| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 12:08 am: | 
|
Wendy,
You shopuld try to read ANY of the posts.
The first person to Bring up Oliver North was Paul.
As I said
quote:North was brought up by YOU with regard to speaker fees. I said I'd love to see it.
Then I said:
Hey,
Paul offered to help organize a debate between Ritter and anadministration supporter. I'd love to see Ollie rip Scott to shreds.
But then again, I'd love to rip Scott to shreds. I Volunteer to engage in a debate against Ritter (only if we can't get Ollie, or better).
I guess you are right, I didn't say I'd love to see it, I said it would be awesome. My bad.
Now All of a sudden I'm responsible for getting North to Maplewood, and Paul is afraid of anyone else (like Tom Kean who I personally think would be MUCH better, thanks mrosner).
I'd also LOVE to see Kean, Hannity, Coulter, Duefler, Anyone rip Ritter to shreds. An analytical study of Ritters positions makes it easy as they are full of false assumptions and contradictions.
Mark my words, Ritter will NEVER enter a debate with anybody of even the slightest prominence. Its one of the reasons I hope he'll debate me, I'm not a threat ;) He has no defensible positions, and I mean that in a debating context- not a liberal vs conservative context.
And I'm still working on getting North, but Paul hasn't answered any of my questions that I need to give to North's people.
Oh and Dave, its no suprise Ritter won't engage in on-line debate, when he is on line, he's way too busy in teen chat rooms (sorry, it was just too easy). |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
Michael,
Per your remark --
"I'm still working on getting North"
Good. Keep us posted on who you're talking to and what they're saying.
If and when you get a verifiable commitment from North that he's willing to debate Scott Ritter one-on-one, I'll relay the information to Scott who I'm sure will agree.
I predict you will not get such a commitment from North, because I'm convinced that North is afraid to face Ritter in a one-on-one debate.
But, as I've said before -- prove me wrong.
I'm happy to pursue the same route with Tom Kean, but only after we resolve the question of whether Oliver North will publicly commit to debating Scott Ritter one-on-one.
However, I don't think there would be much to debate between Ritter and Kean, because Tom Kean, like Scott Ritter, is an honest man of principle.
Tom Kean is a Millicent Fenwick, Clifford Case, Robert Grasmere type of Republican. Like Scott Ritter.
In the 1980s Gov. Tom Kean was co-chair of the New Jersey Campaign for a Nuclear Freeze, which was organized by New Jersey Peace Action, of which South Mountain Peace Action was an integral part (Peace Action at the time was called Sane).
I think Scott Ritter and Tom Kean would have much more in common than not.
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 2:35 am: |
|
Dave,
What is MOL's track record on moderated forums for prominent personalities such as what you offered to create for Scott? Can you give me instructions on how I might view them in the archives? Thanks.
Regarding why Scott didn't reply to your offer, my guess is that on the one hand he's reluctant to engage in a moderated discussion, but on the other hand he's not interested in dealing with toxic sleaze by anonymous posters.
I imagine that the failure of his detractors to appear at his Maplewood talk reinforced a reluctance on his part to participate in a follow-up forum along the lines of what you offered.
You made a fair and generous offer, but for the above reasons, I suspect Scott was reluctant to accept. |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5501
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
We have had three mayors and numerous elected officials participate in moderated online debates. Look in the Attic section.
|
Parkbench87
Citizen
Username: Parkbench87
Post Number: 1801
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Reflective,
David who? Read below.
http://www.hackworth.com/biography.html
Biography
Hack's military career as a sailor, soldier and a military correspondent has spanned nearly a dozen wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the recent meltdown in the ex-Yugoslavia.
He sailed in the merchant marine at age 14 and the U.S. Army at 15. In almost 26 years in the Army he spent over seven years in combat theaters, winning a battlefield commission in Korea to become that war's youngest Army captain.
After almost five years in Vietnam Hack's cup runneth over. In 1971, as the Army's youngest colonel he spoke out on national television saying, "This is a bad war ... it can't be won we need to get out." In that interview, he also said that the North Vietnamese flag would fly over Saigon in four years -- a prediction that turned out to be right on target. He was the only senior officer to sound off about the insanity of the war. Understandably, Nixon and the Army weren't real happy with his shooting off his mouth.
With all his many awards, Hack still considers the Combat Infantryman Badge and the United Nations Medal for Peace -- which he was presented for his anti-nuclear work in Australia -- his "highest awards.
Hack is a regular guest on national radio and TV shows, and from 1990 to the end of 1996, he was Newsweek's contributing editor for defense. Besides his Newsweek cover stories and other reporting, he has been featured in magazines including People, Parade, Men's Journal, and has also been published in Playboy, Soldier of Fortune, Self and Modern Maturity. His column, Defending America, appears weekly in newspapers across America and on this site.
During Desert Storm which Hack covered for Newsweek, he was the only correspondent to accurately predict the outcome of the Gulf War. He has won many national and international awards for his Newsweek reporting, including the George Washington Honor Medal for excellence in communications.
Hack's books include The Vietnam Primer and the international best seller About Face, Hazardous Duty and The Price of Honor. His newest book, Steel My Soldiers' Heart's, a best seller from coast to coast, is now in the bookstores and amazon.com and bn.com
Hack is an advocate of military reform and a believer that the big fire power -- "nuke-the-pukes" -- solution won't work anymore, but that doesn't mean war will go away. He sees big and little fights ahead and urges military reform. He believes passionately that "America needs a streamlined, hard hitting force for the 21st century" and beyond. Hack brings to his mission his unique experience acquired in almost 52 years of bouncing around hot and cold battlefields. He also brings an insider's view of the Pentagon and the military establishment made deadly current by input provided on a daily basis by serving warriors from around the globe. E-mail frequently brings him the word before the Pentagon gets it. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 801
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
ParkBench87
also known as Hack's agent. I have seen and heard heard hack numerous times. at first,I liked his candor and contrary (to the official line) views which I felt and still feel are on target.
About 12 months ago, I came to the conclusion that Hack took his persona too seriously and was running his mouth rather than providing insights -a departure from his refreshing insights.
I think he is over the hill. |
Parkbench87
Citizen
Username: Parkbench87
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
"About 12 months ago, I came to the conclusion that Hack took his persona too seriously and was running his mouth rather than providing insights -a departure from his refreshing insights."
But you still give legitimacy to a guy like North?  |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4406
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
"About 12 months ago, I came to the conclusion that Hack took his persona too seriously and was running his mouth rather than providing insights"
Hey, he could be an MOL "screen-name" poster!  |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 463
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
“he's not interested in dealing with toxic sleaze by anonymous posters.”
Ditto to this statement. It would be a good debate if MOL’ers don’t deter from the topic.
But then you have to deal with comments like these from the “Scott Ritter in Maplewood March 1” thread:
malone,
Oops. You forgot to mention that he got $400,000 from an Iraqi businessman and fried of Saddam to film a documentary frindly to Saddam. Also, he was arrested for pedophilia. don't bring you daughters to see
Michael Janay,
“Technically it wasn't pedophilia.
He thought he was meeting a 16 year old. So he's a pervert, not a pedophile”.
“Hey... All I said was that he WASN'T a pedophile.
Of course I'm sure that if a pro-war speaker were talking, and had been arrested twice in an internet sting for attempting sex with underage girls, no one here would hold it against them, right? (OK, OK, he was only arrested once, he was caught twice, but only warned the first time)”
“So you're saying it was the Patriot Act that made Scott Ritter arrange to meet a 14 year old and a 16 year old for sex?
Yeah, I'm so sure that the Colonie NY DA decided to run the sex sting just so she could catch Ritter”.
“Paul,
While I don't think the fact that Ritter likes underage girls has any bearing on his Weapons views, you need to get your facts straight.
The case against Ritter WAS NOT DISMISSED.
