Politics on YouTube

[slipstream]

I was posting political videos in another thread, but I thought I would create one just for politics:


Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"


Here is a highlight video, but it is well worth to watch the long version:


Highlights: Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

[Zircon]

I've listened to this guy a lot as a 5-minute guest speaker on Fox broadcasts. He knows what he's talking about.

[Sardondi]

Even in his days as a member of Carter's Georgia Mafia, Caddell seemed fairly fearless, or at least heedless, of whose applecart he upset. He could not be counted on to stick to the talking point du jour or to give his team's spin to whatever issue he was discussing. He's always been a pollster as opposed to a professional campaign official. He speaks his mind, and it makes him someone worth listening to.

[Eddie Coyle]

Even in his days as a member of Carter's Georgia Mafia, Caddell seemed fairly fearless, or at least heedless, of whose applecart he upset. He could not be counted on to stick to the talking point du jour or to give his team's spin to whatever issue he was discussing. He's always been a pollster as opposed to a professional campaign official. He speaks his mind, and it makes him someone worth listening to.

         The "malaise speech" from the summer of '79 was via Caddell. Which lead to accusations of him being an embedded conservative with former ally Bob Shrum being his chief accuser...safe to say he's a member of the right nowadays, at least unofficially.

[slipstream]

         The "malaise speech" from the summer of '79 was via Caddell. Which lead to accusations of him being an embedded conservative with former ally Bob Shrum being his chief accuser...safe to say he's a member of the right nowadays, at least unofficially.

I don't think he is a rightest, he just isn't a lefist.  Above his personal politics, or his relationship with the Democratic Party, his attack on the media is right on.  Not enough questions are being asked.  The media is really letting down this country.

[Eddie Coyle]

I don't think he is a rightest, he just isn't a lefist.  Above his personal politics, or his relationship with the Democratic Party, his attack on the media is right on.  Not enough questions are being asked.  The media is really letting down this country.

Caddell could probably be categorized(ironically) as a Reagan Democrat now. The media these days is full of would be celebrities and lobbyists. That fuckin' grandiose White House Correspondents Dinner is a testament to how these media members see themselves. Many of these "journalists" get younger and more attractive each year, they matriculate in pageants, not J School. And then there's partisan think tank crowd, paid off by a Soros or Friess. Completely compromised and on the take.

[Sardondi]

         The "malaise speech" from the summer of '79 was via Caddell. Which lead to accusations of him being an embedded conservative with former ally Bob Shrum being his chief accuser...safe to say he's a member of the right nowadays, at least unofficially.

Wel that was certainly nothing he should've been proud of...unless you're saying they're saying he threw the game. Which just isn't possible. Caddell had an independent streak, but he was and is a Carter guy all the way.

          Caddell could probably be categorized(ironically) as a Reagan Democrat now. The media these days is full of would be celebrities and lobbyists. That fuckin' grandiose White House Correspondents Dinner is a testament to how these media members see themselves. Many of these "journalists" get younger and more attractive each year, they matriculate in pageants, not J School. And then there's partisan think tank crowd, paid off by a Soros or Friess. Completely compromised and on the take.

(I'm keep telling myself I'm gonna read them all before posting.) I think philosophically you may be zeroing in on Caddell's take on things. But he's closer to yellow dog than Reagan Democrat - there's no way he would ever vote for a Republican. It's more like he's still where Carter was before he got to the White House, which was in a lot of ways conservative. I think Carter has gotten considerably more radical since he left the White House. But not Caddell.

[Eddie Coyle]

Wel that was certainly nothing he should've been proud of...unless you're saying they're saying he threw the game. Which just isn't possible. Caddell had an independent streak, but he was and is a Carter guy all the way.

       Bob Shrum, who would need a hot streak to reach the Mendoza line, much like many of the liberal elite were leery of Carter and never warmed to him. They viewed him as conservative. Shrum and Ted Kennedy were plotting as early as spring 1978 to kick Carter to the curb in '80. So they wanted Carter to fail, and when their grand plan melted with Teddy bombing on 60 Minutes on the night of November 4, 1979(ironically occurring the weekend of the Iranian hostage crisis beginning)leading to the internecine clashes with sleazy Shrum blaming Caddell, Ham Jordan and others for the declining fate of the Dems.

            Personally, I think the "malaise speech" took guts and is perhaps the last time a sitting president spoke realistically and critically and treated the populace like adults, it would have fit nicely on The Kinks "Low Budget" album from the same summer..."learn to economize". Not the Romper Room fare that Peggy Noonan would serve up and seemingly every presidential speechwriter since would lay on us. Purple prose made to boost a stock market.

[Sardondi]

   ....Purple prose made to boost a stock market.

Okay, wait, this is a trick question. This is supposed to be a bad thing, right? 

BTW, you remember real good.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Personally, I think the "malaise speech" took guts and is perhaps the last time a sitting president spoke realistically and critically and treated the populace like adults...

My take on Carter is he had no answers other than the typical more taxes, more spending, and more unneeded regulation (see:  his new 'windfall taxes' on oil companies when what we needed was more domestic production).

Reagan came in and his tax and fiscal policies, and setting an optimistic instead of pessamistic tone, kicked off 25 years of growth ('82-'08) - including millions of good jobs - which included the communications and computer revolution.  Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (ironically appointed by Carter) and his monetary policy deserves much credit as well.

Carter never forgave the US voters for firing him, and has been an old sour pain-in-the ass ever since.  He has to be delighted that first George W Bush and then Barack Obama have displaced him as the worst of modern Presidents

[slipstream]

Judge Napolitano 'What Were FBI Agents Doing Monitoring Petraeus' Private Emails'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih44m6Zrsws#!

[slipstream]

Thomas Sowell - Income Distribution

[Zircon]

I don't think he is a rightest, he just isn't a lefist.  Above his personal politics, or his relationship with the Democratic Party, his attack on the media is right on.  Not enough questions are being asked.  The media is really letting down this country.

Is your avatar an actual picture of you?

[slipstream]

Is your avatar an actual picture of you?

No it is not.  Thank you for asking.


Ron Paul vs Michael Moore on Larry King CNN

[slipstream]

The politics of labor
An 11-Year-Old's "Ode to Hostess" (Bruno Mars) ORIGINAL




Bye bye Hostess!

[slipstream]

Rep. Trey Gowdy Explodes At Libya Hearing: 'I Want To Know Why We Were Lied To'

[Zircon]

I was posting political videos in another thread, but I thought I would create one just for politics:


Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"


Here is a highlight video, but it is well worth to watch the long version:


Highlights: Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

Looks like you've overcome the "gag" reflex.

[slipstream]

This is a classic


Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

[Sardondi]

This is a classic....

If there survives enough cohesive American civilization in 100 years to recall and recount this time in the US, a prospect which is not at all certain, its historians will be astounded at the abdication of our news media, and the role it played in permitting and even abetting our socio-political suicide.

[slipstream]

Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya
As Prepared for Delivery


Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya 1


Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 2


Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 3


Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 4


Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Address to Congress on the War in Libya - 5

[slipstream]

FBI Director: I Have to Check to See If Obama Has the Right to Kill Americans On U.S. Soil

[slipstream]

Tyranny  in America
Naperville Police Assist Smart Meter Installers

[Ben Shockley]

I don't like slipstream's politics, but his avatar pics all look like my ex- gfs or girls I have lusted for.

[slipstream]

Pretty rare, a person from congress that talks openly about following the constitution:

Gun battle: Dianne Feinstein And Ted Cruz Debate Assault Weapons Ban


Feinstein right off the bat has to rely on ad misericordiam arguments, and then does not answer the question.


She also uses another fallacy: Appeal to Age

[onan]

Pretty rare, a person from congress that talks openly about following the constitution:

Feinstein right off the bat has to rely on ad misericordiam arguments, and then does not answer the question.

She also uses another fallacy: Appeal to Age

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the best presented argument is always the better resolution. And because someone uses a claim to authority doesn't mean they have no authority.
The constitution isn't clear on private ownership of firearms... And the debate/discussion on what is an appropriate firearm is a worthy discussion. Even if it includes those that are diametrically opposed to another's viewpoint.
If anyone thinks the constitution is speaking about more than muskets... their position is tenuous at best. I do not think anyone here would with straight face suggest ground to air missiles are guaranteed by the constitution.
I do think "assault" weapons are by and large no more threatening than a snub nose 38. And I am not in favor of limiting ownership of said weapons.
All that being said, if anyone is pandering and using emotions to sway the public... check the NRA... that shit is off the hook.

