Yep...trying to control the media provided by the people actually risking their lives in Iraq....soldiers. Hmmmm...didn't Saddam also try to control media in Iraq? So what has changed, exactly?

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9643950%255E401,00.html

There would be absolutely no problems with the video phones if the media would sometimes talk about and show 10% of the good things going on in Iraq.

But you know they never would. They gotta be negative, negative, negative.

I can't watch the news anymore. So I don't. It is 99% negative.

Leading the news tonight
...10 year old rapes 8 year old. Story at Ten
...Still searching for the masked strangler
...Bush drops in polls
...Welfare recipients want more
...25 million freed in Iraq but a soldier puts a glowstick up a xxxxxxxxxxx
...Economy only up 5%
...only 300,000 jobs added last month
on and on and on.

The only way the Democrats can win is if they make us all feel like :q:q:q:q. What a way to run the country. Wishing for the worst so you have a chance to win. Pretty pathetic.

The negative B.S. never stops. If the US media decided to show, like I said, 10% of the positive going on in Iraq, Bush's numbers would be in the high 60's. It can never go higher than that because there are simply too many ignorant people in America.

Just stirring the pot. Chime in if you would like to vent...Just keep it clean and not personal.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Bryan,

A little misguided. There are nearly equal numbers of Deomocratic and Republican media outlets. Fox is a big Republican media outlet, but they are showing the abuses as well as others. The abuses are being shown because, like it or not, they are news. Just like when the news media always focused on "how bad" it was in Iraq. Never mind that Iraq had won international acclaim for the best healthcare, and best education in the Middle East. Not only that, Iraq is the most woman friendly Arab nation. Woman can do most any job men do there...in addition, they have large industry where ONLY woman where allowed to work..from CEO right down to janitor. But you never heard about this. Don't mistake me, Saddam is perhaps one of the biggest :q:q:q:q:q:q:qs in our era. But Iraq wasn't nearly the "terrible" place the media reported.

I sympathize with you though. The media IS crap. Which is why I frequent other web-sites for news. Go to http://www.electroniciraq.net/ It's a good site, and the people doing the reporting there are not journalists. Just people like you and I.

Ya, I have a real problem with Fox marching in lockstep with the other liberal media outlets. Ever notice that the only things considered news now days are almost always negative?

If one network would break free and simply create a news network that only focused on good things, they could carve out a nice chunk just because I think there are alot of people like me that are sick and tired of all the negatism. Man, it gets real tiring. I mean, why even wake up in the morning? Life sucks everywhere you look according to the liberal media, and yes, it makes me angry to see Fox competing with same news stories. But come on, there are 7 major networks with liberal bias compared to 1 (Fox), which makes more of an attempt to show both sides than all the other 7 combined.

I'll check out that site. Thanks for the link.

That's because our society does not like to watch good things happening to other people. We thrive on watching misfortunes.

I agree with you, Bryan, that negative news stories proliferate the air waves. Statistics show that crime is down, and has been trending down for years, but fear of crime is growing. It's perceived by most that crime is worse today than ever before here in the U.S., which is just not true. After watching "Bowling for Columbine" (a documentary filled with more false propaganda than any I've ever seen) I did some research on crime rates and murder rates across the world. It's commonly reported and perceived that Canada for example is a much safer place to live, especially murder rates. But the reality is that it's not that much safer. Look at Maine; the murder rate in Maine is less than Canada, yet it is one of the largest gun ownership states per capita in the country, if not the world. Population density is a factor in crime rates. Also, there is a direct relationship between higher temperatures and murder rates. The U.S. has less land area than Canada, yet 10 times the number of people. Plus the temperature difference needs no explanation. Here in the U.S. our crime figure reporting is standardized and uniform across the country (don't remember exactly how, but something to do with the FBI and the criteria for a reported "murder"). But in most other countries, like Canada, it's not, (although Canada has made great strides in this regard in recent years) and true crime figures in those countries are just not accurate (i.e. they report lower numbers). There are other factors, but my point is that excessive negative news reporting has negative effects on our society. We need more stories of heroic and noble deeds in Iraq to offset all the negative to a degree. But the politically correct, liberal media is too busy sniffing for trouble to notice these things. And the U.S. suffers as a result of this biased reporting while our enemies are exalted. And so I limit the time I spend reading and watching the news in order to keep my sanity.

Yep...trying to control the media provided by the people actually risking their lives in Iraq....soldiers. Hmmmm...didn't Saddam also try to control media in Iraq? So what has changed, exactly?

