PDA

View Full Version : Bush is declared an ***hole by....CNN?


XRanger
11-03-2004, 09:47 PM
nevermind, they edited the picture

mlee2
11-03-2004, 09:51 PM
um no..

mach1
11-03-2004, 10:28 PM
ITS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@wright
11-04-2004, 09:05 AM
Doesn't surprise me, the Communist News Network thinly veils their agenda to promote the liberal cause. I love watching them eat crow.

splink779
11-04-2004, 09:33 AM
It says georgelaura or something what are you talking about?

Gatsby007
11-04-2004, 12:42 PM
It's amazing, I used to hate CNN, but now i can't get enough :)
Their over the top bashing of the President and anything moral is ridiculous. The back-lash from CNN probably helped Bush push Bush over 50%

XRanger
11-04-2004, 01:03 PM
nevermind, they changed the name... the guy who did that probably got fired.

@wright
11-04-2004, 01:32 PM
Amen, Gatsby. For some reason I can't quit watching it now!

David Pavlich
11-04-2004, 01:35 PM
Why do you think FOX just trounces CNN and the rest of the cable news companies?

David

Gatsby007
11-04-2004, 01:51 PM
Let me break it down for you David,
Fox is the only moderate net-work on TV. It seems like they lean a little to the right, but it's just becuase CNN CBS Etc are just mouth pieces for the far, far left. I wish fox would become an out right conservative newtwork. I think that would only be fair don't you? It is far and away the most watched news newtork if you judge it by ratings so i would imagine there are tons of Dems who watch routinely when they want an objective point of view instead of that olg haggard Judy Woodruf :)
Who has now become my favorite news anchor. I just can't stop watching her!

thejerk
11-04-2004, 07:23 PM
Did you see Wood Ruff yesterday afternoon with Wolf Blitzer? She slipped up and refered to the dems as "us" and republicans as "them." It was so funny, because Wolfie cut her off in mid sentence and the cam went close up to Wolfie. She has always been one of my favorites. I record her and use her as an example of bias. Me and one of the guys I work with watch her and laugh our a55es off. Who did she know anyway?

@wright
11-05-2004, 05:15 AM
Bill O'Reilly had a former CBS correspondent on his show last night, and they talked about the media elites. It was great. Not that we haven't all heard it before. Before that, Bill went head to head with Al Sharpton, who I think is one of the worst public figures for the Democrats, considering he has been linked to drugs, and is pretty much a joke of a reverend.

Brian Purdie
11-05-2004, 09:56 AM
I can't get enough of the bad @ss girls on Fox. The shiny lip gloss, the high skirts, tight shirts, and I think I saw a couple of tatoos. Now that's a reason to get excited about the news!
http://www.foxnews.com/images/36712/6_41_50_alexander_dari.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/1312/13_41_50_dhue_laurie.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/121406/1_41_50_maccallum_heather.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/1244/10_41_50_acuna_alicia.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/1353/12_41_50_skinner_jane.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/21345/8_41_50_chetry_kiran.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/139662/0_41_50_kendall_megyn.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/36714/7_41_50_nauert_heather.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/images/120966/5_41_50_dean_janice.jpg

mlee2
11-05-2004, 02:12 PM
There aren't many serious (non-redneck) allegations about CNN and that alleged bias they have. Every reputable news network will always have a little bias, after all: these people are humans.

But the level of 'journalism' at Fox News is just dispicable. Fox News calling everyone else 'liberal media' is such a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

There are hundreds of stories of Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) spreading his agenda across the whole world. There are also many documentaries citing many current and former Fox News employees of the shame they feel as journalists.

One noteworthy documentary is 'Outfoxed.' Unfortunately, it is slanted radically left, but the facts in there are undeniable.

lenosucks
11-05-2004, 02:47 PM
Yea, i'm not sure what you guys are talking about, since Fox news has had many more allegations of being to the right than cnn has been to the left. And CNN actually has more people tune in every day than Fox news, it's just the ratings set up makes the ratings higher for Fox.

thejerk
11-05-2004, 03:19 PM
Them documentaries sucked. Try siting just a few examples. I've heard Tony Snow host the Limbaugh show before, but as far as hard news Fox is clearly the best. How can you call a chanel that almost always has debates from both sides biased as you do. More people tune in, if that is true, because euroweanies need validation.

mlee2
11-29-2004, 06:08 PM
"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive. I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."

-Pat Buchanan on CNN

Fox's versions of "political debates" are laughing jokes. I can't think of a single out and out liberal to counter all of the far-right loonies on that network. Most of the "liberals" on that network are moderate at best, right of center, or "former liberals."

On Hannidy and Colmes, Colmes can hardly be considered a leftist as he consistently agrees with most of Hannidy's far-right ideology. He said it himself: he considers his ideology more as a moderate than anything else (such as liberal).

Phil
11-29-2004, 06:58 PM
How can you call a chanel that almost always has debates from both sides biased

That is, one debator sits on one side and the other debator sits on the other side facing his opponent. That's what you meant by FOX having "both sides", isn't it?

Jonas
11-29-2004, 07:11 PM
I think the big deal with Fox is that the majority of the views expressed on that channel are more traditional, not conservative or liberal. I am the biggest Bush supporter out there and i don't agree with a lot of the stuff that I hear on varioius FNC shows. The ratings don't lie as FSN regularly cleans up in just about every catagory. To get the kind of ratings that they enjoy there has to be more than just conservatives tuning in on a regular basis.

Phil
11-29-2004, 08:13 PM
The ratings don't lie as FSN regularly cleans up in just about every catagory. To get the kind of ratings that they enjoy there has to be more than just conservatives tuning in on a regular basis.

Do you HONESTLY think Fox's ratings are the result of "quality" or "balanced" news and informational programming? You can't be that STUPID. First of all, a Murdoch enterprise does not DO quality or balanced. Secondly, topless newscasts, reality programs or whatever they put on the screen, brings up the ratings. Real news is boring-SLANTED news is great for attracting viewers.

Jonas
11-30-2004, 01:59 PM
We are talking about the Fox News Channel, I assume that you can understand that. I did put the initials FNC and FSN(by mistake) in my original post, but my last statements involving the traditional views of the American people and the FNC ratings are legit, In my humble, but acurate opinion.

Phil
11-30-2004, 04:21 PM
If "traditional" means Bible thumping, then I think you overestimate that segment of the population. If by traditional, you mean cheerleading, distorted, Bush administration butt kissing, then I guess FNC certainly does draw those types in. It also draws in the more moderate population who just like the hair pulling contests ("discussions") and other MTV-type entertainment that the "News" channel airs. Rupert Murdoch is not concerned about traditionalism-he lives for ratings points and this is how he achieves it. It's a business-your opinion is anything BUT "accurate". Take a look at his rags in the UK-nude women, etc. He doesn't actually CARE about the views of born agains-he just knows what buttons need to be pushed so that they will tune into the junk news fare offered by Fox.

Jonas
11-30-2004, 06:12 PM
Hey Phil,
You are certainly entitled to your views, but let me break-down the term "traditional" in context.. again, this is not really a left or right thing. Traditionalist are against partial birth abortion, taking "God" out of the American lexicon, gay-marriage etc. I have noticed that you get real offensive when anything about Christianity is mentioned. Aren't you tolerant towards Christians? Of course, there are Christian nut-balls, as their are with any religious group, but one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.
Fox doesn't subscribe to the extreme sides of either party. I watch Fox because I get fair political analysis and not just my ears tickled. There are a lot of things said on various FNC programs that I don't agree with, on the other hand I find it hard to agree with much of anyhting on CNN. Just to see what we are dealing with here, how do you feel about CNN's coverage? Would you suggest a fairly even toned news organization/paper for me (la, ny times,)?
One last thing.. You mentioned that FNC attracts the moderate population. Is that a bad thing? Would you consider yourself moderate, or are you into the whole Bush blew up the pentagon and stuff like that. That is not a loaded question, and I will not call you an idiot or jack-*** if your answer does not agree with my beleifs. Just an honest question.

Phil
11-30-2004, 07:12 PM
Jonas - I'm a moderate. Slightly conservative on foreign and fiscal policies, slightly liberal on domestic policy and social issues. And, I feel, very patriotic-not just a flag-waving sunshine patriot-someone who believes in the US. I am a "traditionalist" but to me, obviously, this means something different. It isn't about shoving the religious beliefs of a minority of the population ("Christians" are STILL a minority, albeit a large one) down the throats of the other 250 million Americans. Hey, just like the McCanins and Guvinators of the world-Republicans who, if truth be told, must absolutely despise the Bush-Cheney axis.

I do not believe Bush blew up the pentagon-If, as you claim, that's not a loaded question, it is condescending and even insulting; like me asking you if you routinely burn crosses on people's lawns or blow up abortion clinics (being a "pro-lifer" and all...). But I also do not believe that in retaliation for 9/11, he should have gone and attacked a country that wasn't even involved in it-resulting in a 10-year (probably) deadly occupation-and I don't mean Afghanistan.

I don't think CNN is much better than FNC. I DO think the NYT is the best daily in the world, warts and all (along with the Financial Times and WSJ minus its editorial section). As news sources they will ALWAYS be biased for SOMEONE, but in the end, you have to pick and choose, and then sort out the b.s. on your own. FCN is NOT what I would choose for "balanced" news. If I had to recommend a TV newscast for you, it would be BBC-without a DOUBT the best feature stories and specials in the English language.

Fox DOES subscribe to the extreme sides of the Republican party; it is the White House's organ-its coverage of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has been disgraceful cheerleading at best. Do you REALLY believe Fox's talking heads-Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al. are "balanced"? Again, I say-you are not that STUPID-you can't be...

I'd prefer my news without the cheerleading bleach blond bimbos-give me the facts and I'll make my own judgements-but then again, most people are not CAPABLE of doing that and need to be spoon fed-that's where Fox News comes in...

As far as being tolerant toward Christians-I am. What I am NOT tolerant toward are people who try to force their version of "morality" down MY throat. People who want to destroy our principle of separation of church and state and form some kind of Western ayatollah-run theocracy are bad, bad news in my book. It just seems that the people currently trying to do that-who feel they have a monopoly on "morality"-happen to be "Christians" (i.e. the "pro-lifers" who advocate the death penalty-kind of a contradiction, don't you think?). If the people trying to do this were of another faith, I would despise them just the same for trying to make our country something it wasn't meant to be. And I don't think all this is being orchestrated by "nut balls", just as I don't think Osama bin Laden receives his support exclusively from jihad-crazy Islamo-fascists and rogue regimes.

ty slothrop
11-30-2004, 08:55 PM
boo-YEAH!!!

thejerk
12-01-2004, 09:05 AM
Phil your views of seperation of church and state are based on a myth. The modern seperation goes back to 1950's justice Hugo Black, a kkk, anti-catholic, consiracy nut.

I don't have the time soThis is a little oversimplified: The original intent was to keep a churches from collecting taxes. The founders didn't like the idea of a church collecting taxes from people of a different denomination. The Church of England was collecting taxes from everybody.

We are guaranteed freedom OF not "from" religion. If I'm not mistaken, some of the states had state religions. Didn't Louisiana have a state religion when it joined the Union?

Your lucky I have dial-up at home and can't stand the wait time.

Jonas
12-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Phil,
I think one of the reason's that Fox seems so republican oriented to you is becuase they are the only network that has any conservative voice at all (makes sense if you think about it) I disagree with your assesment of the NY Times. I have read a few of the cloumns by a Mr. Paul Krugman and have found him to be right in line with Michael Moore. I believe he actually wrote about Bush blowing up the pentagon. Any newspaper that would have him writing for them is suspect in my opinion. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the direction that the country is headed in. America is in a tough spot right now, but I am optimistic and could not be any prouder of our leader.

Phil
12-01-2004, 03:54 PM
Jerk - Separation of church & state was established LONG before the 1950's. You must have be operating in concert with the poster who said that slavery existed in the (19) 50's. Read the Federalist Papers-particularly James Madison. The Founding Fathers did not intend this country to be a theocracy. Are you advocating that it should?

Jonas - You list a single op/ed columnist as the reason why the NYT-to you-is no good. Fine. Read what you want, but for STRAIGHT NEWS it's the best. You won't find that level of international coverage in the Daily Star or Baton Rouge Times-but you will find views that conform to your own, which is, I suppose, how you choose what to read, if anything. I read the WSJ despite the fact that its editorial page is slightly to the right of Mussolini. Because for NEWS it's very good. I have the ability to separate NEWS and EDITORIAL.

BTW, Krugman, IMO, is usually RIGHT ON in his comments, and so are Frank Rich and Thomas Friendman-these guys, though politically to the left (except for Friedman), are not die-hard administration butt kissers-they tell a different story and it doesn't adhere to anyone's policy.

mlee2
12-01-2004, 10:00 PM
Phil,
I think one of the reason's that Fox seems so republican oriented to you is becuase they are the only network that has any conservative voice at all (makes sense if you think about it) I disagree with your assesment of the NY Times. I have read a few of the cloumns by a Mr. Paul Krugman and have found him to be right in line with Michael Moore. I believe he actually wrote about Bush blowing up the pentagon. Any newspaper that would have him writing for them is suspect in my opinion. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the direction that the country is headed in. America is in a tough spot right now, but I am optimistic and could not be any prouder of our leader.

Are you serious?
Fox has you for a sucker if you actually believe in that 'liberal media, anti-conservative' myth.

CNN has a show called 'Crossfire' that has consistently brought in MANY hardcore Republicans throughout the years from Buchanan to Carlson. I quoted Pat Buchanan's opinion on CNN (this guy is as right-winged as you can get) and it's pretty much on the spot. There have been many conservative elites on CNN (i.e Coulter is constantly invited as a guest to chew out liberalism), you can't say the opposite about Fox's show.

I challenge you to name even ONE liberal (who can actually hold his ground) that ever gets invited to a Fox News show, let alone actually work on Fox.

That's the difference between Fox and everyone else.

The NY times has a very leftist editorial board. So what? In case you didn't know, they're EDITORIALS (read: opinionated articles). The Washington Post has a very conservative staff and I don't hear anybody b!tching about them.

Despite both papers being on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they're both high up there in prestige because mainly: they keep their opinions where it belongs: on the editorial page.

ty slothrop
12-02-2004, 09:59 AM
since we're talking about frank rich and the media in this thread, just thought I'd provide a link to his latest vignette into media commentary. say what you will about the man, he possesses a singular ability to construct some of the most withering critiques in the history of the english language. they are simply swiftian in their intensity, wit, vision, and effectiveness. he consistently cuts through the pollution coming from both right and left-leaning establishments and exposes what's really at the heart of our society.

yes, this site requires a free registration. no, registering with the Times won't turn your wannabe army tank 4x4 into a volvo, or your schlitz light into a latte. (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/arts/05rich.html?8hpib

Jonas
12-02-2004, 01:23 PM
Phil, again we differ, that's fine.

MLEE2:
Unless you've been out of town for a few months there have been many independant studies completed that have shown that Kery got almost twice as much favorable coverage as the President in the media
I watch CNN all the time and have never seen Ann Coulter.
Now let me take on your "challenge". Liberals that either work at Fox News, or have been invited on the show.

Let's start with workers. Alan Combs, Mort Kondracke, Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustrren's husband worked on the Kerry Campaign team and many others

Invitees and liberals appearing on Fox news broadcasts:
Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Terry Mcauliffe, Tad Devine, Paul Begalla, James Careville, Joe Liberman, Ben Affleck (and other celebs.) Every Kerrry spokeman, and spokeswoman, donna Brazil,
John Kerry was begged to come on, but ducked because he would not have been given a free pass on his ridiculous record. P-Diddy, Russell Simmons, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al sharpton (frequently) Barrack Obama, Kweisi Mfume, and the list goes on.
There was a term floating around during the election in these threads called getting "b i t c h slapped", I think it's fair to say your challenge has been met.

Jonas
12-02-2004, 01:29 PM
MLEE2, also if you think Pat Buchanan is "as right winged as it gets" maybe you should not be getting involved in these political conversations.
I just saw a nice peice with congressman Ford on FNC a little while ago(the lib. senator from Tennessee) I enjoy listening to his view-points. Now wo

Phil
12-02-2004, 03:59 PM
Ty - I agree with you on Frank Rich-one of the best columnists I've ever read.

thejerk
12-02-2004, 10:14 PM
Mlee2, I challenge you to name a liberal that can hold his ground. Have any of you heard about mark rich's involvement in the Oil for Food scandals? I have, I don't rely on your media. Just the name Oil for Food, as a christian, is offensive to me. Is this the first forum that you have ever heard a decenting opinion? That question was for you Mlee2

thejerk
12-02-2004, 10:26 PM
Phil, I love you, Man! You sound like a right winger who is trying to trick us all into thinking. I love you. Man!

thejerk
12-02-2004, 10:27 PM
O.k maybe I am just a happy dru88.

Phil
12-02-2004, 10:33 PM
Jerk wrote:

Phil, I love you, Man! You sound like a right winger who is trying to trick us all into thinking. I love you. Man!


Umm...GULP!

thejerk
12-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Don't say gulp! That puts this all into different dimension.

Jonas
12-03-2004, 10:42 AM
Just to follow up on Mlee2's so called challenge, I enjoyed listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the O'reilly factor last night. He was on a 20 minute segment and last time i check he was "fairly liberal" :)
MLEE2 wins the award for most ignorant post in this whole election thread cycle! Congrats!

@wright
12-03-2004, 10:55 AM
HAha

Craig Sheppard
12-06-2004, 01:49 PM
The only reason that FOX News is so popular is because there is now a majority of right-wing sheople in the country. They are of course, being the sheople they are, going to prefer watching the news that's congruous with the leadership they're blindly following.

Jonas
12-07-2004, 12:55 PM
Wrong, the reason Fox News is so popular is because they give both sides a chance to speak. They have libs and republicans working for the network (even having their own shows), and they also routinely have equal representation from both sides on these shows. That cannot be said about any other network, like it or not!

Phil
12-07-2004, 05:46 PM
You're obviously deluded, Jonas, and have no idea what "Fair and Balanced" really means. Amazing that so many Republicans lack the ability to be impartial and self-critical. This is the kind of butt-kissing toadyism that I suppose we can expect for the next 4 years...

Jonas
12-07-2004, 06:53 PM
I beg to differ with you on the fair and balanced issue. Would you like to name another news channel that is more has more voices from both sides employed and as guests?
Also, expect the "butt-kissing toadyism" for the next 8 and maybe 12 years :)

Phil
12-07-2004, 07:34 PM
Also, expect the "butt-kissing toadyism" for the next 8 and maybe 12 years

No, I don't think so. As for naming another news channel more "Fair and Balanced" I would venture to say ALL of the rest of them, CNN included. Fox is shiat-it is what it is: a Rupert Murdoch vehicle.

mlee2
12-07-2004, 09:04 PM
I challenge you to name even ONE liberal (who can actually hold his ground) that ever gets invited to a Fox News show, let alone actually work on Fox.

Hehe. I knew I'd get ganged on like a cheap hooker as soon as I typed this out. Of course, I know "liberals" get invited to some of FNews shows. The exaggeration was used to point out that guys leaning on the radical left rarely get airtime as opposed to the radical right. Michael Moore and Carville was an exception you cited (though I find that really surprising).

As I've said before, the so called "liberals" who work on Fox hardly represent anything that is stereotypically socialist/radical left. Colmes must laugh at himself if he ever called himself 'liberal.'

Not that I approve of anything extreme-liberally slanted, but if you have race-baiting Limbaugh on Fox News: the least you could do is give some liberal of the same caliber, an opportunity.

Hey, I'll retract all my statements about Fox if Moore, Franken, or even one of the sellouts from the Kennedy Family get their own show on Fox.

I do watch Fox occasionally, and I'm actually ashamed to agree with O'Reilly every now and then but agreeing/disagreeing with these guys is not the point.

Political debates between (i.e: Former Repub Secretary of State vs. celebrity liberal) is hardly what I call fair debates.

Media bias is clear on Fox, I don't see how anyone else can't see that.

@wright
12-08-2004, 05:21 AM
Why would anyone give Michael Moore his own show? If he can lie in a documentary, he can lie on tv. Most liberals don't even respect him...Do you consider Al Sharpton a liberal? He was on Fox & Friends recently and was treated respectfully and allowed to share his views. He was also on the O'Reilly factor in the last month...I guess I met your challenge...

Craig Sheppard
12-08-2004, 11:32 AM
Wrong, the reason Fox News is so popular is because they give both sides a chance to speak. They have libs and republicans working for the network (even having their own shows), and they also routinely have equal representation from both sides on these shows. That cannot be said about any other network, like it or not!

You are absolutely delusional, Jonas. Have you ever listened to any shows on F- News? Case in point: O'Reilly. He's the epitome of not giving the other side a chance to speak. "Shut up! SHUT UP! Cut his mic!". Hannity? Not much better--cuts Colmes off mid-point. I can take about 2-3 minutes before my head hurts from the shouting. Thank god for NPR. Maybe not completely centrist, but at least they run a civil discussion.

Craig

ty slothrop
12-08-2004, 11:47 AM
give it up, craig and mlee. take it from me, it's the only way to stay sane. no sense in killing yourself trying to wake a dog that prefers to slumber in its own filth

Jonas
12-08-2004, 12:18 PM
Look guys, You are all missing the point here. I have named you several democrats (far, far left and moderates) that REGULARLY appear on Fox programs. Liberals even have thier own shows on Fox. Cnn does not even come close to competing in this area. Please point me out some examples of conservatives that have a voice on CNN besides on "Crossfire" for 1 hour a day.
Bill O'reilly is not just rude to liberals, he is rude to everyone, that argument does not hold water. I just saw an interview he did with Donald Rumsfeld and he grilled him quite heavily just like he did with President Bush in October (which i didn't really appreciate)
You guys keep drinking the Kool-Aid and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!

ty slothrop
12-08-2004, 12:45 PM
dude, what kool-aid would that be????
your president and media machinery make the real kool-aid man look like a thimble full of vinegar!

(all right, breathe slowly, take my own advice, there but for the grace of god go I)

Jonas
12-08-2004, 01:21 PM
Correction, That's OUR President (assuming you are an American)
That's rich, the "media machinery of the President". It's already been shown by independant studies and every news outlet (including CNN) that Kerry got the most favorable slant from the media in Presidential election history and still lost.
The Republican Triumph in November really is the Gift that Keeps on Giving this Christmas Season!

perfmode
12-08-2004, 02:34 PM
It's already been shown by independant studies and every news outlet (including CNN) that Kerry got the most favorable slant from the media in Presidential election history and still lost.

What does that say about the voters?




*ahem red states*

Jonas
12-08-2004, 04:58 PM
Good point Perfmode!
We can all agree that the dumbest and generally most ignorant people in the US are "red staters"
I would prepose that all people who live in "Red States" (75% of the countries land mass) should not be able to vote in '08. Furthermore, if you live in a "Red County" (90% of the countries land mass) you should have your voting rights restricted forever :)

Max G.
12-09-2004, 12:15 AM
What does that say about the voters?

That says absolutely nothing about the voters...

If you're a Kerry supporter, it CLEARLY means that the people in the red states are ignorant, since all the people in the media that actually look up facts and know more of the truth than your common person were mostly in favor of Kerry.

If you're a Bush supporter, it CLEARLY means that the people in the blue states are ignorant and easily influenced by propaganda while the people in the red states are actually able to think for themselves.

Max G.
12-09-2004, 12:18 AM
Good point Perfmode!
We can all agree that the dumbest and generally most ignorant people in the US are "red staters"
I would prepose that all people who live in "Red States" (75% of the countries land mass) should not be able to vote in '08. Furthermore, if you live in a "Red County" (90% of the countries land mass) you should have your voting rights restricted forever :)

Too bad that stopping the stupid people from voting would go against the principles that democracy is founded on... it's kind of sad that a decision as important as "who gets to lead the country" is delegated to people that spend little to no time researching who would actually do a better job.

There's no other way to be democratic though.

mlee2
12-09-2004, 03:58 AM
Who says democracy is the best kind of government? That's REALLY open to interpetation.

In democracy, an extremely stupid person has the same kind of voice/power as an intelligent one. That's the scariest part.

People, in general, don't know what they want. This country would go nowhere if it followed everything on popular opinion polls.

I would personally like this country to lean towards an oligarchy, perhaps requiring people to take a general knowledge test before voting; or at an extreme: only college graduates could vote.

Jonas
12-09-2004, 05:34 AM
WOW!
The US has done "OK" for itself with the democracy. Why don't we just keep the country the way it is.
Hey, I wasn't super pumped with 8 years of Clinton, but i didn't want to leave or change the countries systems. MLEE2: Are you a Democrat?? I think you should call up the powers that be and pitch your new idea about stupid people not being able to vote to the head of the DNC (Howard Dean, or whoever) I think it would go over quite well :)
Since we are just kicking around solutions: How about going with John Edwards idea of 2 America's?
We could have a President (or Prime minister) for California and New York, and then A President for the rest of the country? GENIUS!

Brettolius
12-09-2004, 07:23 AM
all i know is " i've earned political capitol, and now i intend to spend it" sounds alot like " the death star is fully operational, lord vader, and we are ready to proceed as planned." yep....frightening

ty slothrop
12-09-2004, 09:55 AM
jonas, have a gander at this link. you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so don't be put off that it comes from Noo Yawk.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17633

now, i certainly don't expect you to read it all, but this article is from the most irreproachable publication in the country. some highlights:

Is self-censorship among US news organizations as widespread as Hamid says? The group he's referring to, of course, is television news, and it's here that most Americans get their news. For six weeks before the election I watched as much TV news as I could, constantly switching from one station to another.

Fox News continues to insist that it is "fair and balanced," but hardly anyone takes this seriously anymore. Still, I was not prepared for just how blatant and pervasive its bias was. This was apparent throughout the presidential campaign, with George Bush forever portrayed as resolute, principled, and plainspoken, and John Kerry as equivocating, elitist, and French.

The slant was evident in the coverage of the war as well. Whenever news about Iraq came on, the urgent words "War on Terror" appeared on the screen, thus helping to frame the war exactly as the President did. "Did the President and his administration take their eye off the ball in the war on terror?" Brit Hume asked one night. For an answer, Hume spoke with Richard Miniter, the author of Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror. No bias there. After the Washington Times reported the discovery in Iraq of a computer disk belonging to a Baath Party official that contained data showing the layout of six schools in the United States, Fox asked, "Can your school be a potential terrorist target?" This time, Fox turned to Jeffrey Beatty, a former Delta Force commander who, it so happens, runs an antiterrorist consulting firm. In fact, Beatty said, schools are potential terrorist targets, and they had better take precautionary measures now. On The O'Reilly Factor, the central question for weeks was "Should CBS fire Dan Rather?" Bill O'Reilly spent far more time dissecting Rather's mistakes at CBS than he did analyzing Bush's deeds in Iraq.

And that's how Fox wants it. The most striking feature of its coverage of the war in Iraq was, in fact, its lack of coverage. A good example occurred on the Saturday before the election. That morning, the US military announced that eight Marines had been killed and nine others wounded in attacks in the Sunni Triangle. It was the highest US death toll in nearly seven months. After reading the news on the Web, I tuned in to Fox's 11 AM news summary. It made no mention of the dead Marines. The next hour was taken up by a feverish program on hot stock picks. Then came the noon newscast. After spending ten minutes on the Osama bin Laden tape, the presidential campaign, and the tight race in Ohio, it finally got around to informing viewers of the Marines' deaths. It then spent all of twenty seconds on them. As it turned out, that Saturday was a particularly bloody day in Iraq, with a series of bombings, mortar attacks, and ambushes throughout the country. Viewers of Fox, however, saw little of it.

This formula has proved very popular. The O'Reilly Factor is currently the top-rated cable news show, and Fox's prime-time audience is on average twice as large as CNN's. That audience still trails far behind that of the traditional networks, but Fox has much more time to fill, and it does it with programming that is far more overtly ideological than anything else on TV. Its constant plugging of Bush, its persistent jabs at Kerry, its relentless insistence that Iraq is part of the war on terror and that both wars are going well—all have had their effect. According to election-day exit polls, 55 percent of voters regarded the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism, as opposed to 42 percent who saw it as separate. And 81 percent of the former voted for George Bush.