[slipstream]

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the best presented argument is always the better resolution. And because someone uses a claim to authority doesn't mean they have no authority.
The constitution isn't clear on private ownership of firearms... And the debate/discussion on what is an appropriate firearm is a worthy discussion. Even if it includes those that are diametrically opposed to another's viewpoint.
If anyone thinks the constitution is speaking about more than muskets... their position is tenuous at best. I do not think anyone here would with straight face suggest ground to air missiles are guaranteed by the constitution.
I do think "assault" weapons are by and large no more threatening than a snub nose 38. And I am not in favor of limiting ownership of said weapons.
All that being said, if anyone is pandering and using emotions to sway the public... check the NRA... that shit is off the hook.

Good job onan, you've done a better job than the senior senator from California.  And before you tell me I am being condescending, I am serious.  However, I do have some questions.

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the best presented argument is always the better resolution.

  Why?  Help me understand that. If an argument has a fallacy can it be presented better than one that doesn't have a fallacy? It really seems to me that it is irrelevant on how an argument is presented, whether it is presented the best or not, but if it has fallacies.  That is the true strength of an argument.

And because someone uses a claim to authority doesn't mean they have no authority.

She has been in Washington a long time, and she said has studied the Constitution. I wonder to what end Mrs. Feinstein has studied the consitution.  Here is a quote from 2000, "I don't look at the Constituion as a static document," Feinstein said. "I look at it as a living document, and it has to adapt to changing  circumstances."  Other than that quote there is little else from Feinstein concerning her understanding of the constitution.  Normally, in cases such as these one would look for what a person has written on the subject, but I don't seem to be able to locate and journal articles etc etc. to show that she is an authority on the Constitution.   Perhaps though, she is a arm chair expert, and is too involved in other activities to show her expertise. 

[Sardondi]

...If anyone thinks the constitution is speaking about more than muskets... their position is tenuous at best. I do not think anyone here would with straight face suggest ground to air missiles are guaranteed by the constitution....

Well, maybe no one here would. But Thomas Jefferson did I believe. I'm almost certain I once came across some highly relevant Thomas Jefferson quotes. It was in some dusty back stacks of some university library, I don't remember where. IIRC they're from the same document in which Jefferson also famously said....
                "When I used the phrase 'a wall of separation of church and state' in my Jan.1, 1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc., what I really meant to say was, 'government must actively attack religion and make it unwelcome in public life, particularly any Judeo-Christian based faith'. I wrote something so obviously different in the letter than what I say here because....well, just because. Nyah. So there."

Such, wise, wise words. Well, what Jefferson went on to say in this strangely little-known document was...
             "In the course of human events, there comes a time when all citizens ('citizen' meaning those non-chattels who are considered more than 3/5 of a person for purposes of census-taking, and does not include coloreds, mulattoes, quadroons or octoroons) have the unalienable right to possess and wield, even against their government, that kind of weapon which shall in the distant future be known as a 'personal portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile', designated more specifically as the FIM-92 Stinger as designed, crafted and sold by the heirs and assigns of that man who at the time I write this earns his daily bread as a gunmaker in Massachusetts, known as Raymond Theon, but whose friends call him Ray."

*sigh* I think you'll agree that Jefferson's powerful and elegant words simply dance. What perfection. It's hard to understand why these remarks have not come down to us as well known as his Declaration, or such quotes as "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing". I suspect it is the work of 18th-century anti-SAM cabal that was dedicated to seeing that good and decent (white) Americans could defend themselves against airborne attack by wielding shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile.

So not so fast there when saying no one can justify the possession of ground-to-air missiles. And if there comes a time when you happen to be riding an armored Hind assault 'copter over my head, don't have too much confidence you're home free.

[onan]

  Why?  Help me understand that. If an argument has a fallacy can it be presented better than one that doesn't have a fallacy? It really seems to me that it is irrelevant on how an argument is presented, whether it is presented the best or not, but if it has fallacies.  That is the true strength of an argument.

So many ways to respond to this... First, I think we can agree Feinstein is probably the not best to argue the issue. To equally argue both sides we would need people very well versed in the constitution, firearms, public safety, and other issues as well. We don't have that in the video.


Secondly, remember when cigarettes were presented as safe? "four out of five doctors recommend..." The argument of the day was cigarettes are good for you. Not many disagreed.


