Rupert Murdoch's News Corp arrests top 13

[Wry Catcher]

How very liberal! Throw away due process and just throw people in jail for working for an organization that has been accused of nothing in the US.

And you wonder why some of us see you as delusional?

Idiot.

Where in the post do you get due process should be thrown away? "When all is said and done" clearly implies a trial, and therefore due process. The author offers an opinon that those arrested are part of a criminal organization. The only thing idiotic is the way you treat others and how you choose to spin their words.

"... the entire organization will be behind bars". Currently, in both the US and the UK, people are innocent until proved guilty. It's the 'proved guilty' thing that is kind of key.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing from any News Corp individual in the US.

Marc is obsessed with News Corp's guilt - before they've been proved guilty. I like due process. Apparently, the left are not so keen.

Nice try, sadly you've failed once again. "Marc" maybe "obsessed" and believes News Corp's guilt - so what? He is not leading a lynching nor advocating the accused not be allowed council and tried in a court of law. Marc is simply expressing the view of another court, the court of public opinion. his right under our laws.

No one disputes your right to express your opinions, though you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't. Make a reasoned argument and you won't appear to be another iteration of crusaderfrank or willow tree.

 

[California Girl]

Where in the post do you get due process should be thrown away? "When all is said and done" clearly implies a trial, and therefore due process. The author offers an opinon that those arrested are part of a criminal organization. The only thing idiotic is the way you treat others and how you choose to spin their words.

"... the entire organization will be behind bars". Currently, in both the US and the UK, people are innocent until proved guilty. It's the 'proved guilty' thing that is kind of key.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing from any News Corp individual in the US.

Marc is obsessed with News Corp's guilt - before they've been proved guilty. I like due process. Apparently, the left are not so keen.

Nice try, sadly you've failed once again. "Marc" maybe "obsessed" and believes News Corp's guilt - so what? He is not leading a lynching nor advocating the accused not be allowed council and tried in a court of law. Marc is simply expressing the view of another court, the court of public opinion. his right under our laws.

No one disputes your right to express your opinions, though you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't. Make a reasoned argument and you won't appear to be another iteration of crusaderfrank or willow tree.

Was I saying he had no right to express his opinion? No. I said that 'due process' is the way we establish guilt or innocence.... he - by his own comment - doesn't care about the due process - he just wants them all in prison.

He also states, as fact, that they are 'in the slammer'. They are not. They have been questioned and bailed. As is normal in the UK. His rabid hysteria blinds him to reality... in my opinion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"... the entire organization will be behind bars". Currently, in both the US and the UK, people are innocent until proved guilty. It's the 'proved guilty' thing that is kind of key.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing from any News Corp individual in the US.

Marc is obsessed with News Corp's guilt - before they've been proved guilty. I like due process. Apparently, the left are not so keen.

Nice try, sadly you've failed once again. "Marc" maybe "obsessed" and believes News Corp's guilt - so what? He is not leading a lynching nor advocating the accused not be allowed council and tried in a court of law. Marc is simply expressing the view of another court, the court of public opinion. his right under our laws.

No one disputes your right to express your opinions, though you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't. Make a reasoned argument and you won't appear to be another iteration of crusaderfrank or willow tree.

Was I saying he had no right to express his opinion? No. I said that 'due process' is the way we establish guilt or innocence.... he - by his own comment - doesn't care about the due process - he just wants them all in prison.

He also states, as fact, that they are 'in the slammer'. They are not. They have been questioned and bailed. As is normal in the UK. His rabid hysteria blinds him to reality... in my opinion.

Where did I suggest you said "he had no right to express his opinion"? I simply stated the obvious, " you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't."

Of course you have the right to offer your opinions, as do I. And if you want to be perceived as are crusaderfrank, willow tree or anothe of the echo chamber fools, feel free to do so.

