Tell me that America is not moving to the right. When it comes to wanting the real news, more people are turning to Fox.

Oh, I know. Nobody from the left wanted to watch Bush get 'kinged' again. Actually, with the seething hatred for the man, that could be a decent explanation.

From Drudge...

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:

FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

No one was interested in King Bush's coronation. How does that mean that the Right is gaining strenth? You're dreaming. Bush haters are gaining strength even among conservatives.

Hey Bryan,

The headlines this morning said that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq by anyone's standards. What are you going to do if we go running with our tail between our legs? Are you going to blame the lefties?

Fox must not have played any Bush!t

Yea FOX news sets a standard alright, I love the meltdown story thats every where.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663486?htv=12

The headlines this morning said that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq by anyone's standards.What headlines? What newspaper? What network? Just because some liberal sitting in his lofty ivory office creates a headline doesn't make it a fact. It will take 2 elections to get things simmered down over in Iraq. Heck, we're still fighting each other 200 elections later and things are only getting more divided here, right? So give the Iraqis a chance. They want freedom. The human spirit yearns to be free and will always triumph over time.

What are you going to do if we go running with our tail between our legs? Are you going to blame the lefties? Running with our tail between our legs is something only the left does so I guess we will have to wait until the Dems get back in office. Grab yourself a snack. It may be a while.

I've already started working with the Republicans to make sure that the next candidate they field in 2008 will be a guy that supports compassionate conservatism and will continue the policies enacted by the Bush administration, so we stay on the right track.

I'm one to think most of the "bias" in news sources is :bsflag: . Fox news has a distinct right lean to it. Most of the others are more or less moderate, but everyone has an agenda. And I do mean everyone. I just don't watch the news because any tv news is more about politics than facts. If you want a less biased opinion on the world, look to print media. No, it isn't perfect, and there are some papers with a distinct lean one way or the other, but AP headlines are fairly neutral and to the point. Actually, if you want good news, leave US news sources behind totally and listen to the BBC.

What I think we need is a president that is more personable. Bush, whether you like him or not, just seems like an :q:q:q:q:q:q:q. I'm sorry, but thats what I see when I look at him. He also presents (and encourages) that whole "i'm an idiot and I can run this place" anti-intellectual attitude that people seem to find comforting. I don't know why that is. Finding that the POTUS is just like Hank from down yonder road does not inspire my confidence even a little. I want to look at the POTUS and go "hey man, that guy seems like he really knows what's up in the world" instead of "i bet he can fish with the best of 'em". Clinton had personality. He was cool. Didn't have to like him, but you do have to admit he was cool. He also seemed more worldly or something, like a southern gentleman instead of just a dumb hick.

And yes, you can stick me in the lefty category. If the right would stop using biblical references as a basis for thier stance on issues and give more solid reasons than "God says so" perhaps I'd think more of what they have to say.

MonsterMark,

At your request:



U.S. in danger of losing the war


Analysis finds troubling trends in Iraq: Rising fatalities, attacks

January 22, 2005

BY TOM LASSETER and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
DETROIT FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF



BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Unless something dramatic changes, the United States is heading toward losing the war in Iraq.


A Knight Ridder Newspapers analysis of U.S. government statistics shows the U.S. military steadily losing ground to the predominately Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq.


The analysis suggests that, short of a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength, the United States won't win the war.


Military thinkers say insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.


The unfavorable trends are clear:


Combat deaths: U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.


WOUNDED: The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.


INSURGENT ATTACKS: Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, rose from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, deputy operations director of the multinational forces, said Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah but nearly as high as October's total.


BOMBINGS: The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first few months of the U.S.-led occupation to an average of 13 per month.


ELECTRICITY: Electricity production has been below prewar levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.


OIL: Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels of oil a day fewer than its prewar peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.


"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."


The combat numbers are based mainly on Defense Department releases compiled by O'Hanlon. Since the numbers can fluctuate significantly from month to month, Knight Ridder examined the statistics for fatalities, injuries, and mass-casualty bombings using a technique mathematicians call a moving average -- averaging the number of attacks in one month with the number of attacks in the two months immediately preceding it in order to better reveal the underlying trend.


Lessel said that since the U.S. assault on the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah in November, "we have been making a lot of progress" against the insurgency.


He said the number of attacks, bombings and kidnappings is down from November, experienced insurgent leaders are being arrested or killed and U.S. and Iraqi forces remain on the offensive.


He also pointed to surveys that show 80 percent of Iraqis wanting to vote in the Jan. 30 elections and more than 90 percent opposing violence as a solution to the crisis. In addition, the recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces are being stepped up, Lessel said.


"I don't want to paint too rosy a picture. We still have an insurgency that has a lot of capabilities," he said. "When you ask is the insurgency growing, you have to ask is it growing in terms of popular support, and I don't see that happening."


There are some additional bright spots.


Millions of dollars are pouring into reconstruction efforts in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and the southern town of Najaf, the scene of intense fighting last year with Shi'ite rebels. Both places are now relatively peaceful, and the danger of a spreading insurgency backed by Iraq's Shi'ite majority has been largely thwarted.


About 14 million Iraqis, mostly Shi'ites, are registered to vote in the elections for an interim 275-seat National Assembly.


About 1,500 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are employing more than 100,000 Iraqis, and the insurgents' campaign of attacks and threats has failed to deter sign-ups for Iraq's new security forces.


Despite these developments, however, the insurgency is getting larger. Through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, from the capture of Saddam Hussein to the handover of sovereignty seven months ago, the country's insurgency has become deadlier and more effective.


Insurgency grows larger, smarter

At the close of 2003, U.S. commanders put the number of insurgents at 5,000. Earlier this month, Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters. The rest, he said, are part-time fighters and supporters who provide food, shelter, money and intelligence.


"Many Iraqis respect these gunmen because they are fighting the invaders," said Nabil Mohammed, a Baghdad University political science professor.


The resistance has grown despite suffering huge casualties to overwhelming U.S. firepower. Exact statistics aren't available.


The insurgents "are getting smarter all the time. We've seen a lot of changes in their tactics that say, one, they're getting help from outside, and two, they're learning," said Sgt. 1st Class Glenn Aldrich, 35, of Houston, a 16-year Army veteran, after spending an hour recently greeting Iraqis on a foot patrol through a Baghdad neighborhood.


Insurgent attacks have shifted from small groups of men shooting at tanks with AK47s to powerful car bombs and roadside explosives and well-planned assaults, kidnappings and assassinations.


U.S. soldiers have subdued Sunni hotbeds such as Fallujah and Samarra. Yet these military victories have failed to achieve the broader goal of weakening the resistance.


Hopes come with dire warnings

The Bush administration hopes to replace the 150,000 U.S. troops with well-trained Iraqis. And Bush administration officials say the program to train and equip new Iraqi security forces of more than 272,000 members is making progress.


Yet several independent experts said it would take at least two years before there are any meaningful numbers of Iraqi forces with counterinsurgency skills and as many as five years before the U.S. goal is attained.


"I think you can achieve success, but it will take a while and, unfortunately, there will be a lot more blood," said Peter Khalil, who was a senior security adviser to the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq.


U.S. military officials have repeatedly and accurately predicted more violence in the approach to the elections, which are likely to bring to power a Shi'ite-dominated government after nearly a century of Sunni rule in Iraq.


Hopes that the elections might lessen the violence recently have given way to more dire warnings, with expectations that Sunni insurgents who feel disenfranchised in the new Iraq will turn their guns on the elected government.


"I think that we will enter a different but still dangerous period in the postelection time frame," Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said on Jan. 15.


Bush has promised to stay the course.


Contact TOM LASSETER at


tlasseter@krwashington.com and


JONATHAN S. LANDAY at jlanday


@krwashington.com. Ken Dilanian of the Philadelphia Inquirer contributed to this report.

Barry,

It's no use. Bryan will find some reason to discredit the report. He wouldn't even believe it if Bush said it himself. He's got the Republican Flu. Which is DENY EVERYTHING. Don't you remember that thread where Bryan steadfastly refused to admit that Bush has EVER lied in his life about ANYTHING? Enough said...

