The Political debate thread

[wanna be drummer]

I think Nixon's visit to China was VERY significant, when you compare it to our perception of communist nations, espicailly in the 1970's... it was monumental that the leader of the "free world" set foot into a country that was the ultimate opposite. Pretty big event, imo.

Sure it was, but did it dramtically change the country for the good or worse? It opened up relations...kinda. They were still purely communist without the economic reforms they have today, and we weren't really trading with them then.

So yes, it helped the world see that we could get along (I don't think we should have ever, nor should we now, be friends with China until they become a lot more democratic), but it didn't really do anything else at that point...

[The Bomber]

It could be argued that,apart from the adultery,Bill Clinton was a good president,see how that works?And watergate was 10 times worse than the sexcapades of Clinton.

[wanna be drummer]

It could be argued that,apart from the adultery,Bill Clinton was a good president,see how that works?And watergate was 10 times worse than the sexcapades of Clinton.

I agree 100% that Bill Clintons affair never should've been brought to court, his sex life is none of our business. He was a decent president.

Nixon wasn't even that bad. You say he had bad traits. Every president has had bad traits, but it's what they do in office that counts, and Nixon wasn't thta bad in that perspective

[Pb Derigable]

Bill Clinton was a good president. He didn't fuck anything up. He was good on the enconmy, but i would say that the tech boom in the 90's was a bigger part of it and i have heard on more then one occasions that Pres. Regan econmics plan finally came through like it should. He was soft on national security, but i remeber him bombing a few places. He rode a good wave until the impeachment then things fell apart, which is true becasue Gore lost. I would rank Clinton in the middle.

[The Bomber]

I agree 100% that Bill Clintons affair never should've been brought to court, his sex life is none of our business. He was a decent president.

Nixon wasn't even that bad. You say he had bad traits. Every president has had bad traits, but it's what they do in office that counts, and Nixon wasn't thta bad in that perspective

Favourite Bill quotes:

"I did not,have sexual relations with woman"-On his sex life.

'I pity the man that ends up with her"-On Hillary

"Can you really blame me?"-On his adultery

"It's the economy,stupid"

and the immortal:

"I didn't inhale!"

And the best Dave Mustaine quote:

"Bill Clinton says he put a bong in his mouth but he didn't inhale,that's like saying you put a cock in your mouth and you didn't suck!It's the logic !"

Personally,if i was married to Hillary,i would have,that one act of Watergate by Noxon was enough to ruin anyone's presidency,he wasn't a particularly great president,but he did it,and then he went beyond the limitations of his power to cover it up,otherwise yeah,alright President,but the bad outweighs the good tenfold.

Clinton was actually a good president,better than Nixon and did less bad,having your sexlife brought to court is wrong but really,if you're president you should be thinking more about politics than blowjobs! (Tough,i know,but somebody's got to do it!)

Point is,Clinton wasn't all that bad,just irresponsible,Hillary should have just dealt with him herself,maybe gotten him a chastity belt,or a divorce,oh wait,you probably shouldn't reward people for adultery. (I consider it a reward if you're married to Hillary,no matter how badly you get screwed over)

[zosodude13]

Sure it was, but did it dramtically change the country for the good or worse? It opened up relations...kinda. They were still purely communist without the economic reforms they have today, and we weren't really trading with them then.

So yes, it helped the world see that we could get along (I don't think we should have ever, nor should we now, be friends with China until they become a lot more democratic), but it didn't really do anything else at that point...

look at our economy now and our reliance on chinese imports... i dont think it would have been the same had Nixon not visited...

and the fact it was Nixon is pretty significant and, mabye the message was indirect, it still was monumental in the scope of Amercian history... much like Parry visiting Japan in the 1800's

Edited March 18, 2008 by zosodude13

[wanna be drummer]

that one act of Watergate by Nixon was enough to ruin anyone's presidency,he wasn't a particularly great president,but he did it,and then he went beyond the limitations of his power to cover it up,otherwise yeah,alright President,but the bad outweighs the good tenfold.

I'm not saying what he did was good. You said that Bush was the worst since Nixon, implying that Nixon was a horrible president. I'm disputing that. I don't think he was horrible by any means. He was an all right president who got caught up in a scandal that was quite bad, but it's not like that played a part in what he did for the country.

