Fox News Sunday scores a major media coup!

nonsqtr · #1 (**permalink**) 12-21-2007, 04:36 AM

Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace, 7pm EST, 4pm PST - has.....

General David Petraeus!!!

Never thought I'd find myself promoting Fox's rating, but there it is.

Truth-Bringer · #2 (**permalink**) 12-21-2007, 08:14 AM

Also, Ron Paul will be on Meet the Press this Sunday. I expect it to be a hit piece since I know Russert is a devout statist. But I expect Paul to still do pretty well. He was very good on the Glen Beck show last week.

DuH2 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 01:15 PM

Your an odd one nonsqtr.

Not only do you watch alot of FOX which you seem to hate... but now your promoting an interview with a man who has not only proven you Wrong but is who will simply reinforce how wrong you are.

nonsqtr · #4 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

Your an odd one nonsqtr.

Not only do you watch alot of FOX which you seem to hate... but now your promoting an interview with a man who has not only proven you Wrong but is who will simply reinforce how wrong you are.

I have a great deal of respect for General David Petraeus.

In my opinion, the man should run for President, and "I", would probably vote for him if he did.

In my opinion, he is exactly the kind of man we need, in the office of the Presidency.

First of all, he is an honorable man. (Unlike Bushie). Petraeus will tell you the truth, even if it's not pleasant. That, is important.

Secondly, he is respectful. (Unlike Bushie). The mil kinda tends to "make" you that way, right? And I mean, you can see how Petraeus carries himself in the world, he "genuinely" respects other people. Not like Bushie. For Bushie, other people seem to be just a gigantic pain in the rear end. And that, is a very (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor attitude for the President of the United States, in my opinion. I don't want a man like that representing me.

Thirdly, General Petraeus knows something about something. (Unlike Bushie, who's a clueless freakin' idiot). You know, I mean, from the simple military standpoint, of the kinds of things you need to learn, to be able to understand what a "counter-insurgency" thing means, and how to actually "implement" one - if you understand that model, which Petraeus obviously does ('cause he's doin' it, right?) - then that'll "require" you to know a LOT about a LOT of other things too. I mean, I know all about "models", right? I have a PhD in the subject. Mine, happens to be in "belief models", but I mean, the exact same math applies to operational models as well (and you know, I've been studyin' math for darn near forty years now, so while I don't have a degree in it, I can confidently say I could run circles around "most" actual PhD's, in that particular field) - so, all I'm saying is, when I say, "that model requires you to know something", I have some "very good reason" for saying that, right?

You know, so I mean, I could on, with other 'good" things about Petraeus - and you know, Duh2, this is something that may help you understand "me" (if you "want to"

) - is, you know, I look at a guy like that, and I don't care whether he's a Dem, a Rep, or what he is. I don't even care if he's implementing a Rep agenda, or a Dem agenda or whatever. 'Cause I mean, I'm assuming the guy'd have an agenda of his own, if he got into office, yes?

But see, what I take away from the "honorable and respectful" bit, is that the guy takes his job seriously. And I mean, "obviously", right? He's risen to the very top of the second largest institution in the country, precisely because he takes his job seriously, yes?

So I mean, when that guy takes an "Oath of Office", in "my" mind, I have "complete confidence", that those words actually mean something, "to him". 'Cause that's what matters, right? The "to him" part.

nonsqtr · #5 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 05:22 AM

Oh yeah, about the "watching Fox" bit....

There's actually two things going on there:

a) one is, kinda "keeping my finger on the conservative pulse",

b) the other is, I'm testing a particular "model of a model", right now, it has to do with a little experiment I'm running in the domain of the "articulation" of belief models. I can tell you more about it, if you wish, but the point is only, that it involves a couple hours a day of watching specific stuff on Fox.

And I mean, the rest of the time, I've got those idiots on background anyway, they're like one of three that's on "most of the time", 'cause I kinda just keep those monitors on while I'm doin' the rest of my work (unless I'm singin').... so, you know, I probably "absorb it by osmosis" or something....

Fox is interesting. They're gotten "religious" here lately, that part is kinda interesting to watch. And they're obviously doing this "concerted" thing with the RNC in term of floating candidates and values and so on, so that part is kinda interesting too. I mean, Fox is all about ratings, right? And Murdoch's no dummy, you know, he's pretty hip to the "marketplace". I'm kinda curious to see what he's going to do with the WSJ now, I got my mom a 2-year piece on that one, so we'll be able to see that first-hand, she kinda likes that tabloid thing anyway, so no matter which direction it takes I figure it'll be a "win" for her....

Truth-Bringer · #6 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 08:57 AM

I was right - there was no "play nice" on Meet the Press. The statist Russert wasd definitely out to get him.