In some ways, the coverage of the war featured a battle as fierce as the political one between Democrats and Republicans, with the "red" medium of Fox slugging it out with the "blue" outlets of the Times and the Post, CBS and ABC. CNN seemed somewhere in between, careening wildly between an adherence to traditional news values on the one hand and a surrender to the titillating, overheated, nationalistic fare of contemporary cable on the other. In the end, CNN—influenced by Fox's success—seemed firmly in the latter camp. It offered the superficiality of Fox without any of its conviction. This hollowing out of CNN was, in a sense, an enormous victory for the Bush campaign. Overall, in analyzing the reasons for Bush's triumph, the impact of Fox News should not be overlooked.

Now, with President Bush preparing for a second term, what can we expect from the press in Iraq? The initial signs, from Falluja, are not encouraging. Even allowing for the constraints imposed by embedding, much of the press seemed unduly accepting of US claims, uncritically repeating commanders' assertions about the huge numbers of insurgents killed while underplaying the devastation in the city. And little attention was paid to the estimated 200,000 residents said to have fled Falluja in anticipation of the fighting. Amid US claims that the city had been "liberated," these refugees seemed invisible. But, in light of the coverage in recent months, this should have come as no surprise.

—November 16, 2004

PusherMan
12-09-2004, 01:01 PM
all i know is " i've earned political capitol, and now i intend to spend it" sounds alot like " the death star is fully operational, lord vader, and we are ready to proceed as planned." yep....frightening

And Kerry would NOT have the same mind set had he won the election???

You bet he would.

To the victor goes the spoils.

Craig Sheppard
12-09-2004, 01:32 PM
LOL Brettolius, really LMAO!

Wouldn't matter if he earned political capital or not, he'd find a way to spend it. Someone quick! Start tracking the political capital deficit! Of course it'd be the largest in history, but of course it wouldn't be the largest percentage relative to the national political capital debt--so that's ok. Err, I guess, well at least that's what the administration tells me. So if they say it's okay, it must be right...

:-S

Jonas
12-09-2004, 01:39 PM
Ty,
You need to actaully watch some of these progrrams instead of just getting facts from leftist sources. I have just about quit watching O'reilly on a few different occasions becuase of his DEFENSE of Rather. I know as well as you do, that Rather is a liberal and wanted the story so bad a few weeks out of the election that he was willing to take chance. Bill's stance is that Rather got faulty intelligence. He has taken some serious heat lately from Right wing talk show hosts, such as G. Gordan Liddy and some from Limbaugh. I just don't see how you can watch the O'reilly factor and honestly say that he is pushing Bush or the Republican agenda. He might be privately as left or right as it gets, but he does a fantastic job of objectively taking on both sides. Of course after the election the Democratic party has lost it, and is getting a lot more bad press than the Republican side becuase they are upset over the outcome of the election.
We can argue all day long about if fox is this or that, but neither side is going to deliver a knock out statement that will silence the other (agreed?)
Concerning my statement about the 2 America's, I understand that is not what JE meant. I was only being sarcastic.
I would like to ask you as a liberal, what do you think about the Red vs. Blue look at the map, and better yet the county by county breakdown of the red vs. blue counties?? It basically shows a Republican stronghold. Of course you know that these maps are not "Fox" produced, but are legit. What needs to be done to at least make it competitive??

Phil
12-09-2004, 02:56 PM
What needs to be done to at least make it competitive??

Ahh...take away the pick-up trucks and offer free college (or h.s.) courses? A diet rich in fiber, fruits and vegatables?

Max G.
12-09-2004, 03:38 PM
"What needs to be done to at least make it competitive??"

Well, draw a map in which county size is drawn proportional to population, not land area. After all, it's the people that are important.

Or, for example, color counties in according to their distribution - if a county voted 51% Bush and 49% Kerry, color it in with a color that is 51% red and 49% blue.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/

...or, not lying to the public would work too. It's surprising how many people still think Saddam and Iraq have a connection to 9/11...

don knot
12-09-2004, 04:20 PM
Has Kerry ever given up on Ohio? Or does he still have jackson and Sharpton out there trying to get it over turned:)
If i'm not mistaken didn't I hear him blame the media for his loss a week or so ago, Instead he should publicly thank and praise them. Without the media Kerry's loss would have been much larger.
Could someone explain the pick up trucks and free college/ hs post by Phil?

Jonas
12-09-2004, 04:23 PM
Hey Max,
Whatever you need to tell yourself to ease the pain :)
It's cool with me!

david aames
12-09-2004, 07:07 PM
Wow, you guys are still fighting over THIS?

Don, You're damn right. High school dropouts getting fat on burgers driving pick up trucks don't belong in the Grand Old Party. George should admit it, now that it's all over.

Could someone explain the pick up trucks and free college/ hs post by Phil?

thejerk
12-10-2004, 06:05 PM
Hey Slop, I noticed that your jounalists didn't blame terrorists for the chaos. Did they even remember that we are at war. Doesn't that give you even a small clue as to the integrety of your sources? Why are you socialists such sheep. Don't say your not sheep. You keep mentioning cities, I mean blue states, no wait, I mean cities. Sheep, why do you think the herd should be heard louder than the rest of us. You ever ate anything that someone else didn't grow or kill for you. I doubt it. Come on man, you think that because you live amongst the mob that you are more educated. College? Isn't that the place that produced such greats as Noame Chompski? I hear Marx spent some time in college. Is college the place you learn private property is evil?

Hey Slop, what connection did the Taliban have with 9/11 on 9/10? As far as I know, noone has shown that the Taliban knew or had operational knowledge of the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

Slop wrote, "JE's two America's was a lamentation about the current state of affairs, how the system that protected America's sizeable middle class while limiting the number of rich and poor is being systematically eroded." And thank Gd for the erosion. What kind of a moron wants to give the government the power to limit rich and poor. This was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. So your envy is greater than your love of freedom.