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9643950%255E401,00.html

I'm sure the biggest reason for the ban is to stop the flow of damning photos and video images, I agree. But I believe there is also a message to our troops that this war isn't for their twisted entertainment. Picture taking is a privilege that was obviously and perversely abused by some over there. As a result, the entire theater was "disciplined" until proper rules and behavior are unquestionably restored and that privilege is re-earned.

And what has changed is that now Iraqis can own video equipment and take pictures. I wasn't allowed to take pictures during basic training, either. Does that make my drill sargeant a sick, ruthless, murdering dictator?

IMHO... the media shouldn't even be allowed in Iraq (or any war zone for that matter). They do more harm than good and like just about everyone here said, only cover the negitive side of things. It's funny when you talk to a soldier that was in Iraq and ask them about it... most will tell you that the stuff on the TV is only about 10% of what's going on over there. The rest is building schools, hospitals, training staff, giving vaccines, running clean water, ect... ect...

I don't really watch the news anymore

The only way the Democrats can win is if they make us all feel like :q:q:q:q. What a way to run the country. Wishing for the worst so you have a chance to win. Pretty pathetic.

Yeah, 'cos we know the media was ALWAYS positive during the Clinton Administration, a time of unmatched peace and prosperity. Fact is, "if it bleeds it leads" has been a mantra for a LONG time.

The problem, you see, isn't that the media has a "liberal bias" (which is laughable on its face when reviewing the coverage this administration has gotten versus the coverage the previous administration got). the problem is that the US media is lazy. Certain liberal pundits are fond of now talking about the "right-wing echo chamber" (a term coined by a former member of said chamber) it goes something like this.

Neal Boortz says "I heard somewhere Bill Clinton likes to molest puppies." The next day Rush Limbaugh goes, "Did you hear the report that Clinton likes to have sex with small dogs?" Since Sean Hannitty lives in Rush's tookis a few hours later Hannity sayd, "Hey I heard today that Bill Clinton buggers dogs." At this point the Drudge report, which revels in the fact that it has absolutely no journalistic integrity, reports that "Bill Clinton is reported to enjoy conjugal visits with Buddy." By this point one of Fox News' talking heads reports that, "The Drudge report reported today that Bill Clinton raped Buddy, the White House dog." Well, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN can't let this go, it's a SCOOP so they say, "Reports that Bill Clinton has sex with dogs have surfaced today." (See how that one worked? They're not saying that Bill Clinton has sex with dogs, they're saying that someone SAID that Bill Clinton has sex with dogs.)

This is how you got such stories as Bill Clinton, murderer of Vince Foster and Whitewater.

It doesn't just work for conservatives, tho. If you cut off the front end of that hypothetical you pretty much have how news coverage in the US works. Somebody reports a story, so EVERYBODY has to report it sothey won't look lax. So what we end up with is very little actual news. Sadly the only way to get honest news about what's going on in America is to read it in the British press.

*sigh*

And while I'm sure members of the administration are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first, this story turns out to be false (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/iraq-camera_phone_ban/).

Anybody doubt the reality of the echo chamber?

And while I'm sure members of the administration are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first, this story turns out to be false (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/iraq-camera_phone_ban/).

Anybody doubt the reality of the echo chamber?

How funny. I normally check these things out before I reply . . . lesson learned. So your example in the previous post was proven in reality, but it's the "left-wing echo chamber". Journalism has definitely taken a conservative turn as a whole the last few years, but is still liberally biased as a whole, lazy or not.

"Yeah, 'cos we know the media was ALWAYS positive during the Clinton Administration, a time of unmatched peace and prosperity."

Hmmm, seems Bush isn't the only one that links 2 seperate things together in the same breath.

"Yeah, 'cos we know the media was ALWAYS positive during the Clinton Administration, a time of unmatched peace and prosperity."

Hmmm, seems Bush isn't the only one that links 2 seperate things together in the same breath.

I'm just saying, during the Clinton administration, which had the BEST ECONOMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, the US press corps was unrelentingly negative towards the president. Your claim that Democrats can only win by making the country feel bad would seem to cut both ways.

Unlike Bush I can link two RELATED things together in one breath.

...and even properly pronounce the two things.

How funny. I normally check these things out before I reply . . . lesson learned. So your example in the previous post was proven in reality, but it's the "left-wing echo chamber". Journalism has definitely taken a conservative turn as a whole the last few years, but is still liberally biased as a whole, lazy or not.

Most journalism in America is to the left of Fox News. Fox news is not the center. Being more liberal than conservative does not make one liberal. Most American journalism is to the right of me. By my calculation if the press makes neither conservatives or liberals happy it's about right.

I'm just saying, during the Clinton administration, which had the BEST ECONOMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, the US press corps was unrelentingly negative towards the president. Your claim that Democrats can only win by making the country feel bad would seem to cut both ways.

