten his wallet. Getting US citizenship was just a means to an end.

He might have hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006, and had
the NY Post endorse Obama,but there is no indication he made any direct
personal contribution to "Democratic causes". If he has, please cite.

Last year his little business, News Corporation gave $1M to the
Republican Governors Association and $1M to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which was working to elect Republican candidates. There were
not such matching fund to "Democratic causes."

....and the Fox News position in the political jungle is decidedly
biased to the right.
....and the WSJ, etc.

So Murdoch being a nominal US citizen and Democrat is somewhat
meaningless given the reactionary personna of his "A-Team".


It makes intellectuals look stupid to be rolling around in the mud like
a bunch of drunken hillbillies.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-02-02 10:39:32 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2011-02-02 10:10:13 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

On 2011-02-01 19:44:19 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2011-02-01 18:55:38 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

Actually, I don't watch TV news much. I get most of my news from Wall
Street Journal, AP, NPR and USA Today apps on my iPad. TV is just about
dead. And anyone who throws me in with the "wingnuts" probably doesn't
read this news group much. I am a libertarian, unaffiliated with any
political party.

How can you call yourself a Libertarian and claim to be unaffiliated
with any political party?
That is an oxymoronic statement.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the
country. There have been winning Libertarian Party candidates in US
elections since 1978. It hold ballot status, along with the GOP, and
the Democratic party in all 50 states.
Your last Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 2008 was Bob
Barr. I am sure he appreciated your support.

Having no affiliation with a political party is to be an independent,
not a Libertarian. Unless you don't know what it means to be a
Libertarian, that is.

I am a libertarian, not a Libertarian. The Libertarian party sometimes
has issues with libertarianism.

OK! I can accept that in the literal sense you could well be an
independent who follows a libertarian philosophy. However the
dictionary does not differentiate between the capitalized, or
non-capitalized version of the word.

libertarian
noun
1 an adherent of libertarianism : [as adj. ] libertarian philosophy.
• a person who advocates civil liberty.
2 Philosophy a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.
ORIGIN late 18th cent. (sense 2) : from liberty , on the pattern of
words such as unitarian.

In today's political language, most understand an individual claiming
to be a (L)(l)ibertarian in the USA, to be a follower of the
Libertarian Party. So without a party affiliation it might be worth
considering what the Libertarian Party platform actually states:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to
sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian
Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights
of the individual."
The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic
affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic
intervention in other nations' affairs and free trade and migration.
It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the
elimination of most state functions.
It includes a "Self-determination" section which quotes from the
Declaration of independence and reads: "Whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance
as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."
It also includes an "Omissions" section which reads: "Our silence about
any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive,
edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not
be construed to imply approval."

I would follow the first dictionary definition -- an adherent of a
libertarian philosophy.

The problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that it has sometimes
taken positions contrary to freedom of worship, which I would consider
an essential liberty. Also, way too many potheads in the party. Sure,
if people want to poison themselves, fine. It is Charles Darwin at
work. But I do support tough sanctions against people who endanger me
by driving under the influence. I also think the Libertarians are
deluded by their belief in "victimless" crimes. In fact, most
victimless crimes do have victims, which the Libertarians are all too
eager to ignore.

So I would agree with Robert Ringer: I am a libertarian, not a
Libertarian. Besides, the whole idea of a Libertarian Party kind of
smacks of "Anarchists, unite!"

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2011-02-02 16:46:32 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

On 2011-02-02 10:39:32 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2011-02-02 10:10:13 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

On 2011-02-01 19:44:19 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2011-02-01 18:55:38 -0800, C J Campbell
said:

Actually, I don't watch TV news much. I get most of my news from Wall
Street Journal, AP, NPR and USA Today apps on my iPad. TV is just about
dead. And anyone who throws me in with the "wingnuts" probably doesn't
read this news group much. I am a libertarian, unaffiliated with any
political party.

How can you call yourself a Libertarian and claim to be unaffiliated
with any political party?
That is an oxymoronic statement.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the
country. There have been winning Libertarian Party candidates in US
elections since 1978. It hold ballot status, along with the GOP, and
the Democratic party in all 50 states.
Your last Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 2008 was Bob
Barr. I am sure he appreciated your support.

Having no affiliation with a political party is to be an independent,
not a Libertarian. Unless you don't know what it means to be a
Libertarian, that is.

I am a libertarian, not a Libertarian. The Libertarian party sometimes
has issues with libertarianism.

OK! I can accept that in the literal sense you could well be an
independent who follows a libertarian philosophy. However the
dictionary does not differentiate between the capitalized, or
non-capitalized version of the word.

libertarian
noun
1 an adherent of libertarianism : [as adj. ] libertarian philosophy.
• a person who advocates civil liberty.
2 Philosophy a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.
ORIGIN late 18th cent. (sense 2) : from liberty , on the pattern of
words such as unitarian.

In today's political language, most understand an individual claiming
to be a (L)(l)ibertarian in the USA, to be a follower of the
Libertarian Party. So without a party affiliation it might be worth
considering what the Libertarian Party platform actually states:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to
sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian
Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights
of the individual."
The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic
affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic
intervention in other nations' affairs and free trade and migration.
It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the
elimination of most state functions.
It includes a "Self-determination" section which quotes from the
Declaration of independence and reads: "Whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance
as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."
It also includes an "Omissions" section which reads: "Our silence about
any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive,
edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not
be construed to imply approval."