So you liked Kerry, a man who eats peanut butter and jelly so he can feel like one of the people. Only problem, other people make their own p&js. You want rich people to limit how many rich people there are?

ty slothrop
12-10-2004, 08:31 PM
"Hey Slop, I noticed that your jounalists didn't blame terrorists for the chaos. Did they even remember that we are at war. Doesn't that give you even a small clue as to the integrety of your sources?"

Uh, dude, did you even open the link I posted? It's an article about how reporters in the ground cannot report about the war or war atrocities because of fear of reprisal in the form of being cut off from government access, or (to give a generous reading) that the vagaries and nuances of war make factual reporting too inexact. and if you really think that terrorists are behind the iraq insurgency, well, you probably think that those thousands of liters of ricin and mustard gas will be turning up any day...

and as a matter of fact, you incoherent f*ck, I spent the first 18 years of my life on a tiny Indiana farm (in the family since 1853) that raised corn, soybeans, and hogs, not that it has anything to do with anything. guess what, it's rotting, rusting, and withering into dust! so yes, I will guaranf*ckingtee you I've eaten more food raised by my own two hands and immediate family than you could even imagine. and that's the truth, @sshole.

the rest of what you said is utterly incoherent, so i can't really comment. don't know why you think I'm a socialist or that i liked kerry. and let me tell you, you are one ringing endorsement for not going to college! also don't know why you brought up the taliban or 9/11 in relation to my posting about the media coverage, except to say you must be one of the dimwitted *******s who still thinks iraq had something to do with 9/11. talk about blind sheep!!

so all in all, nice post, great work out of you! please, more helpings of the same!

thejerk
12-11-2004, 12:33 PM
In case you didn't know it, they have found ricin and mustard gas. I don't care if Iraq had something to with 9/11. I don't even know if the Taliban had something to do with 9/11. I brought up the Taliban because all they did was harbor terrorists and allow their training camps. Hussein has harbored terrorists. Hussein was harboring terrorists from Afganistan and other locations. He also plotted the assassination of GB1.

Are you telling me Hussein was the only terrorist over there that wasn't a terrorist? Do you actually believe Hussein posed no threat? Are you telling me that The Iranians and Syrians aren't helping the insurgency. Just where are the magic bombs and sh** coming from. Let me guess the insurgents are working by day (earning money to buy parts and build bombs guns and ammo) and becoming super hero fighters by night.

You said this, "and if you really think that terrorists are behind the iraq insurgency, well, you probably think that those thousands of liters of ricin and mustard gas will be turning up any day." Let me guess, freedom fighters are blowing up cars at police stations. Freedom fighters are threatening schools if Americans come to them handing out candy. Freedom fighers are the ones leaving dead women and children in mosques to frame the american military. It must be freedom fighters, threatening violence at the polls.

Why do I call you a socialist? You wrote this in what seemed endorsement, "JE's two America's was a lamentation about the current state of affairs, how the system that protected America's sizeable middle class while limiting the number of rich and poor is being systematically eroded." In case you didn't know, the two americas concept came straight from a communist writer. This is simply redistribution. Ok if you endorse your own quote, then maybe, just maybe, you are a socialist.

You know what's real funny? My mother is actually a socialist pig farmer. Not like that can't happen.

Well, Big City, I would submit that if you learned it was the governments job to limit rich and poor, you should have stayed on the farm.

I will apologize if I pegged you wrong. I did read the link. I found it offensive in its small misleading way. What attrocities? The so called attrocities that would only make the US look bad, aren't convincing to me. Funny thing is, you can't stand fox, but all the socialist writers are to be believed without question. KGB couldn't have written a better story. Do you not realize that every concievable victory our enemy can have will be in the public opinion arena. The arena , in which, your reporters operate. Some of those embeds are clearly chearing for the enemy. They can't be on both sides. Nuance aside, I know you love nuance, there is no grey area. Afraid the pig farm didn't prepare you for all the bull***t, college was going to throw your way.

mlee2
12-11-2004, 10:57 PM
Jerk,

There will ALWAYS be socialist concepts in our country as there will ALWAYS be some aspects pure capitalism.

The entire concept of our tax system IS redistribution--a communist idea -- at its best.

Our country will (hopefully) never be a full socialist country but I don't see why you have such a disdain over something like government sponsorship of giving some (not a lot) money to people who could really need it.

Regading (the overly rehashed) topic of Iraq, it's said time and time again: it's a lesser of two evils argument. There are too many other threats to America for us to even touch Iraq. N. Korea is actually quoted on wanting to turn the "West Coast into cinders" with its weapons. Iran has always aimed for nuclear weapons in an open forum, etc. etc.

thejerk
12-12-2004, 12:26 PM
Mlee, you are correct about N Korea. You are also correct about Iran. You are incorrect about Iraq. For N. Korea there is this, not so small, problem of China. The Chinese government has, in the past, said they would hang us with rope bought from us. How would you propose dealing with NK? Iran doesn't have umpteen UN resolutions against them. The Iranians atleast have a semblance of democracy. They're population is probably the most pro American in the region. Imo, the islamo-fascists within Iran want nukes to intimidate, not only external enemies, but internal pro western factions. The Islamo-fascists fear their own streets.

Hussein also tried to get nukes. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but Hussein was actively involved with Libya's now abandoned nuclear program. Iraq was already weakened by sactions, however, Hussein was strengthened by them. He was an expansionist. Only America had the resources and will to stop his former expansions. I am not sure if you understand leverage. Hussein kept records of his deals with other powers so that he would have leverage. The powers (nations, companies, and diplomats) dealing with Saddam were bought. The only leverage they had against him were sanctions. The sanctions were eroding.