Unlike Bush I can link two RELATED things together in one breath.

...and even properly pronounce the two things.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. And I'm saying YOU'RE WRONG. As mentioned in another post, the times dictate the economy in most cases. Clinton didn't really do anything for or against the economy except to enjoy the good times. Which was the smart thing to do, btw, but don't start giving credit where credit is NOT due. The over-priced stock market fueled much of the economic boom of the late 90's, which came back down, fortunately for Democrats during a Republican administration. The peace you mention was a direct result of the stabilization of the Mid-East due to Desert Storm. And our current economic climate is a result of the after-math of 9-11. And if you're reply is something like this: "our economy would be so much better right now if we didn't attack Iraq". My reply would be "that assumes there would have been no more terrorist attacks on the U.S." These terrorist organizations have an agenda, and it includes the destruction of the United States, so please don't pull a Neville Chamberlain.

About the negativity toward Clinton: the media would be all over any president, Republican, Democratic, or Independent, that had all those skeletons in the closet. I'm not saying Clinton was evil, but he has no one to blame but himself. And in case you're curious, I didn't like all the excessive press coverage of Whitewater or the Lewinsky affair.

In regards to the claim about the Democrats using negativity to win an election: that wasn't my claim, so I have no reply to that except to say that you're right about it cutting both ways. It's called politics in an election year, like it or not (and I generally don't).

And I have been known to mispronounce words, but please don't hold that against me. ;)

I'm sorry about blaming you for the "Democrats can only win.." comment, but you were responding to my response to that statement, it seemed logical to blame you at the time. Anyway...

The economy started to go south pre-9/11. The people who are in charge of defining recessions have claimed that the recession started about a year into Bush's term (That would be the National Burea of Economic Research and you can find their report here (http://nber.org/cycles/november2001/) stating that the recession started in March/April of 2001).

The thing I'm really SO tired of is the line that every good thing that happened under Clinton was due to some prior Republican administration. Look, there are a LOT of things I hated Clinton for. Mostly I hated Clinton for being a bigger republican than a lot of republicans, but let's be honest here, while no President acts in a vacuum some of the good and some of the bad that occurred in their administrations can be directly attributed to them. The business cycle is NOT set in stone.

For instance, GW Bush started talking down the economy the second he became the nominee. Literally every time he spoke about the economy while a canditate he warned of "dire times ahead." The second he got elected the bottom started falling out. Those two events aren't entirely unrelated.

On the other hand, I made fun of Ross Perot and his "giant sucking sound." In retrospect, as a technology worker I realize that what he got wrong was the location. That giant sucking sound isn't to Mexico, it's to ASIA. See, Clinton was no saint.

But to blame ALL the good on the Republicans and ALL the bad on the Democrats (specifically Clinton, you'd think Clinton was pooped out by the Devil himself) is naive and silly.

That being said, I don't understand how many conservatives can back this administration. They've thrown out so many traditional conservative platforms. They want to RAISE the deficit cap (whatever happened to balanced budgets?) The Patriot act is one of the draconian pieces of legislation ever drafter (whatever happened to individual liberty?). Seriously, it's just hard to like these people (when the administration makes the Pope, NOW, the ACLU and Bob Barr agree you know they're bad).

As far as all of Clinton's scandals. Most of them were non-issues, but there was such media overkill on them that I think the backlash stopped a lot of actual issues with this admin (see: Haliburton) from being covered. Either that or our press corps is a cowed bunch of people just trying to maintain their checks from their corporate overloards who would prefer they not rock the boat on such a corporation friendly administration.

Very good post. Your right, Clinton was the President during a major industrial shift, the introduction and growth of the Internet. That in and of itself fuel the '90's. The only reason people re-elected him was to not mess with the good times. In fact, it was Clinton that benefited from several changes. One was the Republicans gaining a majority in the House of Representatives back in '94 A second was the Senate becoming a Republican majority. That is what I give Clinton credit for. Scaring the crap out of people with his wife's natioanl health care. I remember one of my favorite lines from the Clintons. Something that spoke to the idea that we were all so fortunate to to getting 2 for the price of 1 with her being the White House. Man, that was a good chuckle.

A third was the strong foundation built by Ronald Reagan that George H. Bush benefited from and then Clinton ended up benefiting from the rebound. Sure, Bush Sr. was led astray, raised taxes and opened the door for Billy Boy. Remember, Clinton won with a minority of the vote, something like 43%. But I also remember him on stage claiming a mandate from the people after that election. The guy was the ultimate politician. I see more of the same if we elect Kerry.