***********************************************
Paul and Dave,
The one most guilty of the “toxic sleaze” was Michael Janay. Go back to the archives and read that thread. He was more concerned about about Ritter and underage girls and character assassination, than he was about Ritters and his disagreements with the Bush Administration & the Iraqi war. I’d be a bit leary of being “set-up” just reading this thread alone. If this is going to be a legitimate debate and a possible engaging with MOL’ers, it would be great if we would not deter from the subject and go astray with such sleaze.
Hmmm…maybe Ritter read the thread, hence no response and a waste of his time.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7827
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Hack's article about North was written in 1994. While it is quite possible he has fallen in love with his own reputation, this was, more or less, back when he was just getting started in the pundit game. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Paul,
If you think that Kean and Ritter would have anything in common, you are even more uninformed than I thought. No, that couldn't be.
I mean really, what is it with you?
For the third time, here is what I need from you for Norths speakers bureau:
Venue size
Audience Number estimate
Format (will Ritter agree to L-D rules)
Topic agreeable to Ritter (North's bureau suggests "America in the new Millenium")
Possible dates
I just spoke again to his speakers bureau, and North is willing to do it as long as its not some little nothing of a gig (like the library). They want a venue that will hold 1500 minimum. He'll do it at the library, but his rate will be high, and I can't afford it.
His rates for large Non Profit/Political groups are relatively low, but the speakers bureau needs to know the rates being paid to ALL other compensated speakers, so what is Ritters rate?
Dates will be difficult, you see North is a political correspondent on Fox, Has a weekly TV show, Has been asked to give several commencement speeches, is booked by the likes of Biogen, Exxon, etc. (and yes, he gets 30k each time) but they say July 14th is a possibility. Is Ritter available on 7/14? Scott doesn't have much else on his plate except for his Al-Jazeera gig and other talks at venues like the Maplewood Library.
You are avoiding answering any questions about actually getting this done... Why?
And I'm still waiting for you to name the time and place for our debate, I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for that, right Paul, or should I call you Poullet??
Oh and phenix, What is the "Toxic Sleaze" you are refering to? Are you saying Ritter WASN'T arrested for soliciting sex from a minor? For What its worth, Ritter wouldn't engage in on line debate for many reasons, and they have nothing to do with "sleaze". Most Speakers Bureaus don't want their speakers to do anything like that because they can contradict themselves and its in writing. It lowers the speakers value. Its the main reason you will RARELY see speakers engage in on-line debate. But Ritter not even responding just shows his lack of class. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Michael: Why don't you pick a place and a couple of choices for dates. Personally, I think requiring a place with 1500 seats is the same as saying he is not interested in a debate since that means renting someplace at top dollar. Then you have fees and expenses for both speakers.
It sounds like North's team wants a major sponsor for this debate. I am sure we could get one of the local synagogues to let us use their auditorium (does B'nai Abraham or B'nai Jesh'run have enogh seats but there would still be a cost (clean-up, police, speakers fees, etc).
Maybe as an alternative, we can get Mr. Ritter and Mr. North to do a debate via email to be moderated by Dave Ross. The questions could come from MOL'ers and after they have both responded to all the questions and made comments on each other's answers, Dave could post what transpired. This might take a few weeks of back and forth, but at a minimal cost and would end the chatter about who is chicken. I would love to hear/read what both of them have to say, although I have a feeling that most of us are not going to change our opinions from the ones we have already formed from information that is already readily available. |
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 449
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Both North and Ritter sound like they have mental problems. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5737
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
This no longer sounds like a fun idea. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 931
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Very true, Tom. The process has become a pissing contest with really only one contestant. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Michael,
Some responses to your last post, and a question of my own:
-- Tom Kean and Scott Ritter are moderate Republicans who have much in common and would have little to debate about. I mentioned Tom Kean's role as co-chair of the NJ Nuclear Freeze Campaign which was organized by NJ Peace Action. That tells you a lot about Tom Kean.
Regarding questions from North's speakers bureau:
-- There's no place in the near vicinity that I'm aware of that seats 1,500. Columbia HS holds about half of that, I believe.
-- You say he'll do it in the Library but his rate will be high. What does that mean?
-- I think the topic "America in the New Millenium" is far too general. That could mean anything.
Please see how North's agents react to the following topic:
"Does the Bush Administration policy in Iraq violate the US Constitution and endanger US national security?"
-- What are L-D rules?
-- You say you can't afford North's rate. How much can you afford?
-- I have already told you that Ritter's rate is less than North's. However, I would expect that in a debate he will demand the same fee as North.
-- I will contact Ritter about July 14th when we get to the point that North makes a public commitment to debate Ritter.
-- I would be pleased to debate you on the question that you agreed to previously. I suggest that you organize the debate in a conservative venue, and I'll promote attendance among peace movement constituents. That way we won't end up with one side attending, as occurred at the Ritter talk.
-- One example of toxic sleaze is the repetition of a scurrilous allegation -- for which there is no evidence -- about an alleged incident that has been dismissed by the legal system.
-- Finally, is Michael Janay your real name? There's no trace of Michael Janay in the phone book or in Internet phone directories. Please explain.
|
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5509
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
It's his real name. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 464
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Why Ollie North?
Was he in Iraq? Was he charge of any military engagement in Iraq? Was he part of the hunt for WMD's?
Thomas Kean?
He and Ritter have much more in common to debate.
If you want a GOOD debate against Ritter, retired General Tommy Franks is available. At least he led the U.S. military operation in Iraq. Served nearly four decades in the Army.
"Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11."
He has a website concerning speaking engagements.
http://www.tommyfranks.com/
If not Franks find someone who's been at the forefront.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Watch out Phenix,
Now Paul will make you get a "public committment" from Franls and organize the whole thing.
Franks is a great idea too. Also far better than North.
Paul,
-- There's no place in the near vicinity that I'm aware of that seats 1,500. Columbia HS holds about half of that, I believe.
As morsner suggested, some of the local Synagogues could hold that number easily. Bnai Jeshrun, Oheb Shalom, Sharey Tefilo, all could accomodate that size. I'll call Oheb and find out if they will let us use the space, you call the others.
North, as most speakers charges more for smaller events. They are viewed more as private events where a large scale event generates publicity and audience, so the rate many times is cheaper.
Lincoln Douglas Rules are typical debate rules used in organized debates from highschool to college to political. Google it.
I will contact Ritter about July 14th when we get to the point that North makes a public commitment to debate Ritter
And I'll get a public committment from North when Ritter publicly agrees to debate North (or ANYONE for that matter). Your little game of running in circles can go on forever and just shows how unserious you are.
North's bureau said he may match Ritters rate, so I need to know what that is. I know its less. How much less?
Its really none of your business how much I can afford. Yet I'm relatively sure I can afford Ritters rate, you did, and we are probably demographically equivalent.
I would be pleased to debate you on the question that you agreed to previously. I suggest that you organize the debate in a conservative venue, and I'll promote attendance among peace movement constituents. That way we won't end up with one side attending, as occurred at the Ritter talk.
And where would there be a conservative venue around here?
You have the experience doing this, I don't... Name the time and place and I'll be there. I don't care if its a one sided audience, we'll be the ones debating. Anywhere around here is going to be one sided anyway.
As for the Sleaze thing... Look, do you deny Ritter was arrested for soliciting sex from a minor? Ashear described how it was ajudicated and sealed, but the arrest is not an allegation, its a matter of record. Whether or not he's actually guilty is a different story, since the case is sealed and Ritter refuses to comment, we'll never know. It would be Sleaze to say he molests children, but it isn't sleaze to say he was arrested for attemping to molest children, he was. Maybe the case was baseless, maybe he got off on a technicality, since its sealed and Ritter refuses to comment, I'll probably never know, and neither will you. I'll tell you what, I'll never bring it up again if you never bring up GWB's drunk driving arrest... OK?
Robert Livingston is right, and I'm tired of the pissing match. You said you would get Ritter back for a debate. I took you up on it (I want to debate him, or maybe we'll get North, or Kean, or Franks or Strawberry or CJC, or anyone), and you've now made it my job to get Ollie North or nothing.
I would be very happy to have a constructive debate between Ritter and someone, and you and I. It could be an incredible educational and constructive nght. In fact it doesn't have to be Ritter. I hear John Kerry is free  But seriously, how about a real debate between to interesting people from different sides? Doesn't have to be Ritter, I'm sure you know a few Liberals, don't you?
How about we work together to do this instead of pissing all over each other?
And my number is unlisted, but I've met many people from MOL, and had a Poker night that all were welcome to... in fact I need to send out the invite again. You are welcome, all are welcome. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Michael,
A debate between you and me can easily be arranged at the library, and I'm willing to do that, but I think it would be better if the debate were jointly organized between SMPA and a pro-administration group. How about a local Republican Party organization?
I say this, because a debate would have to allow audience participation -- I would prefer 1 hour between the two of us and then 1 hour in which the audience could ask questions and challenge us.
If South Mountain Peace Action is the only organizer, the audience is going to be stacked against you.
Can you get a local Republican Party organization to co-organize the debate?
But if you want SMPA to organize the debate by itself, we'll do it.
Regarding a North-Ritter debate --
If you get me an offer from North or a designated agent that Oliver North is prepared to debate Scott Ritter one-on-one for two hours or longer in a meeting open to the public, I will convey that offer to Scott Ritter.
We can take it from there and determine whether there is a local venue that can accomodate the debate.
But as I've said from the beginning, I need to see a verifiable commitment from Oliver North that he's willing to debate Scott Ritter one-on-one before I bring the issue to Scott Ritter.
I will need a written offer (email is fine) from North or a designated agent. I don't think that's asking a lot.
Regarding Toxic Sleaze --
Nothing that you said in your last post about Ritter's arrest is factual. It is all rumor and allegation. Go back and re-read the sources of what you've alleged. None of them are fact-based.
However, what is more important is your offer to drop the matter if others agree to drop the GWB DUI issue. That's fine with me, especially since I've never mentioned that issue (until this post).
Add to this your gracious invitation for an open poker night, and maybe we're making progress after all. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
I'm not involved with the local GOP, is there one? ;)
SMPA can do it. Like I said, I have no problem if the audience is stacked, even if all of M/SO GOP showed up, it would be stacked against me. I trust you to promote it fairly. L/D debates usually run about half an hour... an hour long debate is really long, I'm up for it, but you might not realize how much that is. I'm fine with questions too.
As for North-Ritter, as far as I'm concerned its a dead issue. You won't answer even the simplest questions that they have asked, and you haven't even brought the idea of a debate to Ritter.
If all you want is an e-mail, I have one that says North will debate for his usual $30k fee, but that in order to come to final terms they need the info I've asked of you. I can't afford that, and I doubt you'll chip in, so that e-mail is pretty much useless. I'm sure you can get Bill Clinton for $100,000, but that doesn't make it any more real. So it may as well be a no... Unless you want to pay the $30,000. Other speakers are cheaper and easier to get, and would be better overall. Will Ritter debate ANYONE? Could you please ask him before making demands? I trust you, if you ask him and he says yes, I'll take your word, I don't need e-mail proof. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, do you want to put together an educational and constructive debate, or do you just want to somehow prove North is a chicken? I've been trying to do the former.
Consider the other matter dropped. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Michael,
I would be very excited about a North-Ritter debate although as I've said a number of times I don't think North will do it.
I'm not going to contact Scott Ritter unless I have something definite and verifiable to tell him -- specifically that Oliver North is willing to debate him publicly, one-on-one.
Without that commitment, I'd be wasting Scott's time and I'm not going to do that.
As far as our debate -- we need to have a face-to-face meeting to work out the details. I'll email you directly about this.
Your last point shows a lot of class. Thank you. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page