Hey Ron, I remember where you said you used to be a liberal. :N

Now you are a social communist due to your acceptance of the punitive taxation system in Canada.:soapbox:

You want my money, you need my money.argue2

Without my money, you Canucks have nothing to complain about. http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

I actually thought that was a good article, Barry.

if you actually knew people that are stationed in iraq, and actually decided to let them talk instead of throwing rhetoric in their faces, you would realise that 99.999999% of the news that is put out by ANY mainstreem media source (including fox) is complete BS. Not saying that fox is not telling the truth, but they are more along the lines of fact than fiction. I have one cousin that is in Iraq now, one that just returned, and one that is getting ready to be deploied in mid feb. I have talked to the ones that were, and are there...and they say on a daily basis, you will have men women and children come up to them and hug them and thank them for being there. If they have the oppertunity to go to a resturant there, the owners when they see that americans are there, will not use the old half decent food they have lying arround, they will send someone out to buy fresh food and cator to our every wishes. granted you do have the 5% or so fundimentalists that will try to kill you. As for the convoys issues...they are blown WAY out of preportion (cant spell btw), any given time you tunr your tv to cnn or msnbc you will see taht a convoy has just been blown up. well that is entirely innacurate. they avg on any given week about one skirmish on a convoy, no they are not blown up either...its those very rare times that insurgants cordinate multiple overwhelming attacks on them that anyone ever gets hurt of killed. also please, concider for once how much of a success this war is. Most of you only have ever known one or two real wars. Gulf warI / Vietnam. After the sucesses of the first gulf war americans believed that we are entitled to an overwhelming victory ALL the time. this was a situiation where it was a conventional war. in a conventional war the victory usuially goes to the side with the most manpower and technology. the coalition was overpowering the Iraqi forces, and with the western powers' technological advancements that were not cashed in on in the rest of the world, we completly overwhelmed the iraqis there. no one had ever thought that a war could go that smoothly or quickly. In the entire world there may have been one nation that would have had the training to deal with the technological advancements that the united states had in her bag of tricks, and that was russia (yes i know that communist russia had collapsed, but the russian millitary was still nothing to scoff at, they had been training for the better part of four decades to do battle with the us at any time, and had formulated plans for dealing with our advantages) but to say a military under sadam's regeim in 91 was able to fend off the us would be idiotic. now vietnam is a war that most of us would like to think we know about. but the truth is that most of us only know what has been taught to us by our teachers that came from the hippie generation, and hmmm.....what were they opposing, oh thats right the VIETNAM "conflict". a "police action". Both of my grandfathers had gone to westpoint millitary academy, and by the time of the war were a maj, and capt. they have told me many stories about what went on there. The fact of the matter is that in vietnam, we went to war with a country ready to do battle for 20+ years...somthing that the us public is never willing to chew on. It was made clear to us very early that this would be nothing that the united states has ever encountered before in warfare. There were no tactics devoloped for this type of jungle warfare, not even from previous lessons learned from the pacific campaign during ww2. to top that off, the politicions (again, i am horrible at spelling) dropped all support for the war, with the exception of a few. this led to a lack of support of troops and training, and the devolpment of new ideas and tactics. that is why it took us sooo long to produce such a little result, which eventually vanished anyways. The situiation in iraq is quite similar. the troops are facing somthing that has not been seen in warfare ,on a scale such as this , before. the army is getting support from the only people that have the gonads to stomach the notion of going to war for an extended period of time. this is not somthing that we can walk away from, this was thrust apon us (dont give me that bs that iraq was daddy bush's or bush jr's way of getting more oil or some rhetoric bs) It is the same thing as before world war 2 broke out. Hitler had decieved the ENTIRE world of his plan. if you have read mine kampf (and becasue i have read it doesnt mean im a facist of a nazi or a clansmen, im a student of history, thats y i have read it) you will realise that from the moment that hitler had taken any power he had declaired war on the world ( also what osoma has done, and terrorists in general, and to some extend sadam too). After going through ww1 the world accepted what was going on becasue they didnt want another blood bath, which ironicly is what happened as a result. it is also paralled with the war in iraq. We knew that this war would be on the same lvl, to some extent, as vietnam was...and people didnt want to stomach to political upheval that resulted from the vietnam conflict. anyways, im rambeling, what was my point...w/e. to sum things up, the war IS a sucess, my spelling IS NOT...and at the risk of tieing up more bandwidth, refute me on this :)...btw, sorry that took so long.