 

[California Girl]

Nice try, sadly you've failed once again. "Marc" maybe "obsessed" and believes News Corp's guilt - so what? He is not leading a lynching nor advocating the accused not be allowed council and tried in a court of law. Marc is simply expressing the view of another court, the court of public opinion. his right under our laws.

No one disputes your right to express your opinions, though you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't. Make a reasoned argument and you won't appear to be another iteration of crusaderfrank or willow tree.

Was I saying he had no right to express his opinion? No. I said that 'due process' is the way we establish guilt or innocence.... he - by his own comment - doesn't care about the due process - he just wants them all in prison.

He also states, as fact, that they are 'in the slammer'. They are not. They have been questioned and bailed. As is normal in the UK. His rabid hysteria blinds him to reality... in my opinion.

Where did I suggest you said "he had no right to express his opinion"? I simply stated the obvious, " you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't."

Of course you have the right to offer your opinions, as do I. And if you want to be perceived as are crusaderfrank, willow tree or anothe of the echo chamber fools, feel free to do so.

I honestly don't give a crap how others perceive me. It's no a popularity contest. But I do like logic. Logic and accuracy.... Marc was not accurate by claiming that they're 'in the slammer', they're out on bail, or released without charge pending further inquiries. So, they are not 'in the slammer'... they haven't even been 'in the slammer', they were arrested, questioned and released. Which is SOP in the UK in an ongoing investigation.

Will any of these people be charged? I don't know... if I give an opinion, I would say 'yea, it is likely that some will face charges'... if they do, I'll follow the trial and see what the evidence is.

Fact is, this investigation goes far wider than News Corp.... many journalists have been questioned... but the rabid morons seem only interested in News Corp. That's hardly logical, is it? If one is actually concerned about the legal aspects, instead of a left wing rant about News Corp.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Was I saying he had no right to express his opinion? No. I said that 'due process' is the way we establish guilt or innocence.... he - by his own comment - doesn't care about the due process - he just wants them all in prison.

He also states, as fact, that they are 'in the slammer'. They are not. They have been questioned and bailed. As is normal in the UK. His rabid hysteria blinds him to reality... in my opinion.

Where did I suggest you said "he had no right to express his opinion"? I simply stated the obvious, " you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't."

Of course you have the right to offer your opinions, as do I. And if you want to be perceived as are crusaderfrank, willow tree or anothe of the echo chamber fools, feel free to do so.

I honestly don't give a crap how others perceive me. It's no a popularity contest. But I do like logic. Logic and accuracy.... Marc was not accurate by claiming that they're 'in the slammer', they're out on bail, or released without charge pending further inquiries. So, they are not 'in the slammer'... they haven't even been 'in the slammer', they were arrested, questioned and released. Which is SOP in the UK in an ongoing investigation.

Will any of these people be charged? I don't know... if I give an opinion, I would say 'yea, it is likely that some will face charges'... if they do, I'll follow the trial and see what the evidence is.

Fact is, this investigation goes far wider than News Corp.... many journalists have been questioned... but the rabid morons seem only interested in News Corp. That's hardly logical, is it? If one is actually concerned about the legal aspects, instead of a left wing rant about News Corp.

In my opinion, everyone cares about how they are perceived by others, and those who deny it are the ones most likely to care the most. Of course that's conjecture and a bit of hyperbole. Some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived. I guess if one hates themselves, the opinions of others is secondary.

 

[California Girl]

Where did I suggest you said "he had no right to express his opinion"? I simply stated the obvious, " you seem to believe you have the authority to vet and deride the opinions of others based on the opinions you hold. You don't."

Of course you have the right to offer your opinions, as do I. And if you want to be perceived as are crusaderfrank, willow tree or anothe of the echo chamber fools, feel free to do so.

I honestly don't give a crap how others perceive me. It's no a popularity contest. But I do like logic. Logic and accuracy.... Marc was not accurate by claiming that they're 'in the slammer', they're out on bail, or released without charge pending further inquiries. So, they are not 'in the slammer'... they haven't even been 'in the slammer', they were arrested, questioned and released. Which is SOP in the UK in an ongoing investigation.

Will any of these people be charged? I don't know... if I give an opinion, I would say 'yea, it is likely that some will face charges'... if they do, I'll follow the trial and see what the evidence is.

Fact is, this investigation goes far wider than News Corp.... many journalists have been questioned... but the rabid morons seem only interested in News Corp. That's hardly logical, is it? If one is actually concerned about the legal aspects, instead of a left wing rant about News Corp.

In my opinion, everyone cares about how they are perceived by others, and those who deny it are the ones most likely to care the most. Of course that's conjecture and a bit of hyperbole. Some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived. I guess if one hates themselves, the opinions of others is secondary.

Oh, right. Yea. That's logical. You asked, I answered and you decide that I don't mean what I say. It isn't logical to decide how other people think.... nor is it logical to make statements such as "some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived".... because I could also highlight that pretending that you give a damn about others when you actually don't is equally as offensive.

However, if you do hate yourself, you do have my sympathy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I honestly don't give a crap how others perceive me. It's no a popularity contest. But I do like logic. Logic and accuracy.... Marc was not accurate by claiming that they're 'in the slammer', they're out on bail, or released without charge pending further inquiries. So, they are not 'in the slammer'... they haven't even been 'in the slammer', they were arrested, questioned and released. Which is SOP in the UK in an ongoing investigation.

Will any of these people be charged? I don't know... if I give an opinion, I would say 'yea, it is likely that some will face charges'... if they do, I'll follow the trial and see what the evidence is.

Fact is, this investigation goes far wider than News Corp.... many journalists have been questioned... but the rabid morons seem only interested in News Corp. That's hardly logical, is it? If one is actually concerned about the legal aspects, instead of a left wing rant about News Corp.

In my opinion, everyone cares about how they are perceived by others, and those who deny it are the ones most likely to care the most. Of course that's conjecture and a bit of hyperbole. Some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived. I guess if one hates themselves, the opinions of others is secondary.

Oh, right. Yea. That's logical. You asked, I answered and you decide that I don't mean what I say. It isn't logical to decide how other people think.... nor is it logical to make statements such as "some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived".... because I could also highlight that pretending that you give a damn about others when you actually don't is equally as offensive.

However, if you do hate yourself, you do have my sympathy.

I like myself. Not that I'm perfect, I'm not (ask my wife and adult kids). But they've all hung around since the 70's, and a number of dogs and cats found my lap or my feet a comforting place to snuggle. All good signs I've done some things well.

My comment on the "nastiest people" is based on over 30 years of working within the criminal justice system. I have sat across the table from evil. Maybe years of therapy might have uncovered humanity within those who treated others with unspeakable cruelty but from my perspective that humanity did not exist - at least by my understanding of what it means to be human.

I suppose that's one very good reason for my disliking the New Right. Callous conservatives, those who dismiss those less fortunate as dregs on society, as lazy and "welfare queens" lack a sense of humanity. Of course that's not to suggest even callous conservatives are evil, for it's easy to dismiss others who struggle as lacking "personal responsibility" when such rhetoric is repeated over and over from figures they believe are authoritative. The taxonomy by the New Right neglects individuals and makes it easy to forget the Golden Rule.

 

[California Girl]

In my opinion, everyone cares about how they are perceived by others, and those who deny it are the ones most likely to care the most. Of course that's conjecture and a bit of hyperbole. Some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived. I guess if one hates themselves, the opinions of others is secondary.

Oh, right. Yea. That's logical. You asked, I answered and you decide that I don't mean what I say. It isn't logical to decide how other people think.... nor is it logical to make statements such as "some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived".... because I could also highlight that pretending that you give a damn about others when you actually don't is equally as offensive.

However, if you do hate yourself, you do have my sympathy.

I like myself. Not that I'm perfect, I'm not (ask my wife and adult kids). But they've all hung around since the 70's, and a number of dogs and cats found my lap or my feet a comforting place to snuggle. All good signs I've done some things well.

My comment on the "nastiest people" is based on over 30 years of working within the criminal justice system. I have sat across the table from evil. Maybe years of therapy might have uncovered humanity within those who treated others with unspeakable cruelty but from my perspective that humanity did not exist - at least by my understanding of what it means to be human.

I suppose that's one very good reason for my disliking the New Right. Callous conservatives, those who dismiss those less fortunate as dregs on society, as lazy and "welfare queens" lack a sense of humanity. Of course that's not to suggest even callous conservatives are evil, for it's easy to dismiss others who struggle as lacking "personal responsibility" when such rhetoric is repeated over and over from figures they believe are authoritative. The taxonomy by the New Right neglects individuals and makes it easy to forget the Golden Rule.

Yea, I'm sure your family love you. Mine love me. This means... what, exactly? That we are both quite decent human beings? Probably. But you know what it doesn't do - it doesn't give you the right to decide what I am like as a person.... just like I don't have the right to decide what you are.

See, that's what I just don't get. I don't 'dismiss' anyone less fortunate... quite the opposite. I have, on various occasions bitchslapped both left and right on this forum for being derisory about... for example... those who do "menial" jobs. I would never deride those people. What they do is as valuable to me as what anyone else does. If no one 'flipped burgers' for a living, I'd never be able to grab a burger on the run... so they provide a service that I respect. I do believe in 'personal responsibility'... both in that I should work and pay my way... and that I should help those less fortunate. I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm responsible to help - I do it every week. You see the 'New Right' as something it is not. That's fine.... but it does not demonstrate an application of critical thought behind your opinions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, right. Yea. That's logical. You asked, I answered and you decide that I don't mean what I say. It isn't logical to decide how other people think.... nor is it logical to make statements such as "some of the nastiest and most violent of our species really don't give a shit how they are perceived".... because I could also highlight that pretending that you give a damn about others when you actually don't is equally as offensive.

However, if you do hate yourself, you do have my sympathy.

I like myself. Not that I'm perfect, I'm not (ask my wife and adult kids). But they've all hung around since the 70's, and a number of dogs and cats found my lap or my feet a comforting place to snuggle. All good signs I've done some things well.

My comment on the "nastiest people" is based on over 30 years of working within the criminal justice system. I have sat across the table from evil. Maybe years of therapy might have uncovered humanity within those who treated others with unspeakable cruelty but from my perspective that humanity did not exist - at least by my understanding of what it means to be human.

I suppose that's one very good reason for my disliking the New Right. Callous conservatives, those who dismiss those less fortunate as dregs on society, as lazy and "welfare queens" lack a sense of humanity. Of course that's not to suggest even callous conservatives are evil, for it's easy to dismiss others who struggle as lacking "personal responsibility" when such rhetoric is repeated over and over from figures they believe are authoritative. The taxonomy by the New Right neglects individuals and makes it easy to forget the Golden Rule.

Yea, I'm sure your family love you. Mine love me. This means... what, exactly? That we are both quite decent human beings? Probably. But you know what it doesn't do - it doesn't give you the right to decide what I am like as a person.... just like I don't have the right to decide what you are.

See, that's what I just don't get. I don't 'dismiss' anyone less fortunate... quite the opposite. I have, on various occasions bitchslapped both left and right on this forum for being derisory about... for example... those who do "menial" jobs. I would never deride those people. What they do is as valuable to me as what anyone else does. If no one 'flipped burgers' for a living, I'd never be able to grab a burger on the run... so they provide a service that I respect. I do believe in 'personal responsibility'... both in that I should work and pay my way... and that I should help those less fortunate. I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm responsible to help - I do it every week. You see the 'New Right' as something it is not. That's fine.... but it does not demonstrate an application of critical thought behind your opinions.

My comments in re the New Right are based on the words of others, on this message board and in the media. Most of those who post on this message board are thoughtless parrots, which is why I deride crusaderfrank and willow tree; you and a few others are able to express opinions based on experience and evidence ( a posteriori knowledge). Not that I agree with much of what you argue, or in particular how you argue, I respect thinking.

Stating there is no "critical thought" behind my opinions is wrong. I read extensively, not to foster or challenge my opinions, per se, but when an author challenges my opinions I think through the argument, and research this issue on the net and in my library. Comments from the echo chamber require no such rigor, and arguments which end with derisive salutations weaken any point made in the text.

 

[California Girl]

I like myself. Not that I'm perfect, I'm not (ask my wife and adult kids). But they've all hung around since the 70's, and a number of dogs and cats found my lap or my feet a comforting place to snuggle. All good signs I've done some things well.

My comment on the "nastiest people" is based on over 30 years of working within the criminal justice system. I have sat across the table from evil. Maybe years of therapy might have uncovered humanity within those who treated others with unspeakable cruelty but from my perspective that humanity did not exist - at least by my understanding of what it means to be human.

I suppose that's one very good reason for my disliking the New Right. Callous conservatives, those who dismiss those less fortunate as dregs on society, as lazy and "welfare queens" lack a sense of humanity. Of course that's not to suggest even callous conservatives are evil, for it's easy to dismiss others who struggle as lacking "personal responsibility" when such rhetoric is repeated over and over from figures they believe are authoritative. The taxonomy by the New Right neglects individuals and makes it easy to forget the Golden Rule.

Yea, I'm sure your family love you. Mine love me. This means... what, exactly? That we are both quite decent human beings? Probably. But you know what it doesn't do - it doesn't give you the right to decide what I am like as a person.... just like I don't have the right to decide what you are.

See, that's what I just don't get. I don't 'dismiss' anyone less fortunate... quite the opposite. I have, on various occasions bitchslapped both left and right on this forum for being derisory about... for example... those who do "menial" jobs. I would never deride those people. What they do is as valuable to me as what anyone else does. If no one 'flipped burgers' for a living, I'd never be able to grab a burger on the run... so they provide a service that I respect. I do believe in 'personal responsibility'... both in that I should work and pay my way... and that I should help those less fortunate. I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm responsible to help - I do it every week. You see the 'New Right' as something it is not. That's fine.... but it does not demonstrate an application of critical thought behind your opinions.

My comments in re the New Right are based on the words of others, on this message board and in the media. Most of those who post on this message board are thoughtless parrots, which is why I deride crusaderfrank and willow tree; you and a few others are able to express opinions based on experience and evidence ( a posteriori knowledge. Not that I agree with much of what you argue, or in particular how you argue, I respect thinking.

Stating there is no "critical thought" behind my opinions is wrong. I read extensively, not to foster or challenge my opinions, per se, but when an author challenges my opinions I think through the argument, and research this issue on the net and in my library. Comments from the echo chamber require no such rigor, and arguments which end with derisive salutations weaken any point made in the text.

I'm gonna have to ask if you see any hypocrisy between the opening sentence of your first paragraph, and your assertions in the second paragraph. How the hell can you base your comments on the 'New Right' on the words of others... and then claim that you read extensively, and claim 'critical thought'. Critical thought does not allow for the forming of opinions based on such ridiculous 'evidence'. Just saying.

When there is a rational, well thought out thread, I'll 'argue' it in the same way. Unfortunately, those are rarer than an honest politician on this board.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yea, I'm sure your family love you. Mine love me. This means... what, exactly? That we are both quite decent human beings? Probably. But you know what it doesn't do - it doesn't give you the right to decide what I am like as a person.... just like I don't have the right to decide what you are.