How many debates were you involved in? I remember many friends in high school and college that would compete with other schools on current topics. One day they would win and the next they might lose. Obviously the issue didn't change, just the judgement.


So to posit Feinstein's arguments were faulty and therefore negate her position is either a suggestion based on a naive level or it is dishonest.

She has been in Washington a long time, and she said has studied the Constitution. I wonder to what end Mrs. Feinstein has studied the consitution.  Here is a quote from 2000, "I don't look at the Constituion as a static document," Feinstein said. "I look at it as a living document, and it has to adapt to changing  circumstances."  Other than that quote there is little else from Feinstein concerning her understanding of the constitution.  Normally, in cases such as these one would look for what a person has written on the subject, but I don't seem to be able to locate and journal articles etc etc. to show that she is an authority on the Constitution.   Perhaps though, she is a arm chair expert, and is too involved in other activities to show her expertise.

I don't know how to respond to this. Her umbrage may have been entirely based on too much ego or contempt that another would challenge her. Or she may truly have convictions that move her... you and I really have no way to know.


Her argument, as I said earlier, may not be precise but she may well be right in her goal.

[PB the Deplorable]

I really don't know how anyone can read anything about banning guns, or even limiting them for otherwise law abiding citizens, when the Amendment ends by saying '... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.   'Shall Not'.  Pretty clear unless one is just dead set about not understanding that.

Do we really think the current politicians are more wise than the Founding Fathers?

Even back then technology was advancing - much more slowly than it does today - but advancing.  Anyone thinking about it would have assumed guns would become more advanced.  Note the amendment doesn't say ordinary citizens could have cannons or war ships - the modern day equivilent being be all the straw man examples the Left uses (everything from RPGs to bombers to nuclear weapons).  It means what it says, arms - guns - maybe not machine guns, but decent modern weapons that one can use for self defense and not be outgunned by the average gang member.

Can we stop going after lawful peaceful gun owners and start:  enforcing the gun laws we already have?, policing the inner city where the crime mostly happens?, and keeping violent criminals locked up?, enforcing the borders where criminals sneak in and create all this violence along the border?  Maybe if those became priorities, the NRA and the rest of us would be more open to the expanded background checks, etc

It's just absurd the people behind arming the narco-terrorists under Fast and Furious are now trying to disarm us.  More amazing is people are going along, instead of demanding answers.

[onan]

I really don't know how anyone can read anything about banning guns, or even limiting them for otherwise law abiding citizens, when the Amendment ends by saying '... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.   'Shall Not'.  Pretty clear unless one is just dead set about not understanding that.

Do we really think the current politicians are more wise than the Founding Fathers?

Even back then technology was advancing - much more slowly than it does today - but advancing.  Anyone thinking about it would have assumed guns would become more advanced.  Note the amendment doesn't say ordinary citizens could have cannons or war ships - the modern day equivilent being be all the straw man examples the Left uses (everything from RPGs to bombers to nuclear weapons).  It means what it says, arms - guns - maybe not machine guns, but decent modern weapons that one can use for self defense and not be outgunned by the average gang member.

Can we stop going after lawful peaceful gun owners and start:  enforcing the gun laws we already have?, policing the inner city where the crime mostly happens?, and keeping violent criminals locked up?, enforcing the borders where criminals sneak in and create all this violence along the border?  Maybe if those became priorities, the NRA and the rest of us would be more open to the expanded background checks, etc

It's just absurd the people behind arming the narco-terrorists under Fast and Furious are now trying to disarm us.  More amazing is people are going along, instead of demanding answers.

I dunno, I don't ascribe the founding fathers as omnipotent. Nor do I think there is anyway for them to have conceived of a firearm that could hit a target at almost a mile. Nor do I think they had the foresight to see Teflon coated bullets. Nor do I think they had insight into rounds that would mushroom out and break into hundreds of pieces that gelatinized the flesh of the victim. Nor do I think they had any idea that certain weapons would be able to fire 500 rounds a second... and those can be owned by certain licensed gun enthusiasts. The bullets, by anyone with the cash to buy them.
To the strawman thing... do you ever visit gun forums? Because I have read arguments as to why someone should be able to own hand held rocket launchers and bazookas.

You yourself are unsure of where to draw the line by saying "maybe not machine guns".