Hey, I could go on and on, but I will wait for some more excellent discussion to come. Thanks guys.

gedwardj

I like your comments. I look forward to reponding to some of them tonight. Sorry about my last post seeming to overlap yours. I was working on it and then had to leave the office for a couple of hours and I didn't feel like redoing it. Clinton's economy crashed on it own. It was well on the way prior to the bubble bursting and 9/11. Bush inherited all of Clinton's problems. Just like Kerry is poised to benefit from all of Bush's gains. Timing IS everything. Republicans have just been missing the cycle with the Presidency. As we get closer to the election, people will start to see Kerry as he comes out of the closet on many issues and is forced to take a stand. Then people will have to look and say to themselves, when the next attack occurs, do I want Bush driving the bus or Kerry riding shotgun with the U.N. driving. I think people will ultimately choose the stronger leader and Bush will squeak by in a close one.

A third was the strong foundation built by Ronald Reagan that George H. Bush benefited from and then Clinton ended up benefiting from the rebound. Sure, Bush Sr. was led astray, raised taxes and opened the door for Billy Boy. Remember, Clinton won with a minority of the vote, something like 43%. But I also remember him on stage claiming a mandate from the people after that election. The guy was the ultimate politician. I see more of the same if we elect Kerry.

Uhm, wasn't the economy fairly horrible under Bush 1? How did he "benefit" from anything?

By the way, I saw something interesting the other day, that's that the current president's approval ratings all line up with Clinton's 94 ratings. I can only pray that there's a similar change.

Remember, also, Shrub didn't win a majority of the popular vote. His brother rigged the election in Florida (this is not conjecture, this is fact, over 90,000 people were illegally removed from the voter roles per a system put in place by Jeb which would make you ineligable to vote if you were guilty of a felony. the problem with this system is that they didn't even use the controls that the, large republican donator, company doing the removal suggested. As a result, for example, my name is George Jones. If I were to move to Florida today I would be stricken from the voter roles because my more famous, not even close to related namesake was once arrested for cocaine possession. The only way for me to rectify this would be to petition the Florida legislature for a list of removed voters and then petition them to re-instate me) and even then his daddy's friends on the Supreme Court had to select him president using a ruling so full of logical holes that they declared that no other court could cite it as precedent. Yet, this man is running around like he has a mandate from not only the people, but God*. Can it get any worse?

I mean, ultimate politician. Who:
Had an air craft carrier turn around and go back out to see and then claimed that it was "too far out" for a helicopter ride so he "had to" make a visually pleasing jet plane landing on the deck (note, the carrier was 25 miles off the coast and, if a camera man had turned 180 degrees you could have seen the port)?

Refused to let his birth place (Hartford, CN) put up a "Birthplase of..." sign?

Had a ranch constructed just prior to the campaign to seem more "down home" and folksy?

Gave a speack at Mt. Rushmore and placed the podium and cameras so that every shot of him made it look like his head was one of those on the mountain?

Is a "cowboy" who's afraid of horses?

Don't let the inability to form complete sentences, the bragging about not paying attention to the news or the pride he has in having been average, at best, in every endevor he's embarked on since bith fool you. GW might not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but he (or at least his handlers, some of whom I honestly DO believe are truly evil. I'm looking at you - Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) are all politician, all the time.

*which is funny given that there's a story circulating that people close to the Pope says that His Holiness thinks Bush may be the Anti-Christ (http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html). Now there's a good chance that this isn't actually true, but I've always been of the believe that the Almighty has a wicked sense of humor and this would definitely reinforce my belief.

Sentince studdering. LOL. GW on the golfcourse trying to spudder out events in the white house. I cannot wait to see michael moores documentary. He may be unbelieveably democratically biased, but he shakes things up. And thats a good thing.

First of all, may I have your autograph, Mr. Jones? If you're going to be confused with the country singer in Florida, I may as well get your autograph and sell it on ebay. ;)

We can ping pong back and forth about the Clinton administration. Time will tell how good of a president Bill Clinton was. IMO, in 100 years he will be remembered for nothing of note. The rabid defense of a mediocre president is what's laughable to me (you can apply that any way you like). Let's move on.

I consider myself a rational man. I try to look at individuals for who they are and their effectiveness in office, not just their political inclinations. Although I am a registered Republican, I have voted for a few competent Democrats. I look at Kerry now the way I looked at Clinton in '92: I'm not voting for him, but if he wins, hopefully he can make some kind of difference. Although I realize that I'm a minority in my thinking. With that being said:

In one hand the argument is made that Clinton received excessive bashing and bad coverage in the press, and in the other hand a negatively detailed description of Bush's politically-motivated actions is given (I didn't research these accusations to see if they were true or not, I'll just assume they are). Actions that most, if not all politicans are guilty of in one form or another. And then a personal attack is made on his manner of speech and fear of horses (?? what does that have to do with anything ??). But still not enough, was it, because next came the demonizing of his cabinet. Is this "evil" accusation based on some horrific criminal activity, or merely because they are too conservative? And the coup de gras, linking Bush with the Anti-Christ. Very clever, and very unoriginal, as there hasn't been a president in a long time that hasn't been accused of being the Anti-Christ by some religious authority. If you're looking for the Anti-Christ, how about looking to someone in the Middle East who can purportedly trace their lineage back to King David, with the beast being perverted Islam instead of Catholicism (if you're looking for theories, there's a couple)?

Nothing personal as this is funny to me. I'm definitely being entertained.
:N :F

And speaking of entertainment, I'm sure the new Moore mockumentary will be quite a joke. With his ambush questions on unprepared people and his knack for twisting and manipulating innocent jokes or circumstances and applying it completely out of context, plus his ability to use questionable "facts" (LOL) to prove a faulty point, it'll be a big hit with people who actually believe political satire is truth.

Oops, I forgot to address the recession report referred to above. The report states that the period of economic growth began in March 1991, which was during George Sr.'s term, btw. It ended in March 2001, just 2 months into George Jr.'s presidency, not a year as was alluded. To suggest that GW caused the recession is not based in reality, but on conjecture. It was the longest period of economic growth our country has ever seen. But as we have witnessed these past few years, a lot of that growth was due to fraudulent reporting of company profits. In other words, it wasn't as much of a boon as was originally thought. We've already covered the bursting of the internet bubble. The stock market has retreated as a result of these things and others. I've also heard it argued that the recession was a result of the Clinton administrations anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Who knows, but I'm not suggesting either of the Bush's or Clinton is responsible for either the economic good or bad times. I'm just keeping it real.

Refering back to the original post we should keep in mind the media has been under some type of government control for most modern wars.

It is disgusting to see the folks who dislike our country, George Bush (or anything related to the republican party), and the U.S. military for whatever reason to use the media in a manner which encourages the enemies of all who are not of a certain religeous sect controlling their lives to fight on.

If you don't belive that making a bing todo about every little thing doesn't keep these fifth century luddites fighting and killing people around the world you should study the Vietnam "war" and the statements now being made by military leaders of then North Vietnam.

Politicians, Kings, religions and businesses have been killing the people for centuries to further their ends. Use your head and don't be, as Stalin put it, a usefull idiot.

It's criminal enough to kill some one for a buck but it's even worse to kill them because they don't have the same political agenda (is this where the democrats are headed?)




"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic"
Stalin

First of all, may I have your autograph, Mr. Jones? If you're going to be confused with the country singer in Florida, I may as well get your autograph and sell it on ebay. ;)

Growing up in Alabama and living in Georgia I've heard ALL the George Jones jokes. Good to see I can spread them to Florida for a three state trifecta.



We can ping pong back and forth about the Clinton administration. Time will tell how good of a president Bill Clinton was. IMO, in 100 years he will be remembered for nothing of note. The rabid defense of a mediocre president is what's laughable to me (you can apply that any way you like). Let's move on.


Possibly. Unfortunately my belief is that the current president will be reviewed as someone who radically destabilized the world.

The rabid defence of and, IMHO, BAD president is just as laughable.


In one hand the argument is made that Clinton received excessive bashing and bad coverage in the press, and in the other hand a negatively detailed description of Bush's politically-motivated actions is given (I didn't research these accusations to see if they were true or not, I'll just assume they are). Actions that most, if not all politicans are guilty of in one form or another.

Well there were two points to that. One was that you've claimed left wing media bias. The fact that these "accusations" are actually TRUE, but were not widely reported would seem to lend credance to the fact that the media doesn't really have a media bias, ESPECIALLY when compared to their treatment of the previous administration. Additionally, you claimed that one of the reasons you would not vote for Kerry was that he reminded you of Clinton and Clinton was "the ultimate politician." And yet, you yourself just said that all politicians do the things that Bush has done in his first term. So, which is it, if I show that Bush has image consulted and stage managed his presidency in a way that no previous president has even dreamed of, you dismiss it out of hand, but anyone else playing the game is distasteful to you? Come on, either they're all bad or none of them are.



And then a personal attack is made on his manner of speech and fear of horses (?? what does that have to do with anything ??).

fear of horses goes back to his stage managed presidency. Bush would like us all to believe him as a "regular guy" and a "cowboy from Texas" who relaxes on his ranch. He's a regular guy who's the son of a multi-multi millionair, former head of the CIA and Ex-president. The grandson of a guy who was not only extremely rich, but when his fortune was taken away for providing supplies to the Nazis, he made his fortune again. Bush has Harvard and Yale degrees and was the member of an elite secret society, he's not a *regular guy.*

He's a texan who was born in Conneticut.

He's a cowboy who's afraid of horses.

As Bill Maher so succinctly and accurately put it (and I'm paraphrasing here), let's not get this confused, we're not voting for a regular guy against a liberal elite. We're voting for Yale class of 67 vs Yale class of 69.

But still not enough, was it, because next came the demonizing of his cabinet. Is this "evil" accusation based on some horrific criminal activity, or merely because they are too conservative?

It is truly my belief that the VP and certain members of the Bush cabinet put their own self interest above the interests of the country. While I do not agree with a conservative way of thinking, and I believe that rational well meaning people can come to exactly opposite conclusions when given the same information and that doesn't make them evil (I disagree with almost everything John McCain votes for, but I believe that McCain might be one of the last honest men in national politics. And you know what, I wouldn't mind having Barry Goldwater at my "anyone living or dead" dinner, either). That being said, the list of conflicts of interest that these people have is staggerring.

Seriously, the largest contractor for the Iraq operation is a company which still pays the vice president only slightly less than what he makes as VP in deferred payments. That doesn't bother you, just a little?


And the coup de gras, linking Bush with the Anti-Christ. Very clever, and very unoriginal, as there hasn't been a president in a long time that hasn't been accused of being the Anti-Christ by some religious authority.

Mostly I just thought it was funny. As I stated, if true, it would be one of the most ironic situations in moderm politics given the hard right positions of many American Catholics. Do I believe that Bush is the Anti-Christ? Not really, although the thought has crossed my mind (again, the irony thing. if you had my life you'd be EXTREMELY keyed into irony. How ironic is my life? I went to the Bahamas last month and managed to not spend more than 2 minutes with a single other Black person. come on, that's just funny.). Either way, I think the Anti-Christ is supposed to be Christ's equal and opposite, so he needs to be Jewish.


Nothing personal as this is funny to me. I'm definitely being entertained.
:N :F

Me, too

And speaking of entertainment, I'm sure the new Moore mockumentary will be quite a joke.

I find Moore hit and miss at best. He starts with an answer and then finds ways to support it. It can be entertaining, but it's not a good way to get me to take you seriously.

Oops, I forgot to address the recession report referred to above. The report states that the period of economic growth began in March 1991, which was during George Sr.'s term, btw. It ended in March 2001, just 2 months into George Jr.'s presidency, not a year as was alluded. To suggest that GW caused the recession is not based in reality, but on conjecture. It was the longest period of economic growth our country has ever seen. But as we have witnessed these past few years, a lot of that growth was due to fraudulent reporting of company profits.

Which is why I should post right before leaving the office.

Eitehr way March of 2001 was well before 9/11, which you claimed was the cause of the crap economy. The 3/01 does give some credance up my claim that Bush talked down the economy and the bottom fell out as soon as he took office. But you're right, I was wrong in my initial one year statement. Let's call that one even :P

As far as the whole tech sector thing goes, yeah. As a techie I understand that more than most. I do think that Bush has made things worse tho (his undying allegiance to supply-side economics, for instance. The problem with SSE is that it's one-size fits all, there's a reason the "free market" is called "supply and demand." During the first round of Bush tax cuts for the rich we were operating at close to 100% productivity, the supply side didn't NEED stimulus, the demand side did. But I digress...)

Possibly. Unfortunately my belief is that the current president will be reviewed as someone who radically destabilized the world.

The rabid defence of and, IMHO, BAD president is just as laughable..
Excuse me, but the destabilization started on 9/11/01. And I knew you'd feel that way about the defense of Bush, hence my "you can apply that any way you'd like" statement. :rolleyes:



Well there were two points to that. One was that you've claimed left wing media bias. The fact that these "accusations" are actually TRUE, but were not widely reported would seem to lend credance to the fact that the media doesn't really have a media bias, ESPECIALLY when compared to their treatment of the previous administration. Additionally, you claimed that one of the reasons you would not vote for Kerry was that he reminded you of Clinton and Clinton was "the ultimate politician." And yet, you yourself just said that all politicians do the things that Bush has done in his first term. So, which is it, if I show that Bush has image consulted and stage managed his presidency in a way that no previous president has even dreamed of, you dismiss it out of hand, but anyone else playing the game is distasteful to you? Come on, either they're all bad or none of them are...
Again you are mistaking my posts for someone else's. If I haven't made myself clear yet, I'll spell it out for you: I know Bush isn't perfect. I know mistakes have been made. And just like you, I don't like it when things are misrepresented. The difference is that I'm conservative and you're liberal, so I'm more apt to correct liberal rhetoric and you are more apt to correct conservative rhetoric. You don't like all the claims that the Democrats don't deserve any credit for the good and all the credit for the bad. That's how I feel about the Republicans. And for the record, any president, Republican or Democrat, would have went to war in 90-91 with Iraq in Desert Storm. The consequences of inaction were too great then. I wasn't claiming a Republican victory in my earlier statement, I was just stating the reason for the relative "peace" that was enjoyed during the 90's. There just happened to be a Republican president in office at the time.

I did claim liberal bias in the media. I'm not about to back down from that. I've followed things too long to know otherwise. There is a minority in this country that doesn't believe that, of which you are a part of, but it doesn't change the fact. You can waste your time pointing to instances of conservative bias if you want (I have a feeling you will, since you seem to be a very uncompromising type :Bang ;) ), but there are many more instances of liberal bias. I'm sure it's to the right of your political philosophy, but it's still left of center. Your claims to the contrary are absolutely "LAUGHABLE" (I got that term from you in your first post of this thread, btw, in case you didn't notice :cool: ).





fear of horses goes back to his stage managed presidency. Bush would like us all to believe him as a "regular guy" and a "cowboy from Texas" who relaxes on his ranch. He's a regular guy who's the son of a multi-multi millionair, former head of the CIA and Ex-president. The grandson of a guy who was not only extremely rich, but when his fortune was taken away for providing supplies to the Nazis, he made his fortune again. Bush has Harvard and Yale degrees and was the member of an elite secret society, he's not a *regular guy.*

He's a texan who was born in Conneticut.

He's a cowboy who's afraid of horses.

As Bill Maher so succinctly and accurately put it (and I'm paraphrasing here), let's not get this confused, we're not voting for a regular guy against a liberal elite. We're voting for Yale class of 67 vs Yale class of 69.
I guess I'm out of touch with the country, then, if Bush is perceived as a "regular guy". I certainly don't see him that way and I don't know anyone here in cowboy country that does. Sorry to disappoint you, but everyone knows he's rich and had a troubled past. I knew he was a Yale graduate, though I'm sure most do not. But I didn't know until now that Kerry was a Yale graduate, so thanks for the info.



It is truly my belief that the VP and certain members of the Bush cabinet put their own self interest above the interests of the country. While I do not agree with a conservative way of thinking, and I believe that rational well meaning people can come to exactly opposite conclusions when given the same information and that doesn't make them evil (I disagree with almost everything John McCain votes for, but I believe that McCain might be one of the last honest men in national politics. And you know what, I wouldn't mind having Barry Goldwater at my "anyone living or dead" dinner, either). That being said, the list of conflicts of interest that these people have is staggerring.

Seriously, the largest contractor for the Iraq operation is a company which still pays the vice president only slightly less than what he makes as VP in deferred payments. That doesn't bother you, just a little?
The key phrase in the above 2 paragraphs is: "It is truly my belief". If there are improprieties being conducted in the Bush administration, then an investigation is surely in the making. I for one would welcome the punishment of any criminal or civil wrongdoing in the Bush administration. Just like lessons were learned for future presidents due to the Clinton scandals, future presidents will learn from these as well. Because I for one desire an honorable president above all else (a pipe dream, perhaps). But I'm not passing judgment until it is proven by due process.



Mostly I just thought it was funny. As I stated, if true, it would be one of the most ironic situations in moderm politics given the hard right positions of many American Catholics. Do I believe that Bush is the Anti-Christ? Not really, although the thought has crossed my mind (again, the irony thing. if you had my life you'd be EXTREMELY keyed into irony. How ironic is my life? I went to the Bahamas last month and managed to not spend more than 2 minutes with a single other Black person. come on, that's just funny.). Either way, I think the Anti-Christ is supposed to be Christ's equal and opposite, so he needs to be Jewish.
Funny though it may seem to you, it seemed to me to be hypocritical due to your post about Bush using Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the same breath, thus inferring a direct relationship. So I apologize for taking you too seriously, even though it may have been an inappropriate ironical reference.



I find Moore hit and miss at best. He starts with an answer and then finds ways to support it. It can be entertaining, but it's not a good way to get me to take you seriously.
I'm not sure what that means. It's either (1) an insult to my intelligence, (2) a good-natured jab, (3) a disagreement with my opinion of Moore, or (4) you were unaware that I was addressing Pepsi2185's reference to Moore's new documentary because I made it unclear. If it's (1) then kiss my :q . If it's (2) then :Beer . If it's (3) then touche :F . And if it's (4) then I say "don't worry about it, it's an honest mistake cause I'm a little confused right now as well" :) .