Yes he lied to the public and yes he "went beyond the limitations of his power to cover it up." But ask yourself, what world leader hasn't used their power to hide things? How many presidents have closets filled with skeletons that the world will never know about, or that came into light after they were gone (Kennedy and his whores). My point is, his scandal didn't really affect the people of the United States and really shouldn't be counted against him. His policies, the economy, and everything he did to affect the people and the world should play the only role in how good of a president he was. Not his attempt at bugging the Democratic committee and everything else that went on in the hotel

[wanna be drummer]

look at our economy now and our reliance on chinese imports... i dont think it would have been the same had Nixon not visited...

and the fact it was Nixon is pretty significant and, mabye the message was indirect, it still was monumental in the scope of Amercian history... much like Parry visiting Japan in the 1800's

The free market was already trying to push into China and its billion person population at the time. Nixon 'visiting' China didn't do a whole lot to help that. The American business corner had wanted to trade with China for a good deal of time, and Nixon or no-Nixon, we would've gone in there like we are today.

[The Bomber]

I'm not saying what he did was good. You said that Bush was the worst since Nixon, implying that Nixon was a horrible president. I'm disputing that. I don't think he was horrible by any means. He was an all right president who got caught up in a scandal that was quite bad, but it's not like that played a part in what he did for the country.

Yes he lied to the public and yes he "went beyond the limitations of his power to cover it up." But ask yourself, what world leader hasn't used their power to hide things? How many presidents have closets filled with skeletons that the world will never know about, or that came into light after they were gone (Kennedy and his whores). My point is, his scandal didn't really affect the people of the United States and really shouldn't be counted against him. His policies, the economy, and everything he did to affect the people and the world should play the only role in how good of a president he was. Not his attempt at bugging the Democratic committee and everything else that went on in the hotel

Everyone covers stuff up,but Nixon abused his pwer to do it,if he just shut up and taken his beating like a big boy he might have passed as a good enough president,JFK was a great president,but a very slimey man.

[wanna be drummer]

Everyone covers stuff up,but Nixon abused his pwer to do it,if he just shut up and taken his beating like a big boy he might have passed as a good enough president,JFK was a great president,but a very slimey man.

Name one president in the last 200 years that hasn't abused his power...one

Again, his policies were fine, so were some of his foreign affairs (he pulled us out of Nam ya know).

I'd say he ranks in the middle of presidents

[The Bomber]

Name one president in the last 200 years that hasn't abused his power...one

Again, his policies were fine, so were some of his foreign affairs (he pulled us out of Nam ya know).

I'd say he ranks in the middle of presidents

I'd say he's the best of the worst,just below the middle,one of the worse presidents,but only because of that one incident,it was a VERY big deal!Pulling out of 'Nam doesn't amend it,but it counts for him,but still,best of the worst.

I'll name a few,JFK didn't abuse it (Unless you count using it to pick up chicks)

Neither did Clinton (Ok,to pick up chicks,in fact tell me now,does picking up chicks count?)

Reagan?He did sling crap about the left,and probably has skeletons in the closet,but that falls under freedom of speech,and he only went on about communism,and the USSR,i believe the only successful communism was Cuba,USSR was state-run capitalism,not even communism,and it does suck in practice,but i love the theory.

None of the really low-profile ones did.

[wanna be drummer]

JFK was behind the Bay of Pigs. To me, that was indeed, an abuse of power. We shouldn't have done it.

Bill Clinton's pursuit of universal health care was an abuse of power, but thats an argument for another time.

Reagan, while I like him as president over many, had that whole Iran-Contra affair. I think he abused his power by turning a blind eye, and not doing something about it, like a president should. Granted, its not known that he knew about it, but methinks he did

And I think a lot of no-names did. Most of them were the worst presidents of all-time, simply because they did nothing...ever

Edited March 18, 2008 by wanna be drummer

[The Bomber]

Universal healthcare is a good thing,the no-names didn't do anything,no abuse,but nothing was done.

[wanna be drummer]

Universal healthcare is a good thing,the no-names didn't do anything,no abuse,but nothing was done.

Again, I don't really want to get into the universal health care thing.

But about no-names, I think you're wrong. For example, James Buchanan is considered a no-name. He was one of the causes of the Civil War, because he was an idiot and did nothing to prevent it. He refused to do his duty

Franklin Pierce is another no-name who also decided to sit down and do nothing to prevenmt a full-scale Civil War which he must have seen coming. He abused his power by expanding the country, adding several slave states, when slavery was escalating to start the War

I'll throw in a well-know man. Thomas Jefferson, a well known man, abused his power by illegally buying the Louisiana Purchase, albeit it turned out to be a good thing, it was still an abusive move.