See, that's what I just don't get. I don't 'dismiss' anyone less fortunate... quite the opposite. I have, on various occasions bitchslapped both left and right on this forum for being derisory about... for example... those who do "menial" jobs. I would never deride those people. What they do is as valuable to me as what anyone else does. If no one 'flipped burgers' for a living, I'd never be able to grab a burger on the run... so they provide a service that I respect. I do believe in 'personal responsibility'... both in that I should work and pay my way... and that I should help those less fortunate. I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm responsible to help - I do it every week. You see the 'New Right' as something it is not. That's fine.... but it does not demonstrate an application of critical thought behind your opinions.

My comments in re the New Right are based on the words of others, on this message board and in the media. Most of those who post on this message board are thoughtless parrots, which is why I deride crusaderfrank and willow tree; you and a few others are able to express opinions based on experience and evidence ( a posteriori knowledge. Not that I agree with much of what you argue, or in particular how you argue, I respect thinking.

Stating there is no "critical thought" behind my opinions is wrong. I read extensively, not to foster or challenge my opinions, per se, but when an author challenges my opinions I think through the argument, and research this issue on the net and in my library. Comments from the echo chamber require no such rigor, and arguments which end with derisive salutations weaken any point made in the text.

I'm gonna have to ask if you see any hypocrisy between the opening sentence of your first paragraph, and your assertions in the second paragraph. How the hell can you base your comments on the 'New Right' on the words of others... and then claim that you read extensively, and claim 'critical thought'. Critical thought does not allow for the forming of opinions based on such ridiculous 'evidence'. Just saying.

When there is a rational, well thought out thread, I'll 'argue' it in the same way. Unfortunately, those are rarer than an honest politician on this board.

I do not see any hypocrisy. I use the term "New Right" as a short cut to describe the ideas of those whose ideology is framed by avarice, bigotry and the callous disregard for others not like themselves.

My critical thinking differentiates between the New Right and the conservative movements in the past, hence my reading on American History helps frame my opinions on contemporary issues.

I have very well formed opinions on the Libertarian Movement, the transition of the Republican Party since Nixon and the transitions of the Democratic Party since 1968.

Not all of my opinions are progressive/liberal but most of them are. I believe in science, not superstition; I believe in the Golden Rule. I also pay my bills, don't borrow unless necessary and want a pragmatic government; not a government ruled by ideology. I believe our democratic principles are under attack by the power elite who both fear and want to exploit the hoi polloi. Those who seek a fundamental change and make us into a true plutocracy are the enemy within.

 

[California Girl]

My comments in re the New Right are based on the words of others, on this message board and in the media. Most of those who post on this message board are thoughtless parrots, which is why I deride crusaderfrank and willow tree; you and a few others are able to express opinions based on experience and evidence ( a posteriori knowledge. Not that I agree with much of what you argue, or in particular how you argue, I respect thinking.

Stating there is no "critical thought" behind my opinions is wrong. I read extensively, not to foster or challenge my opinions, per se, but when an author challenges my opinions I think through the argument, and research this issue on the net and in my library. Comments from the echo chamber require no such rigor, and arguments which end with derisive salutations weaken any point made in the text.

I'm gonna have to ask if you see any hypocrisy between the opening sentence of your first paragraph, and your assertions in the second paragraph. How the hell can you base your comments on the 'New Right' on the words of others... and then claim that you read extensively, and claim 'critical thought'. Critical thought does not allow for the forming of opinions based on such ridiculous 'evidence'. Just saying.

When there is a rational, well thought out thread, I'll 'argue' it in the same way. Unfortunately, those are rarer than an honest politician on this board.

I do not see any hypocrisy. I use the term "New Right" as a short cut to describe the ideas of those whose ideology is framed by avarice, bigotry and the callous disregard for others not like themselves.

My critical thinking differentiates between the New Right and the conservative movements in the past, hence my reading on American History helps frame my opinions on contemporary issues.

I have very well formed opinions on the Libertarian Movement, the transition of the Republican Party since Nixon and the transitions of the Democratic Party since 1968.

Not all of my opinions are progressive/liberal but most of them are. I believe in science, not superstition; I believe in the Golden Rule. I also pay my bills, don't borrow unless necessary and want a pragmatic government; not a government ruled by ideology. I believe our democratic principles are under attack by the power elite who both fear and want to exploit the hoi polloi. Those who seek a fundamental change and make us into a true plutocracy are the enemy within.

It seems to me that you are quite misinformed about the 'New Right'.... I disagree with Libertarians for two pretty straightfoward reasons.... firstly, I dislike their attitude towards the poor, and secondly, they are dangerously naive on foreign policy.

I support the 'right' because I believe in personal responsibility.... what many on the left either ignore, are unaware of, or deliberately lie about... is that personal responsibility means that I am responsible to help others.

Like you, I believe in science - but I'm also a Catholic... the Church funds a lot of scientific research... I'm good with that.... and they do it in a 'hands off' way that does not influence any outcomes of that research.

I believe it was Obama who said he wanted to 'fundamentally change' the country. I disagreed with him on that. I think we're a great country - and I'd quite like a President to represent that greatness.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm gonna have to ask if you see any hypocrisy between the opening sentence of your first paragraph, and your assertions in the second paragraph. How the hell can you base your comments on the 'New Right' on the words of others... and then claim that you read extensively, and claim 'critical thought'. Critical thought does not allow for the forming of opinions based on such ridiculous 'evidence'. Just saying.

When there is a rational, well thought out thread, I'll 'argue' it in the same way. Unfortunately, those are rarer than an honest politician on this board.

I do not see any hypocrisy. I use the term "New Right" as a short cut to describe the ideas of those whose ideology is framed by avarice, bigotry and the callous disregard for others not like themselves.

My critical thinking differentiates between the New Right and the conservative movements in the past, hence my reading on American History helps frame my opinions on contemporary issues.

I have very well formed opinions on the Libertarian Movement, the transition of the Republican Party since Nixon and the transitions of the Democratic Party since 1968.

Not all of my opinions are progressive/liberal but most of them are. I believe in science, not superstition; I believe in the Golden Rule. I also pay my bills, don't borrow unless necessary and want a pragmatic government; not a government ruled by ideology. I believe our democratic principles are under attack by the power elite who both fear and want to exploit the hoi polloi. Those who seek a fundamental change and make us into a true plutocracy are the enemy within.

It seems to me that you are quite misinformed about the 'New Right'.... I disagree with Libertarians for two pretty straightfoward reasons.... firstly, I dislike their attitude towards the poor, and secondly, they are dangerously naive on foreign policy.

I support the 'right' because I believe in personal responsibility.... what many on the left either ignore, are unaware of, or deliberately lie about... is that personal responsibility means that I am responsible to help others.

Like you, I believe in science - but I'm also a Catholic... the Church funds a lot of scientific research... I'm good with that.... and they do it in a 'hands off' way that does not influence any outcomes of that research.

I believe it was Obama who said he wanted to 'fundamentally change' the country. I disagreed with him on that. I think we're a great country - and I'd quite like a President to represent that greatness.

I also believe in personal responsibility, but I recognize the need for a level playing field; rules must be applied equally and they are not. If Obama's desire for fundamental change means equal pay for equal work, opportunity open to all, and the end of the old boy's network I'm fine with that.

I too was raised and confirmed Catholic; other than weddings and funerals the last time I attended church was on Nov 22, 1963 at the urging of my high school girlfriend. The hypocrisy of the church bothered me as a child (even before I knew the meaning of the word) and its cover up of and protection of criminal activity in later years has done nothing to make me reconsider a decision made as an adolescent.

I was at CAL when Reagan launched his political career by attacking students, professors and the University itself, using hate and fear to propel him into the Governors office in Sacramento. I lived through those times and watched the rhetoric develop which pitted American v. American - too bad it continues today, Spiro Agnew would be proud.