Im curious what you guys drive, it would be quite ironic if you both drive a mark8 and have the bit separate ideals.

I'm going to skip the quoting, the post lengths are getting rediculous.

1. World Destabilization
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 there were worldwide demonstrations in solidarity with the US. these demonstrations took place in locals traditionally considered "hostile" to the US, including Iraq, Iran and Syria. The feeling of horror about what happened to the US was so overwhelming that Lybia volunteered aid to the US in our time of peril.

This was all tossed out the second we bagan talking about a "crusade" of "infinite justice." Words which were quick to alienate much of the Islamic world. This was worsened when it became clear that our leaders had a monomaniacal desire to invade Iraq. Make no mistake about it, things were made much worse by this administration.

That is NOT to let Osama off the hook, what he did was awful to an extreme. But we had, on 9/12, an opportunity that hasn't been presented to any country in the last 50 years (if even them) and we wasted it.

Also, putting 2 + 2 together to equal 4.

2 Bush admits to not reading newspapers relying on his advisors to give him the skinny. + 2 his most trusted advisors have been harping on invading Iraq for the oil the better part of a decade. = 4 we were going to invade Iraq regardless. Osama was an excuse.

2. Liberal Bias in the Media

Just because a majority of people believes something doesn't make it true. For instance - The earth is flat, Black people and White people shouldn't intermingle, all non-White people are inferior, graham crackers are a cure for masturbation...

3. Bush as a Regular Guy
There are about 30% of people who are ALWAYS going to vote for the Democrat, there are about 30% of people who are ALWAYS going to vote for Republicans. Politicians don't care about them, politicians care about the other 40%. For those 40% politicians go to plants and roll up the sleeves of their $200 button down shirts to appear more "blue collar." For those 40% Clinton was blasted with being out of touch with "regular people" because he went to college in England on a fancy schmancy scholarship. For those 40% of people Al Gore was blasted for being an ego maniac for claiming he invented the enternet (which he never claimed) and that he was the basis for the lead in "Love Story" (which he was, along with his roommate, Tommy Lee Jones).

I know a lot of fence sitters. A LOT of people that I've spoken to voted for Bush because, "he seems like a regular guy, someone I can sit and have a beer with." Bush's calculated regular guydom is no different than any other Presidential candidate's in my memory. Except there seems to be more of it.


4. Bush's Cabinet of Evil
If You and I did not have beliefs we would not be having this discussion. Don't hold your breath for investigations about the improprieties in the Bush White House. As nice as our system is there are some big, glaring flaws in it, those include the fact that it is possible (in times like these) that the people who'd be in charge of calling for investigations of improper behavior are "on the same team" as the people they'd be investigating. So, Antonin Scalia refuses to recuse himself from a hearing about Dick Cheney after going on a hunting trip with Cheney. Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore even though he has immediate family on the Bush Campaign.

So what we have is situations such as Rod Paige's Texas Miracle (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml) , which was the basis for my favorite unfunded mandate, the "No Child Left Behind" act.

Also The Project For a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), which suggested that we invade Iraq for the oil over a decade ago. Some familiar names from PNAC include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle.

Let's not forget that those horrible liberals over at Judicial Watch (http://judicialwatch.org) (that liberal part was a joke, they're actually uber-conservative. They brought you the Paula Jones case) have found out that prior to Sept. 11 Dick Cheney met with his friends in the (American, no other countries were allowed) oil industry to divide up Iraq's oil reserves.

So, yeah, maybe not evil.

Ok, that's not true, they're evil.

I have a diehard republican associate who's fondest wish is the Cheney gets dumped because he even gives this guy the willies.

5. Bush = The Antichrist
I guess it would be too much for someone who doesn't know me to see the dark humor in that. I tried to qualify it, but the fact is I don't know that source, so I didn't put too much stock in it.




6. Michael Moore
The correct Answer is 4. What happens when I type a response while packing to go out of town for the weekend and, thus, become a little too lenient with the rules of punctuation.

Michael Moore is intellectually dishonest. While I often agree with his conclusions, I don't agree with the logical hoops he jumps through to get there. My personal opinion is, I don't tolerate it from guys like O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh, why would I tolerate it from someone I agree with? The answer is, I can't.

"I find Moore hit and miss at best. He starts with an answer and then finds ways to support it. It can be entertaining, but it's not a good way to get me to take you seriously." The "you" was generic and referring to Moore. So far, I haven't agreed with you, but you've been consistent and honest and that's all I ask.

Im curious what you guys drive, it would be quite ironic if you both drive a mark8 and have the bit separate ideals.

Nah, 02 LS V8 Sport here.