I would follow the first dictionary definition -- an adherent of a
libertarian philosophy.

The problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that it has sometimes
taken positions contrary to freedom of worship, which I would consider
an essential liberty. Also, way too many potheads in the party. Sure,
if people want to poison themselves, fine. It is Charles Darwin at
work. But I do support tough sanctions against people who endanger me
by driving under the influence. I also think the Libertarians are
deluded by their belief in "victimless" crimes. In fact, most
victimless crimes do have victims, which the Libertarians are all too
eager to ignore.

So I would agree with Robert Ringer: I am a libertarian, not a
Libertarian. Besides, the whole idea of a Libertarian Party kind of
smacks of "Anarchists, unite!"

Then consider the dictionary definition of libertarianism;

"libertarianism
noun
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal
state intervention in the lives of citizens.

The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not
the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and
prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should
not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism although
it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in
the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks
a concern with social justice."

So it seems you are a selective independent-libertarian.

How do you feel about state funded medical insurance for those unable
to provide it for themselves?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

OK! I can accept that in the literal sense you could well be an
independent who follows a libertarian philosophy. However the
dictionary does not differentiate between the capitalized, or
non-capitalized version of the word.

The difference is easy. One is an adherent to a philosophy,
another a member of a (political) party. Like 'christian' and
'roman-catholic'. Or like 'green (protects the environment)'
and 'The Greens'. Or 'conservative' and 'Tea Party movement'.

Being one may even preclude being the other ...

-Wolfgang

On 2/2/2011 5:32 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-02 11:35:46 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html



Seems

to

me that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.

Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
appear to be basically groundless.

So Sara Palin is a well read intellectual, with an understanding of
economics and world politics. She can see Russia from her front porch.
(I was at her house, you can't, even on the clearest day.) Glenn Beck
presents both sides of the issue, fairly. And Rush never incites the nut
jobs. Bill O'Reilly always presents both sides of the issue. Wanna buy
my bridge?



After all, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a Democrat who
contributes heavily to Democratic causes. Hardly an argument for calling
the network right wing, eh?


Please explain this, in view of your statement:

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

It makes intellectuals look stupid to be rolling around in the mud like
a bunch of drunken hillbillies.


When as the last time you heard a true conservative speak on Fox?
Ever

--
Peter

On 2011-02-03 07:29:00 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 5:32 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-02 11:35:46 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html



Seems

to

me

that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.

Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
appear to be basically groundless.

So Sara Palin is a well read intellectual, with an understanding of
economics and world politics. She can see Russia from her front porch.
(I was at her house, you can't, even on the clearest day.) Glenn Beck
presents both sides of the issue, fairly. And Rush never incites the
nut jobs. Bill O'Reilly always presents both sides of the issue. Wanna
buy my bridge?

I never said anything of the kind. Sorry to intrude on your religious
beliefs. I will leave you in peace henceforth.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2/4/2011 1:39 AM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-03 07:29:00 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 5:32 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-02 11:35:46 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or
that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html




Seems

to

me

that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who
keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks
refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.

Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
appear to be basically groundless.

So Sara Palin is a well read intellectual, with an understanding of
economics and world politics. She can see Russia from her front porch.
(I was at her house, you can't, even on the clearest day.) Glenn Beck
presents both sides of the issue, fairly. And Rush never incites the
nut jobs. Bill O'Reilly always presents both sides of the issue. Wanna
buy my bridge?

I never said anything of the kind. Sorry to intrude on your religious
beliefs. I will leave you in peace henceforth.



According to your the statements I made are "groundless" but, you deny
the implications. Huh!

BTW I am considered a conservative and not very many years ago was asked
by our local Republican party if I was interested in running for office.
(I declined.)

--
Peter

On 2011-02-04 05:36:56 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/4/2011 1:39 AM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-03 07:29:00 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 5:32 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-02-02 11:35:46 -0800, Peter N said:

On 2/2/2011 1:12 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2011-01-31 19:17:15 -0800, peter said:

On 1/31/2011 8:55 PM, shiva das wrote:


By the way, who did Fox send to Egypt, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck?

I hope they send both + Rush, for a start.
Perhaps Roger could help too.

BTW ever see this:

Particularly:

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox
actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or
that he
is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully
cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

Stewart turned to John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac to figure out whether
Fox is, in fact, evil or stupid?

WATCH:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html




Seems

to

me

that

this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who
keep
up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks
refer
to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
projection, to me.


that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.

Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
appear to be basically groundless.

So Sara Palin is a well read intellectual, with an understanding of
economics and world politics. She can see Russia from her front porch.
(I was at her house, you can't, even on the clearest day.) Glenn Beck
presents both sides of the issue, fairly. And Rush never incites the
nut jobs. Bill O'Reilly always presents both sides of the issue. Wanna
buy my bridge?

I never said anything of the kind. Sorry to intrude on your religious
beliefs. I will leave you in peace henceforth.



According to your the statements I made are "groundless" but, you deny
the implications. Huh!

BTW I am considered a conservative and not very many years ago was
asked by our local Republican party if I was interested in running for
office. (I declined.)

Well, I am neither a conservative nor a Republican. However, that does
not seem to prevent the Republicans from spamming my phone and mail
with requests for money. I wish they would stop it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor