The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I generally find you one of the more reasoned and lucid posters. It's a shame that your admission that you like meetings has called your judgment so seriously into question.

2.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Captain
We are lawyers. We do three things. We go to meetings where we eat food, knock around ideas, occassionally ask a younger person to reflect a thought in the documents, and then sign documents and celebrate. We stare at lengthy documents with small type trying to deal with minute tecnical details and ensure every comma is perfect. And we have phone calls which often involve feigning anger and dismay and instilling anxiety in the other side (or having it instilled in us).

Of the three, I choose meetings.

I rock at feigning anger. Its my fav. I channel my contempt for the person next to me into a tirade about how I want to kill my opponent. Try this deflection - makes people think you're a go getter.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Maybe we could just pay the media to run favorable stories about Iraq. I thought you liked market-based solutions?

Actually this is a good idea. Why not. And why would the LA Times report this. What possible good could this article do except hurt our effort in Iraq.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I rock at feigning anger. Its my fav. I channel my contempt for the person next to me into a tirade about how I want to kill my opponent. Try this deflection - makes people think you're a go getter.

I have a regular diet of dismay, and only feign anger to close the deal. Because I do it so rarely, I like to really explode when I do it. But the fun would go out of it if I did it too often, so, it's mostly dismay.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually this is a good idea. Why not. And why would the LA Times report this. What possible good could this article do except hurt our effort in Iraq.

Good point. As a citizen, I am happy to forego learning about any unpleasantness that may be occurring in connection with our military and governmental operations in Iraq. My ignorance on the matter helps our troops!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good point. As a citizen, I am happy to forego learning about any unpleasantness that may be occurring in connection with our military and governmental operations in Iraq. My ignorance on the matter helps our troops!

Did you read the article you told me to read? It only referred to Iraqi newspapers. US citizens were not effected at all. There is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens and this seems like a smart effort on that front.

But it seems to me that the LA Times just pointed out our troop positions to the enemy.

Again, what possible benefit could this LA Times article provide?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you read the article you told me to read? It only referred to Iraqi newspapers. US citizens were not effected at all. There is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens and this seems like a smart effort on that front.

But it seems to me that the LA Times just pointed out our troop positions to the enemy.

Again, what possible benefit could this LA Times article provide?

We're footing the bill for what's going on over there, and I'd like to know how the money's being spent. Why are you afraid of an informed electorate?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again, what possible benefit could this LA Times article provide?

It's a market-based solution to the problem of selling newspapers.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We're footing the bill for what's going on over there, and I'd like to know how the money's being spent. Why are you afraid of an informed electorate?

Plus, when the Podunkville Picayune starts running stories from Iraqi newspapers ("good news from the front -- what the New York Times won't tell you about how well the transition from terror to democracy is going"), I'd kinda like to know whether the stories are written by an actual Iraqi reporter or a civil affairs corporal at Ft. Benning.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you read the article you told me to read?

You may be confused here. I didn't tell you to read it.

It only referred to Iraqi newspapers. US citizens were not effected at all. There is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens and this seems like a smart effort on that front.

I agree that battling for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is a good idea.

But it seems to me that the LA Times just pointed out our troop positions to the enemy.

Why?

Again, what possible benefit could this LA Times article provide?

It provides an informed citizenry. It's analogous to the stories last year (or so) about the Govt producing canned, pro-govt "news" stories that local stations ran incessantly. Did this policy bother you then? If so, does it bother you now?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We're footing the bill for what's going on over there, and I'd like to know how the money's being spent. Why are you afraid of an informed electorate?

You are joking right? Does your right as a taxpayer entitle you to know of every covert operation done by the US government? Are you entitled to know the names of every undercover operative for the FBI and to know exactly what they are doing?

This plan is a good plan as long as it doesn't leak. Now that it has leaked the opposition will claim that every pro US article the newspapers was paid for by the US government. It was a good plan only if it stayed a secret.

So again, I ask you, what possible good did it do our country for the LA Times to release this story.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's a shame you aren't more premedicated.

If I were more premedicated, I would probably be entertained enough by work to not have to post.

But you'd still be ugly and a troll.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You may be confused here. I didn't tell you to read it.

You just expected me to assume you were reporting it correctly?

Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree that battling for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is a good idea.

At least we agree on something.

Originally posted by Gattigap
Why?

Because the LA times messed up a hearts and mind mission by the US military. Thus giving the enemy ammunition in their propaganda war.

Originally posted by Gattigap It provides an informed citizenry. It's analogous to the stories last year (or so) about the Govt producing canned, pro-govt "news" stories that local stations ran incessantly. Did this policy bother you then? If so, does it bother you now?

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between the US Government operating a propaganda campaign in a foreign country and paying for newspaper articles domstically?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
You just expected me to assume you were reporting it correctly?

No, I expected you to pay attention to the fact that I didn't post it. Shifter did.

Because the LA times messed up a hearts and mind mission by the US military. Thus giving the enemy ammunition in their propaganda war.

In your mind, is there a dividing line for media to make a decision to report or not report on US propaganda? Is the US media to decline to report on this at alll?

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between the US Government operating a propaganda campaign in a foreign country and paying for newspaper articles domstically?

No. Actually, Spanky, that's why it's called an "analogy."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually this is a good idea. Why not. And why would the LA Times report this. What possible good could this article do except hurt our effort in Iraq.

Armstrong Williams didn't find anything wrong with the idea either.