I have a question for all of the war supporters out there. What happens when, after achieving whatever it is that our government wants and we leave, the country is overtaken again and a dictatorship is restored? And by the way, "It can't happen" is a BS answer. Iraq is the site of what was basically the first civilization, and has been ruled for many thousands of years by forcefull overtaking and harsh punishment towards all opposition. This isn't the first time that a so-called civilized country has tried to do something with Iraq. What make you so sure that this will be any different? So far it looks like the same old S@!#, different century to me.

Not only is that a good question, crazyman, it has a good chance of happening. It would probably boil down to whether or not that despotic govt. was hostile to the U.S. and its neighbors or not. If that country were to invade Kuwait, for instance, I'm sure we'd replay Desert Storm. That is a short term answer. There's really too many variables to predict, though.

I highly recommend that everyone go to this site and learn a little history. Americans who feel great pride in how we are changing Iraq and bringing something new will be especially intrested in the "under British control" section. I hate to say it because I do love my country, and believe it or not, support our military, but I think this whole war is a big waste of time.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html

BTW, my opinion, if you want good, fairly unbiased news, go to the BBC. Their website is fantastic. I don't even watch national news on TV anymore.

good point, looking outside of the united states is a good way of getting a less biased view of the world affected by us, the bbc is a good place to get it from. the question on hand about the country being taken over again...i do agree that it is very plausible, but the point of us beint there is not to ensure that they dont get taken over, it is that they can establish a government that the people will rally arround and take it apon themselves to defend it. they will obviously be our allies, and whatever conflict they become entangled in, so will we. but that is how it is with allies.it is undoubtedly going to happen, that the metle of the new republic of iraq will be tested under fire, and that we will be there along side of them. establishing a stronghold of democracy in the middle east will help provide an example to other nations of the regon. now we can argue the idea of democracy in general, or the people that it is representative of, but that is another thread, on another day.

I hope for all of our sake you're right. I don't have much faith in Iraqis rallying against an opposing force on their own. I also don't want to see our country babysitting them for however many years to come. As the years go by, our "allies" are becoming less and less in numbers, and it's my fear that one day we might need someone to stand up for us, and because of our behavior abroad, there may not be anyone powerfull enough to help on our side. Bush has said the HE will not allow Iran to develope a nuclear bomb. Are we going to mess with them next? Whats going to happen when we F@#! with someone who has a real military and friends with nuclear weapons? Our actions are setting a very dangerous precident for the rest of the world. And by the rest of the world, I mean people who strongly hate us.

to answer that question, i cant see mr bush jeprodising his legacy by not prepairing properly for war with someone who has a nuclear force. i can tell you now that there would be extreeme mesures taken to make sure there is no detonation of a nuclear arsinal. some outside of the rules of civilised warfare, im sure. that is the part that scares me, not that we will go to war with nations with nuclear power. nuke wepons are easy to track and locate, realitvly. but i dont think that you could justify going against the rules of war to complete a mission. then when someone else does that to you, and we get all upset, we'd be hypocrats if we were to condem their actions. but w/e

I go to Electronic Iraq to read about what's going on in Iraq (outside of what you hear on the headlines). The people doing the reporting there are regular people like you and I, American citizens, (The Iraq Diaries section) and a few are independant journalists (Media section). It's a good read with good photos whether you are for the war or not. What strikes me most, is that most Iraqi citizens they interview say "It wasn't this bad when Saddam was here. We were scared of him, but at least we could live". The Iraqi Diaries are particularly good. Check it out: http://www.electroniciraq.net/

Bryan,

I did not vote for the government that is in power. My taxes are higher, sadly, but I get free health care, my housing costs are low, car insurance is cheap, violent crime and murder is almost non-existent, our education is superior to the US's and WAY cheaper and our military is too small to attack countries for no good reason. Canada consistently ranks above the US as the better place to live. I have it GREAT here!!

hope ya stay there :joke

RRocket, lets talk about the important things. How much does housing and living cost and is there room for one more?
Not a :joke

We always welcome people!!

If you have it great or not kind of depends where you are sitting. The majority of people in the US are doing fine, anyone can find petty bs to whine about. How do you know if it's petty? Do you actually do anything about it? Or just babble about it?
No one in any country has direct control over their government and no government can satisfy everyone. Alot of folks don't like Bush for valid reasons, alot of people didn't like Clinton for valid reasons, and alot of people aren't going to like our next president for valid reasons. Those people will get up on their soap boxes and beat their drums about how the world is going to end and how it's ******* fault, etc..
But getting down to earth it's like a country road. Stay somewhere near the center and you'll get down the road OK, get to far off to the left or the right and you end up in the ditch. Are the folks you're listening to whinning from a ditch? Better to turn them off.
The war in Iraq was unequaled success, the occupation has been plagued by politics, here and abroad. There are folks out there who don't care how many get killed, maimed, injured, or left orphaned if they can make the other political party and the US military look bad, or turn a buck. These are the people we all should be doing our best to root out and DESTROY.

No one in any country has direct control over their government and no government can satisfy everyone. Alot of folks don't like Bush for valid reasons, alot of people didn't like Clinton for valid reasons, and alot of people aren't going to like our next president for valid reasons. Those people will get up on their soap boxes and beat their drums about how the world is going to end and how it's ******* fault, etc..


Ill be there, with my violin in tow! :N

Drums, beat their drums. Get a set of kettle drums, stand out from the crowd.

Drums, beat their drums. Get a set of kettle drums, stand out from the crowd.Personally, I like the cowbell. :headbang:

i got fever and the only perscription is more cow bell! incase you dont know that one...here, http://collegehumor.com/?movie_id=64863

But getting down to earth it's like a country road. Stay somewhere near the center and you'll get down the road OK, get to far off to the left or the right and you end up in the ditch. Are the folks you're listening to whinning from a ditch? Better to turn them off.


That's the point!!! It's the middle where 66% of the population will be!

If politicians would work to the middle instead of the extremes they'd be with the people not the special interests!!!

but but but....its never going to happen, because you have to have two distinct characters to vote for, otherwise its just a toss up, and the polititions (remember, cant spell) arent willing to spend millions for a toss up, they need to stimmulate a base, including the middle...becasue even if you are middle road...you still have a tendency to go either way. they dont want just the 66% of people neandering aarround and just doing an enie menie miney mo in the booths, they need more of a fervent base to energise the election. a few more cents of me

Then it would be nice if they'd give us someone worth voting for!!

Put if this way Half the people of the US didn't want Bush and Half didn't want Kerry!

That doesn't say too much for either!! And doesn't say much for what we've got!

Oh that's right I'll have to hear Bryan tell me about the Mandate!!

That's the point!!! It's the middle where 66% of the population will be!

If politicians would work to the middle instead of the extremes they'd be with the people not the special interests!!!


This is twice in one week that we agree Rich...what the heck is going on...

Oh and while were constructing this Utopia in our minds do you thing we could make my LS run on used beer too...

Oh and while were constructing this Utopia in our minds do you thing we could make my LS run on used beer too...

Run on used beer!! Hell you'd be piss so much!! How many gallons can one body hold! LOL

Then it would be nice if they'd give us someone worth voting for!!

Put if this way Half the people of the US didn't want Bush and Half didn't want Kerry!

That doesn't say too much for either!! And doesn't say much for what we've got!

Oh that's right I'll have to hear Bryan tell me about the Mandate!!


exactly my point, they ran exactly the same platform, with minor exceptions, thats why people voted the way they did, becasue people didnt have anyone to choose from...just the name of a party. thats why there was such a big get out the vote effort....like the vote or die episode...that was goofey.

It doesn't matter who is the most popular in the US. The only thing that matters is what is most popular AMONG THOSE WHO VOTE. Since a large % of voters tend to vote along there party's line due to cranial rectosis a candidate needs to excite people who don't normaly vote and those who are uncommited.

exactly what the get out the vote thing was....btw, nice one with the cranial rectosis :)

I thought we got out the vote and that would led to a landslide for the Democrats with all the disenfranchised voters out there? Humm. Maybe the brainwashing from the left is no longer as effective as it once was. People are starting to see the light. They came out to vote, just not enough wackos for Kerry I guess.

Did you hear the Nokia Cell Phone CEO the other day. Americaas move the right endangers the free enterprise system. I hope people boycott those morons so the guy learns not to bite the hand that feeds him.

The Democrats for some reason seem to think minorities will automaticaly vote for them. They seem to ignore the fact that the majority of minorities(?), especially hispanics, tend to be rather conservsative as well as fairly religeous.

Outside of the U.S. and the "western countries", "gays" are not very well thought of and are targets of discrimination and violence, and "women's rights" are a novel concept.

So just because they sneak into the U.S., fail to learn the language, and want to live like they did in the turd world country they came from, why would they suddenly become all liberal? Except of course where it puts a free buck in their pocket.

Why do you think that when Republicans put people like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Condi Rice now Secretary, they call these people Uncle Toms. All the left cares about is keeping people down so that they have to turn to the government for support.

The right on the other hand wants to give a hand up, not a hand out. That is the major difference in the parties. One believes in the ability of people to manage their own destiny, the other party tries to convince you that you are worthless and can't do a thing on your own without the government's help and that the government is better suited to take control of your money and dole it back out to you as they see fit.

And that's the cold, hard reality.

Alas, some people are worthless and need big brother, some people are helpless without someone to watch out for them. Some sort of balance needs to be achieved instead of this swinging from one extreme to the other. To many folks want "my way or the highway". When you have it all that means someone else has nothing, and they can't live like that.

The Democrats for some reason seem to think minorities will automaticaly vote for them. They seem to ignore the fact that the majority of minorities(?), especially hispanics, tend to be rather conservsative as well as fairly religeous.

Outside of the U.S. and the "western countries", "gays" are not very well thought of and are targets of discrimination and violence, and "women's rights" are a novel concept.

So just because they sneak into the U.S., fail to learn the language, and want to live like they did in the turd world country they came from, why would they suddenly become all liberal? Except of course where it puts a free buck in their pocket.

it is especially obsurd to expect that the black population will vote democrat. in reality , yes they do, but for the last, well since mlk and malk-x were assinated, the black community has had NO one that is willing to support them without putting themselves frist. jessy jackson and al sharpton, dont even get me started. all they are are actors and crooks. the so called leaders of the black communities have done so much to disenfranchise the black populus in recent decades, that i would say without giving a second thought, that they have almost brought the country back to the times of equal rights in the the 50's and 60's. what was my point, why do i always get off on a tangent and lose my train :choo choo: of thought....w/e i think you all can draw your own conclusions from where i start.

it is especially obsurd to expect that the black population will vote democrat. in reality , yes they do, but for the last, well since mlk and malk-x were assinated, the black community has had NO one that is willing to support them without putting themselves frist. jessy jackson and al sharpton, dont even get me started. all they are are actors and crooks. the so called leaders of the black communities have done so much to disenfranchise the black populus in recent decades, that i would say without giving a second thought, that they have almost brought the country back to the times of equal rights in the the 50's and 60's.Mr. Wilson. You are making great strides in your articulation of the subjects at hand. Keep up the good work.

what was my point, why do i always get off on a tangent and lose my train :choo choo: of thought....w/e i think you all can draw your own conclusions from where i start.I would like to see a little more effort in making sure that your spelling and capitalizations are up to snuff. I think it would enhance your comments.

And I do enjoy your 'ragged' participation.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif Thanks.

I would like to see a little more effort in making sure that your spelling and capitalizations are up to snuff. I think it would enhance your comments.



lol, you sound like my 7th grade english teacher. Just to let you know, the spelling WILL NOT get better...never has, never will...ill keep a consious effort to make sure i use caps tho :)...but hay, not too bad for a senior in hs tho, eh?

I think this site should have a spellchecker!

I think this site should have a spellchecker!Not because I get irritated with bad grammar (because I do not), but I agree. That would be a good tool to have for anyone.

i agree that it would be good, for me :) because i am HORRIBLE at spelling, which i probabily misspelled atleast 4 words in this sentance.

i agree that it would be good, for me :) because i am HORRIBLE at spelling, which i probabily misspelled atleast 4 words in this sentance.

Hey I am no expert and I totally agree on a spell checker because I spend twice as much time going over my posts correcting spelling errors than I should have to versus having a spell checker. I would love a spell checker imbedded into the site. Somebody PM Joey to make it happen. I am sick of being the nag.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

I agree that it would be good , for me because I am HORRIBLE at spelling. (Which)delete... I probably misspelled atleast 4 words in this sentence.


Nope. That would be 7.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

No one was interested in King Bush's coronation. How does that mean that the Right is gaining strenth? You're dreaming. Bush haters are gaining strength even among conservatives.
Hey Bryan,
The headlines this morning said that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq by anyone's standards. What are you going to do if we go running with our tail between our legs? Are you going to blame the lefties?

I know I wasnt about to waste a few hours of my day watching GW promise to Lie, Cheat and Steal for 4 more years.

We wont go running with our tail between our legs. We'll declare victory, we'll declare democracy, and we'll bring our boys home with a pat on the back for a job well done..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region

We'll declare victory, we'll declare democracy, and we'll bring our boys home with a pat on the back for a job well done..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the regionOuch, Ouch, Ouch. A possible scenario I am loath to admit.

I know I wasnt about to waste a few hours of my day watching GW promise to Lie, Cheat and Steal for 4 more years.

We wont go running with our tail between our legs. We'll declare victory, we'll declare democracy, and we'll bring our boys home with a pat on the back for a job well done..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region

...someone start this one off

I thought I just did

I know I wasnt about to waste a few hours of my day watching GW promise to Lie, Cheat and Steal for 4 more years.

We wont go running with our tail between our legs. We'll declare victory, we'll declare democracy, and we'll bring our boys home with a pat on the back for a job well done..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region


Ok then. First, where is proof of GW lieing, cheating, and stealing anywhere in the first four years...WMD's need not apply. I can only assume that when u said "..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region" you were talking about the supposed, inevitable coup on the new iraqi democracy. i believe, if you scroll back, we already did that one.

Ok then. First, where is proof of GW lieing, cheating, and stealing anywhere in the first four years...WMD's need not apply. I can only assume that when u said "..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region" you were talking about the supposed, inevitable coup on the new iraqi democracy. i believe, if you scroll back, we already did that one.

Isn't that enough!

I knew someone would say that...and no, it isnt. ONE mistake is not enough to draw a conclusion that someone is lieing to you. if you think that you are obviously an ignorant sap.

I knew someone would say that...and no, it isnt. ONE mistake is not enough to draw a conclusion that someone is lieing to you. if you think that you are obviously an ignorant sap.


That's the problem with Political Junkies!!! - Narrow minded - and full of insults!!!

I only Jab at Bush!! not members!! *owned* *owned* *owned*

That's the problem with Political Junkies!!! - Narrow minded - and full of insults!!!Many people say that I'm full of something, but it isn't insults.

Many people say that I'm full of something, but it isn't insults.

Aren't we All!!! :Beer

That's the problem with Political Junkies!!! - Narrow minded - and full of insults!!!

I only Jab at Bush!! not members!! *owned* *owned* *owned*


Oh come on, when we step into the political forum, its no holds bard. Its all just a game. No one, obviously, is going to change any other person's oppinion here...nor in every day. Im not trying to. To each his/her own. (HAY! that was my first politically correct statement-his/her!) Again, me=not political junky, it is just too much fun to watch people squirm over silly topics.

Ok then. First, where is proof of GW lieing, cheating, and stealing anywhere in the first four years...WMD's need not apply. I can only assume that when u said "..... and in a few years Iran will have a new ally in the region" you were talking about the supposed, inevitable coup on the new iraqi democracy. i believe, if you scroll back, we already did that one.


How are those Weapons of Mass Destruction Doing? GW was all kinds of truthful there - Oh, yeah - How is Haliburtin's Bottom line doing? Yeah - Cheaney had NO idea that was gonna happen.

and the "supposed, inevitable coup on the new iraqi democracy" will happen because GW will back away, claiming victory when there isnt one. We took over the country, but we didnt win the hearts and minds. All we did was prove Osama right to many arabs, and give him more supporters.

300 BILLION is what we've spent so far on Iraq and Afganastian - Somebody PLEASE tell me what we got for our money? All I see is we got to play with our toys in the sand. Ooops, Im sorry......I mean the Bush Family Sandbox.



-

The Democrats for some reason seem to think minorities will automaticaly vote for them. They seem to ignore the fact that the majority of minorities(?), especially hispanics, tend to be rather conservsative as well as fairly religeous.

Outside of the U.S. and the "western countries", "gays" are not very well thought of and are targets of discrimination and violence, and "women's rights" are a novel concept.

So just because they sneak into the U.S., fail to learn the language, and want to live like they did in the turd world country they came from, why would they suddenly become all liberal? Except of course where it puts a free buck in their pocket.
:I THANK YOU! THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I"VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!

Ok then. First, where is proof of GW lieing, cheating,...........

You can always tell when a politico is lieing, it's when their mouth is open.

You can always tell when a politico is lieing, it's when their mouth is open.

hehe tru

How are those Weapons of Mass Destruction Doing? GW was all kinds of truthful there - Oh, yeah - How is Haliburtin's Bottom line doing? Yeah - Cheaney had NO idea that was gonna happen.

and the "supposed, inevitable coup on the new iraqi democracy" will happen because GW will back away, claiming victory when there isnt one. We took over the country, but we didnt win the hearts and minds. All we did was prove Osama right to many arabs, and give him more supporters.

300 BILLION is what we've spent so far on Iraq and Afganastian - Somebody PLEASE tell me what we got for our money? All I see is we got to play with our toys in the sand. Ooops, Im sorry......I mean the Bush Family Sandbox.



-

Let's not mention the LIE about Iraq's involvement w/ 9/11. And not only did BuSh LIE about WMD, he inflated it into an instrument of fear-mongering that he fired at the US citizens to help justify his cause and rally support. IMO, this is much worse than a simple LIE.

Let's not mention the LIE about Iraq's involvement w/ 9/11. And not only did BuSh LIE about WMD, he inflated it into an instrument of fear-mongering that he fired at the US citizens to help justify his cause and rally support. IMO, this is much worse than a simple LIE.

What was the comment by VP Dick - If Kerry is elected we will be attacked!!

Just when common ground is reached about all politicians being "liars" in their own way, more shots are fired. And what is sad is that you guys on the left are twisting the words and circumstances to an extreme interpretation as well, just like a politician.

Just when common ground is reached about all politicians being "liars" in their own way, more shots are fired. And what is sad is that you guys on the left are twisting the words and circumstances to an extreme interpretation as well, just like a politician.

Visa Versa!! Doesn't matter just depends on which brand you like!!!

Do you like Lincolns or Cadillacs? :Beer :V

Do you like Lincolns or Cadillacs? :Beer :V

Are Cadillacs preferred by Democrats, or are they Lincoln folks? And the Republicans, what is their ride? I see alot of Cadillacs parked around the welfare office when I drive by, They seem to be preferred by welfare recipients. Any ideas?

Are Cadillacs preferred by Democrats, or are they Lincoln folks? And the Republicans, what is their ride? I see alot of Cadillacs parked around the welfare office when I drive by, They seem to be preferred by welfare recipients. Any ideas?

Well Bush road in a Cadillac! So I think Bryan is thinking of selling his Lincoln!!

I would love a spell checker imbedded into the site. Somebody PM Joey to make it happen. I am sick of being the nag.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif



There isnt a good intergrated one that I have found for VB -- Im on the lookout. Whats out there either doesnt do this or doesnt do that or doesnt work with this or that. I want it too, but a decent option just isnt available yet.

findout what "hottrodders bullitin board" has

They are using a 2 year old version of vbulletin. Which wont work here. There are alot of people who want it, there just isnt a good answer right now. I am hoping the software company includes this feature in the next version, or that someone comes up with something that works well. I am looking, trust me, I just havent found anything that I think is good enough for LVC.

yeah, i want spellcheck sooo bad. im sick of showing ignorance in that matter. :)

yeah, i want spellcheck sooo bad. im sick of showing ignorance in that matter. :)

Heck, Shakespear spelled his own name three or four different ways, think of what his plays looked like! Look where it got him.

Heck, Shakespear spelled his own name three or four different ways, think of what his plays looked like! Look where it got him.
:) hehe...perhaps theres hope, yet.