Hell what about a GREAT president, Abe Lincoln, eh? He abused his power by suspending habeas corpus. This move may or may not have been good, but it was indeed an abuse of power, he shouldn't have the right to do that, nor does he.

My point is, everybody has skeletons, everybody.

[The Bomber]

Again, I don't really want to get into the universal health care thing.

But about no-names, I think you're wrong. For example, James Buchanan is considered a no-name. He was one of the causes of the Civil War, because he was an idiot and did nothing to prevent it. He refused to do his duty

Franklin Pierce is another no-name who also decided to sit down and do nothing to prevenmt a full-scale Civil War which he must have seen coming. He abused his power by expanding the country, adding several slave states, when slavery was escalating to start the War

I'll throw in a well-know man. Thomas Jefferson, a well known man, abused his power by illegally buying the Louisiana Purchase, albeit it turned out to be a good thing, it was still an abusive move.

Hell what about a GREAT president, Abe Lincoln, eh? He abused his power by suspending habeas corpus. This move may or may not have been good, but it was indeed an abuse of power, he shouldn't have the right to do that, nor does he.

My point is, everybody has skeletons, everybody.

All petty stuff compared with Nixon,everybody has done stuff,but Watergate was the peak of this,from then on,politicians had to be careful.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

All petty stuff compared with Nixon,everybody has done stuff,but Watergate was the peak of this,from then on,politicians had to be careful.

We see how that has woked out,....

KB

[Hermit]

All petty stuff compared with Nixon,everybody has done stuff,but Watergate was the peak of this,from then on,politicians had to be careful.

[from a different perspective.. semantically..]

Watergate was not a peak so much as it was a.. nadir.

Then George W. Bush came along and established an even lower low.

GWB: "Hey, America.. "

Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's, says Watergate aide

John Dean, Richard Nixon's legal counsel who was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal, has accused the Bush administration of trumping even the Nixon regime in secrecy, deception and political cynicism.

In the latest book to attack the conduct of the current United States administration, Mr Dean says that it has created potentially the most corrupt, unethical and undemocratic White House in history.

"Bush and [Vice-President Richard] Cheney are a throwback to the Nixon time," Mr Dean, 65, told The Telegraph last night. "All government business is filtered through a political process at this White House, which is the most secretive ever to run the United States.

*source*

Edited March 18, 2008 by Hermit

[zepyep]

Hi all,

John Dean???? He should talk,.....

And all your dreams will come true next January,..... 20th,...

KB

[Pb Derigable]

[from a different perspective.. semantically..]

Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's, says Watergate aide

*

Really,a Nixon aide saying Bush is worse. It's like a 0-16 team in the NFL saying were not the worse 0-16 team. Im not debating if it's true, im just saying

[The Bomber]

Bush is worse than Nixon,but Nixon set the bar,the 'watergate' (Sorry,watermark) if you will.

[Dzldoc]

VIENNA, Austria — China, an opponent of harsh U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran, has nonetheless recently provided the International Atomic Energy Agency with intelligence linked to Tehran's alleged attempts to make nuclear arms, diplomats have told The Associated Press.

Beijing, along with Moscow, has acted as a brake within the council, consistently watering down a U.S.-led push to impose severe penalties on Tehran for its nuclear defiance since the first set of sanctions was passed in late 2006.

A Chinese decision to provide information for use in the agency's attempts to probe Iran's purported nuclear weapons program would appear to reflect growing international unease about how honest the Islamic republic has been in denying it ever tried to make such arms.

The new development was revealed by two senior diplomats who closely follow the IAEA probe of Iran's nuclear program. One commented late last week and the other Wednesday.

The IAEA declined comment, and nobody was picking up phones at the Iranian and Chinese missions to the IAEA.

John Bolton, the previous U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and before that the U.S. undersecretary of state in charge of the Iran nuclear dossier, said any such Chinese move would be "potentially significant" because of Beijing's former military ties to Tehran.

Rest of story vv

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345009,00.html

[Electrophile]

Fox News? Brother.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Fox News? Brother.

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

[Dzldoc]

Fox News? Brother.

I check them all out. I believe ( hope ) when I pick through all the BS from different media outlets that I can still be confused

[dragster]

I'm with all the anti-politicians......no worries, we're millions out here....."MEET THE NEW BOSS SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!"