I believe Hussein was giving money and support to international terrorists. He obviously wouldn't keep records of that. How exactlyl would you prove he was giving support? The simple answer to me is that he is Saddam Hussein. Don't think anything could have gotten better, he had two sons, one of which, wasn't a complete mental defect. You have to completely ignore everything Saddam has done since taking power, and completely ignore his open support for terror to say he posed no threat. He should have been taken out before but GB1 allowed the socialist UN to dictate the terms of surrender.

Mlee, I don't want to make anyone mad, but I don't have disdain for socialism, I have complete and total hatred of it. I saps the people's will to freedom. As an example, look at Russia. The old communists did everything they could to keep capitolism from gaining a foothold after Glasnost. The people in Russian lived under communism so long their will to freedom is gone. They have willing givin Putin control of their media. For a few rubels they beg Putin to be their next dictator.

In the Ukraine, for just a few rubels and crumbs, the socialists willingly let their leaders poison the opposition.

In Spain, well, that is self-evident.

In America, the government gets your paycheck before you. Races have become dependent on politicians for their livlihood.

Socialism is insidious. What seems like social good quickly becomes dependence. Socialism allows the ruling classes to hold and consolidate power. Socialism is buying power for politicians.

America proves that the more rich people, the higher the standard of living for everybody. Disparity of income is a red herring. Who cares if joe schmoe makes 1 trillion times more than joe schmuck? As long as both of them have what they earned and was is theirs. Face it, some people will be poor no matter what you do for them.

When the governmemt owes you a living it owns you.

mlee2
12-12-2004, 02:30 PM
Jerk,

To me, all you've given about Hussein are conspiracy theories. You can say what you just said about him to describe a lot of despots around the world. I know he talked with Libya about weapons but hey, a lot of other countries did the exact same thing including America. Hussein was quoted on wanting to better relations with America, couple months before the invasion began: hardly someone I call a threat to America, even though he's full of sh*t.

As for socialism, you've given European examples. You described what the extremes of communism can do, and you know that. You're being intellectually dishonest here. I don't want our country to look like some tax-cheating Euro-snobbery class system either.

But the simple fact is (IMO) all people deserve to be given basic rights like crappy food, shelter, and basic medical care, despite however lazy they might be. As the richest country in the world, we can certainly afford it, and literally enough food to feed four to five times our population.

You said: America proves that the more rich people, the higher the standard of living for everybody.

Again, that's taxes at work. Although subtle, it is a socialist concept.

I agree that income disparity isn't a big deal but at a certain point, 1 trillion dollars becomes a number of bragging, not of living. I would put poor people's well-beings over one person's bragging rights of income. Are you trying to say people who have that much don't need to pay taxes, because they worked hard to deserve it all? Our redistribution system isn't perfect and admittedly does encourage laziness in some. BUt that percentage is small, the majority of people on welfare are hard-working people. I say this from direct experience, not speculation.

I can turn this discussion around and describe how the evils of (extreme) free-market capitalism created the Great Depression and massive turmoil over the whole country, but hey I know better.

You said: Socialism is insidious. What seems like social good quickly becomes dependence. Socialism allows the ruling classes to hold and consolidate power. Socialism is buying power for politicians.

Again, I can turn this around and say look at who is sitting at the fundraiser tables of America's politicians: CEOs and leaders of powerful organizations. Hardly anyone who looks like Joe Schmuck.

Point in summary: Socialism concpets exist in our country, as well as capitalism. Deal with it, they both can coexist. Capitalism won't die just because taxes are raised.

thejerk
12-12-2004, 07:10 PM
Mlee, I'll answer that one tomorrow.

Phil
12-12-2004, 08:05 PM
Well, we're all waiting for that. With baited breath.

thejerk
12-16-2004, 11:01 PM
M, Hussein did more than talk with Libya, he provided scientists and money.
I don't know how you get capitalism as the cause of The Great Depression. It seems to me that governments across the globe interfering with the free market caused the crash. After WW1, war debts crushed many economies. True, production over ran demand, but I believe the free market would have eventually evened things out. If governments had left their economies alone, the crash wouldn't have been as bad. Instead, through socialist ideas, governments exacerbated the problems. For example, the US instituted protectionist acts (politicians giving the people what they wanted even though economists told them disaster would come) causing other countries already in great debt to fall even further. Around the world, import and export markets were crushed. Please explain how capitolism caused The Great Depression.

I'm not even sure what you mean by pure capitalism or socialism. In a pure capitolist society, would monopolies be allowed? I don't consider monopolies capitalism. Monopolies interfere with the free market. That is just an aside. I was just taking a stab at what you meant by pure capitalism. As far as I know, companies colluding to fix prices is contrary to capitalism, the free market, and the free flow of goods.

People have the right to food and all the other things you mentioned. Tell me why producers should be punished(in the form of higher taxes) and non-producers subsidized in the form of government handouts. The quality of life in the US has nothing to do with redistribution.

Socialism is giving the government control over production. Most socialists don't even know they are socialists. Feeling good is why they vote for socialists(democrats). People believe that good intentions are a good enough reason to do something. They pay no attention to results. In a word, they give up oversight. Socialism undermines private property. I am not even talking about states. If a state of the US wants to become commie, I say let them. My only concern is with the Federal Government. A commie state would quickly collapse and be a great example.

I found a couple articles that Ty should read. They are written by David Horowitz. He was a leftist in the day. I remember him from when I was between 10 and 15. My mother is a hard core socialist, so growing up I indoctinated myself with her magazines, journals, and newspapers. I'd skip school and go through all her old papers. She had quite a library of socialist crap. I've read many of the writers Horowitz mentions. I only bring up these articles because of the journalists Ty was tauting in an earlier post. Ty's journalists seem to be neo-coms.

I try not to use links. These articles are long and I'm sure you won't like the author, but if you have patients and read them, you will atleast see where I'm coming from.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7590

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7396