I loved seeing Russert's ignorance on display with gems like "If we didn't have the Civil War there would still be slavery in 2007." ROTFLMAO. These buffoons really crack me up. Paul countered brilliantly stating that we could have done what every other country in the world did and end slavery without a war killing over 600,000 people. He specifically mentioned the British example in which the British government simply purchased all the slaves and then freed them. That shut Russert's ignorant trap on that subject for the rest of the interview.

Then Russert tried to claim that Paul's introduction of spending bills at the request of his constituents, while voting against those same bills on the floor, equated to a contradiction. Again, Paul refuted him by correctly noting that the money was going to be taken by force regardless, and that he had no control over the process as a whole. Since the money was going to be stolen regardless, Paul's constituents had as much right to it as any other citizens who had taxes stolen from them.

nonsqtr · #7 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 10:40 AM

Excellent! I'm gonna catch that one on rerun shortly.

Ron Paul is a brilliant man, he's another one of those guys - honest, honorable, respectful.

Bushie, is just a friggin' bully, and a stupid one at that.

Yeah, this is getting very interesting now. This whole concept of "Statism", is getting some traction now, but it's not coming in the form that you and I have been discussing it.

I was talking to a guy about it last night, he's one of these new "religious left" types, you know, one of Rick Warren's people.

And those people, are all talking about this, now.

You know, it's really great, I mean, these guys spun out of the "religious conservative" movement, right? A lot of these guys, individually, are the same clowns that used to spout forgiveness on Sunday, and torture when they got to the voting booth the next day. But then they started noticing that like, "lots" of people were starting to talk to them in terms of "hypocrisy", and the smart ones listened, and the dumb ones didn't -

So NOW, this idea of Statism is introducing itself as a "by-product" of the discussion that's going on about "stewardship".

It's a very interesting development.

I even suspect, that it'll get more traction that way, than it would "from a Constitutional perspective". 'Cause I mean, this is reality, right? You look around in the world of religion, and a lot of those people don't "care" about the Constitution. What they care about, is "values", and I mean if "stewardship" is one of those values, and that leads you to consider what an issue like Statism means in that context, then you know, you've just introduced a very important concept into a very important debate, right?

Truth-Bringer · #8 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

Excellent! I'm gonna catch that one on rerun shortly.

Ron Paul is a brilliant man, he's another one of those guys - honest, honorable, respectful.

Bushie, is just a friggin' bully, and a stupid one at that.

Absolutely correct. Bully is the perfect term for the Neocons. They use those tactics to get what they want.

Quote:

Yeah, this is getting very interesting now. This whole concept of "Statism", is getting some traction now, but it's not coming in the form that you and I have been discussing it.

I was talking to a guy about it last night, he's one of these new "religious left" types, you know, one of Rick Warren's people.

And those people, are all talking about this, now.

You know, it's really great, I mean, these guys spun out of the "religious conservative" movement, right? A lot of these guys, individually, are the same clowns that used to spout forgiveness on Sunday, and torture when they got to the voting booth the next day. But then they started noticing that like, "lots" of people were starting to talk to them in terms of "hypocrisy", and the smart ones listened, and the dumb ones didn't -

So NOW, this idea of Statism is introducing itself as a "by-product" of the discussion that's going on about "stewardship".

It's a very interesting development.

I even suspect, that it'll get more traction that way, than it would "from a Constitutional perspective". 'Cause I mean, this is reality, right? You look around in the world of religion, and a lot of those people don't "care" about the Constitution. What they care about, is "values", and I mean if "stewardship" is one of those values, and that leads you to consider what an issue like Statism means in that context, then you know, you've just introduced a very important concept into a very important debate, right?

I'm glad you mentioned that. I think it will continue to get traction. But you have to define it precisely - or you'll be ridiculed. You can't call Bush a communist - or the arrogant Neocons will simply dismiss you. But if you properly describe him as a collectivist statist - and then define it precisely - they will not and cannot have a logical refutation of that - because it's the truth. You can't refute 2 + 2 = 4.

I was actually just thinking about that "stewardship" role - in the terms that politicians should merely be stewards. Their goals shouldn't be to continuously create new laws - now we have over 6+ million. They shouldn't have that much power. Their only goal should be to be stewards over the republic - and to make sure the government's only legitimate role - defending the unalienable rights of individuals - is upheld.

Another mistake the Founders made was leaving the amendment process open. We should have an amendment process, but it should be strictly limited. No amendment should be allowed that deprives any individual of an unalienable right. The 16th amendment, for example, could have never passed with such a prohibition.

You have to have specific restrictions spelled out in terms that no one can question and misterpret - or it will be questioned and misinterpreted by collectivist statists who want to expand the power of government.

DuH2 · #9 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 02:06 PM

If Bush was such an idiot Nonsqtr then why did he approve the plan Petraeus put forward instead of opposing it like YOU wanted?

anyway watching it now.

DuH2 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 02:27 PM

Wasn't much new to it(not that I expect something to have to change every month or its failing!..like some) but one of the telling parts was when Chris Wallace highlighted Media Coverage of Iraq or more precisely the lack of now.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode