who do you support?

[powermongor]

Just a friendly poll.

[Drakeon]

Kerry's going to win the poll as this forum is heavily liberal.

I voted for Bush though, as thats the person I plan to vote for in november.

[powermongor]

Kerry's going to win the poll as this forum is heavily liberal.

I voted for Bush though, as thats the person I plan to vote for in november.
I think you will be surprised. I think that a lot of in-the-middle libs are starting to see the light. :idea:

[Eiger]

I think you will be surprised. I think that a lot of in-the-middle libs are starting to see the light. :idea:
That's kinda funny - the person with 22 posts in this forum telling the person with 2,005 posts that he might be surprised on how the forum's likely to go.

BTW - in the general populace Bush's negatives are rising due to the continuing war revelations and due to Farenheit 9/11. Kerry's remaining steady. You've got the tide table backwards...

[Havard]

Bush (big surprise :uhhuh: )

[Eiger]

This is a good one! Bush wants to be the "peace" president. Hehe. ROFL

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040720/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc

[powermongor]

That's kinda funny - the person with 22 posts in this forum telling the person with 2,005 posts that he might be surprised on how the forum's likely to go.

BTW - in the general populace Bush's negatives are rising due to the continuing war revelations and due to Farenheit 9/11. Kerry's remaining steady. You've got the tide table backwards...

Bush's negatives are distorted by the media. They are still in a statistical dead heat, and have been for months, no matter what you think. What will matter is how the electoral votes fall.

The media has been merciless, but people are getting sick and tired of them.

Oh, and about Michael Moore, there's some pretty revealing stuff right around the corner. Mark my words, after this election is over, Michael Moore's own stupidity and arrogance will be the saving grace of Bush's campaign.

[Dementor]

What if Michael Moore was a conservative?

I'm sure that if he was, right now the country would be convinced that John Kerry personally executed a baby in Vietnam. Would he come out and say that? No. But he'd make people believe it.

Nerf Moore.

[SaroDarksbane]

I vote for Cthulhu.

Why choose the lesser of two evils?

[Ryu]

kerry all the way
he is the man out of all of them
replace bush with nader and ill vote for nader tho

[Ryu]

http://www.georgewgirls.com/
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/index.html?orgid=EA071904&MX=1414&H=1
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=874
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ Bush was the first president to enter office with a criminal record

Couple links about Bush and his administration

[The_Iron_Raven]

Heres another movie to help your opinions:
http://www.jibjab.com

Its HILARIOUS!
I personally dont trust either of them, because their both crooks, but Kerry's the lesser of two evils, BUT The US has suffered in the pastt by choosing the lesser of two evils, so i dont like either of them.

Example of this is Osama Bin Laden, which the CIA trained to do exactly what he's doing right now to other countries, but did it to us.

[Ryu]

or were they really the lesser of the two evils or just decieving people?
hard to say for sure and hard to say if past presidential losers would have been better or not

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Kerry's going to win the poll as this forum is heavily liberal.

I voted for Bush though, as thats the person I plan to vote for in november.

Hail Bush! :lol:

Though "liberals" are most populous here, we can't make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges :uhhuh:. Leaders are few, underlings are many. buhahahhaha :lol: :winner:

[Owmyeye]

Nader, the lesserest evil.

[Ryu]

nader the lesserest evil but the greatest threat of putting the greatest evil in power so he becomes on the same evilness level as bush, if it were just kerry and nader then id say nader and i think a lot of ppl would too

[ekim]

I fall right smack in the middle with my political views.

I dont like Kerry. He doesnt look like hes has much substance.

I dont like Bush. He's a dimwit. There's no way what so ever that I will EVER select his name on an election ballot. Peace president my ***.

Kerry gets my vote.

[Ryu]

ekim im somewhat with you but i do agree with more kerry things then bush things although i like pro-life im not against *** marriage etc
plus bush has shown us the type of president he can be, kerry has yet too, and i doubt he can f up as much as bush who took us from a HUGE(like 4 trillion or more not sure) to a deficit and spending social security ONLY money he promised not to when being elected and during first bit of time
bring back clinton!!!

[Drakeon]

I think you will be surprised. I think that a lot of in-the-middle libs are starting to see the light. :idea:

Ehh, not really. As you can already see kerry is winning, it won't get any better as time gets on.

The reason I don't argue in the conservative view is because I don't have the time or effort to keep up with Eiger and the others (mastgrr, etc.). Typically the political topics end up with several of the "liberals" (really wish I could use a better word, but you know what I mean) against one or two republicans/conservatives. AoA tends to be conservative (from what I've seen, thats probably what I'd classify him) but he lives in sweden and typically stays out of american political threads.

[Sage the Mage]

Bush was the first president to enter office with a criminal record

You should rephrase that: "Bush was the first president who didn't cover up his criminal record well."

I forget if I explained it here or not...
When you vote for Bush, you must remember you're also voting for Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, as well as someone else who'll replace Powell when he leaves after this term.

The main thing about Kerry though, he manages to look like an ******* when he's telling the truth, whereas Bush can lie pretty well.

[Zomboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ Bush was the first president to enter office with a criminal record

Where exactly in that article does it mention that? I see no proof. Anyways, Sage is right. Even if he was the first with a public criminal record, it doesn't mean any of the others never commited crimes before entering office.

[Adamwsat]

The best man for the job!
My choice for president! (http://www.cthulhu.org/)

[Havard]

The reason I don't argue in the conservative view is because I don't have the time or effort to keep up with Eiger and the others (mastgrr, etc.). Typically the political topics end up with several of the "liberals" (really wish I could use a better word, but you know what I mean) against one or two republicans/conservatives.

Nawwww.... they would never do that. :uhhuh:

AoA tends to be conservative (from what I've seen, thats probably what I'd classify him) but he lives in sweden and typically stays out of american political threads.

LMAO....

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehe.. I'm not from sweden! haha I'm from Canada :).

[Eiger]

Bush's negatives are distorted by the media.


How's that? Care to elaborate and back that up?

[Havard]

Why bother? No matter what source anyone cites, you will dismiss it as biased, propagandist or low grade journalism.

Funny how only the liberal news outlets are "fair and balanced."

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehe.. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Eiger]

Why bother? No matter what source anyone cites, you will dismiss it as biased, propagandist or low grade journalism.

Funny how only the liberal news outlets are "fair and balanced."
Nah, I just tagged that one source you used that is a republican propaganda site. There's lots of good sources out there - both conservative, liberal and middle of the road, you just picked a bad one and got called on it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

*google search, google search!!* "na na na naaa naaaaaa" :flip:

[Adamwsat]

Something kind of funny about Bush that most people don't know.....
During his inauguration he had them play "Born in the USA".....
He must have not noticed the lyrics besides "I was, Born in the USA" because the lyrics without those lines make a poor choice for a song for a presidents inauguration:
Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go


What is Bush trying to say by this?
A- That he wants to let another Vietnam happen.
B- That he was born in the USA.
C- That he doesn't know how to listen to the words of a song.
D- All of the above.

[Sage the Mage]

This is needed again:

I bring you...
Governor Bush vs President Bush (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html)

[Havard]

Whatever Eiger... I announced that source as conservative upon posting it.... before you "called me on it." :uhhuh: Look at my post, #12 in the thread (http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=216219).

No, I was more referring your general belief that the media has a conservative bias.

[Havard]

What is Bush trying to say by this?
A- That he wants to let another Vietnam happen.
B- That he was born in the USA.
C- That he doesn't know how to listen to the words of a song.
D- All of the above.

E - The chorus sounds good, but nobody can understand Bruce's lyrics in the verses.

[Eiger]

No, I was more referring your general belief that the media has a conservative bias.
However, I haven't trashed sources "because the media has a conservative bias." So, you're just basically trying to "increase my negatives" in a manner of speaking. You should run for political office. :lol:

[Adamwsat]

If he couldn't understand it then why'd he play it? I heard it on the radio the other day, and my mom told me about how Bush played it and I understood most of it.

[Havard]

However, I haven't trashed sources "because the media has a conservative bias." So, you're just basically trying to "increase my negatives" in a manner of speaking. You should run for political office. :lol:

Hold on a second, you trashed those very sources you just brought up because they were conservative, as if being conservative makes one unable to speak the truth. Also, you commented on their ability to speak on social issues because "economists are notoriously poor social commentators", making an easy excuse to ignore them.

[Eiger]

Hold on a second, you trashed those very sources you just brought up because they were conservative, as if being conservative makes one unable to speak the truth. Also, you commented on their ability to speak on social issues because "economists are notoriously poor social commentators", making an easy excuse to ignore them.
Don't you think there's a difference between trashing a source because of the reasons noted above (which I did do) and trashing a source "because the media has a conservative bias" (which I did not do)?

[Havard]

Don't you think there's a difference between trashing a source because of the reasons noted above (which I did do) and trashing a source "because the media has a conservative bias" (which I did not do)?

Sure, but I don't think the media has a conservative bias... you do. With your general belief about the media, you label individual sources such as Time Magazine (huh???) conservative.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Heh.. I'll say that trashing any source, for whatever reason is folly if you can't substantiate it :uhhuh:.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hehe.. I'll readily agree with havard that the media is heavy-duty liberal biased. THis need not be understood in terms of fronting a particular political establishment, but rather in promoting a certain methodology - which in the case of the media, is essentially focused on liberal values in their reporting. I have a friend who is a news anchor in buffalo, and I always catch her on her voice inflection (as well as the legions of other media ppl), when aspects of policy and values arise.

[Bartleby]

We all remember Dan Quayle right? Smart guy, piss poor public speaker who stumbled when speaking off the cuff and created some of the best fodder for jokes. Well he brought us a new one, but this one is actually poignant:

And all of those that criticized me for my youth and inexperience back in 1988 and are trying to give John Edwards a free pass, they owe me a big-time apology.
- Dan Quayle on John Edwards' almost complete lack of credentials for VP.

For those of you that don't know, John Edwards has almost zero experience and back in 1988 Quayle had a very accomplished record at 41 years old (but that still left him with only 12 years or so of experience). He's commenting on the double standard in the media and how he got torn apart day in day out by the press, where as today we have Edwards with considerably less experience or accomplishments in government, but who is getting a free pass.

[Havard]

All you need to do is look at the current coverage of the Sandy Berger scandal:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040721.asp#1

Further...

The Washington Post ran the story at the top of page 2 and The New York Times played the story at the bottom of Page 16!!!

[Ryu]

about all the liberal stuff
LIBERAL (n.) a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. (adj.) showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; having political or social views favoring reform and progress; tolerant of change; given or giving freely; willing to give and share unstintingly; having or showing active concern for protection of civil liberties protected by law; of or belonging to the political or intellectual left; inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own; having or demonstrating belief in the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual.

CONSERVATIVE (n.) a person who has conservative ideas or opinions. (adj.) resistant to change; opposed to liberal reforms; unimaginatively conventional; conformist; pompously ultraconservative and nationalistic; old fashioned and out of date; stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded; adhering to what is commonly accepted…


Definitions from: visualthesaurus.com/online


Yes, I am a liberal thank you very much

[Bartleby]

Let's have a hand for a perfect example of what leftist propoganda looks like, gj Ryu, keep up the good work. I'm beginning to understand why you bought into that silly clip you posted.

How about a reputable source for definitions, Merriam Webster perhaps?

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

Now that seems a bit more even handed as well as informative. That being said, I fall somewhere in the middle: gradual and fiscally responsible progress utilizing established institutions and stressing the protection of civil liberties and equality with respect to the tax burden.

[Eiger]

Heh.. I'll say that trashing any source, for whatever reason is folly if you can't substantiate it :uhhuh:.
Hehe - that website he linked to didn't require any other substantiation than a click. It was full of conservative ads, offers for dubya hats, and other gobbledygook.

[Havard]

Hehe - that website he linked to didn't require any other substantiation than a click. It was full of conservative ads, offers for dubya hats, and other gobbledygook.

So because a conservative syndicated columnist's column appears on a conservative web site, he/she is automatically unable to express honest or insightful views?

You start anti-Bush/republican threads all the time, so by your rationale, I should dismiss any of your posts due to bias.

[Eiger]

Let's have a hand for a perfect example of what leftist propoganda looks like, gj Ryu, keep up the good work. I'm beginning to understand why you bought into that silly clip you posted.

How about a reputable source for definitions, Merriam Webster perhaps?

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

Now that seems a bit more even handed as well as informative. That being said, I fall somewhere in the middle: gradual and fiscally responsible progress utilizing established institutions and stressing the protection of civil liberties and equality with respect to the tax burden.
Just a nicer way of saying the same thing. ;)

[Bartleby]

Ryu, I checked out visual thesarus to see how some company could be so blatantly one sided, and I found that along with definitions, you are also given associated and possible alternatives to the given word.
Go figure you cherry picked the nastiest stuff you could find that was 3-4 levels away from the original word definition. I apologize for calling your source leftist propoganda, you are the source of the propoganda. That was a Moore-ism if ever I've seen one.
That's just sad...

[Ryu]

i pasted it from another site sry, didnt bother checking myself
by your def im still proudly a liberal

[AgeOfAbnegation]

about all the liberal stuff
LIBERAL (n.) a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. (adj.) showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; having political or social views favoring reform and progress; tolerant of change; given or giving freely; willing to give and share unstintingly; having or showing active concern for protection of civil liberties protected by law; of or belonging to the political or intellectual left; inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own; having or demonstrating belief in the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual.

CONSERVATIVE (n.) a person who has conservative ideas or opinions. (adj.) resistant to change; opposed to liberal reforms; unimaginatively conventional; conformist; pompously ultraconservative and nationalistic; old fashioned and out of date; stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded; adhering to what is commonly accepted…


Definitions from: visualthesaurus.com/online


Yes, I am a liberal thank you very much


Definitions like these are part of the reason why people are brainwashed into a "liberal mentality".

[Ryu]

im not brainwashed, i didnt even know what a liberal or conservative were til like a week ago, just knew what issues were important to me which require change hence being a liberal

[Bartleby]

I apologize, I thought it was your spin. Be careful Ryu, that site you pasted from is going to rot your brain. It's unbelievably one-sided.

To be honest, if the parties actually followed those defined philosophies I think we'd be okay either way, but the fact is they're all a bunch of money-grubbing, self-interested, power mongers who only give a **** about people because they need the votes to get re-elected. Once they're in they do whatever they please and do their best to make their opponent look like a worse option (lesser of two evils) than themself when it comes time for re-election.

The only people that pay attention to the philosophies are the voters. I'm glad you identify yourself with the concept of liberalism as defined, there's merit in it. There's also merit in the philosophy in conservatism, as well as the philosophies of libertarianism, and everything else in between. Philosophies are the ideal that politicians rarely practice.

My gripe with you was that you were shamelessly, albeit unknowingly, slandering a philosophy in which I see great value. And after having Michael Moore on the brain most of the day I got cranky. Just be careful to see where the author is coming from and/or what is their agenda.

[Havard]

Yay! Everyone have a beer and make up :buddies:

[Ryu]

Erm ive never been to that site, guess i shoulda checked it out before pasting it huh?
sorry heh
convservation is needed sometimes but with environment and other topics liberalism is NEEDED in the CORRECT direction

[Eiger]

Hehe.. I'll readily agree with havard that the media is heavy-duty liberal biased. THis need not be understood in terms of fronting a particular political establishment, but rather in promoting a certain methodology - which in the case of the media, is essentially focused on liberal values in their reporting. I have a friend who is a news anchor in buffalo, and I always catch her on her voice inflection (as well as the legions of other media ppl), when aspects of policy and values arise.
Nice. A sample with an n of one. As in one data point.

Okie dokie. I guess we have to go through this yet again.

Newspapers are the most conservative medium with nearly every newspaper showing a conservative bias on it's op-ed page, the columnists it uses (more conservatives, couple centrists, few liberals), placement of stories, use of headlines, candidate endorsements, and news treatment of political candidates. A great example is the all out trashing of Bill Clinton from day one, the treatment of Gore vs. Bush in 2000 where Bush received an extraordinarily greater number of positive stories and much fewer negative ones than Gore, etc.

Now of course, there are a few liberal bastions in print such as the LA Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. However, the vast majority of big papers even including the Seattle Times here in liberal city are conservative.

Newspaper owners, being pillars of the establishment, tend to be conservative. They hire publishers to make sure the paper is run the way they want it run. This quote from http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html says it well: You don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the private views of individual journalists often matter little.

Even the head of the Republican National Committee said in the mid 90's that the idea of a liberal media was hogwash and had been for some time. Now if that's not a top source, I don't know what is. Can't remember the reference off the top of my head, but I've got the quote at home.

Check this link out for similar comments by James Baker and Patrick Buchanan: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

Why does everyone think there's a liberal media? Repetition of course. You've heard it forever because every conservative candidate says it (as Baker or someone notes in link above. Also, check this out for more info along these lines as well as some corroboration of other things said above: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

Here's an essay on why the media's not liberal, complete with references: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm The summary is: The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

Here's a site with links to other sites regarding media bias being conservative rather than liberal: http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/lm.htm (saves me from pasting all those things in, hehe).

[Havard]

(Load of b.s.)



Laughable.

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

In 1997, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) retained the Lou Harris Organization to poll 3,000 people about their attitudes toward the press. According to the poll, those who saw a liberal bias outnumbered those who perceived a conservative bias by two-to-one. The results of the poll were published in the May/June 1997 Media Monitor, the CMPA’s newsletter and in the MRC's October 1997 MediaWatch.

In February 2003, The Gallup Organization polled 1,002 adult Americans about the media’s accuracy and objectivity. By three-to-one, more Americans said that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%). 63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to one conducted by the same group (then known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates and the report was released May 23, 2004. In that poll, five times more national outlet journalists identified themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). Just over half of the journalists (54 percent) said they were “moderate.” Also, the percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004.


"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will."
-- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful."
-- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002

[Bartleby]

I'm sorry, but most people I know get there info from sources other than a newspaper, primarily television and the internet. The internet is a bastion of relevant information and stupidity alike (you have to know where to look), but you're tv news stations are heavily slanted liberal(Fox being one exception). Quick example: Why else would the media at large give a Edwards a free pass on his absolute lack of experience, while riding Quayle the whole 9 yards for the same reason (even though Quayle had way more experience and accomplishments in the political arena)? They even ragged Quayle saying how could he represent the little guy when he's worth 20mill. Turns out he was worth about 1mill, but what about Edwards... the guy's loaded, but not a peep.
Eiger, you can site all the essays you want, but I can see the slant every time I click on the nightly news.

[Sage the Mage]

Local papers aren't taken into acount are they?
Here's mine (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/Page/RTD_FrontPage)

In February 2003, The Gallup Organization polled 1,002 adult Americans about the media’s accuracy and objectivity. By three-to-one, more Americans said that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%). 63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.

That statistic has zero relavance, I dunno why its included.

[Havard]

Local papers aren't taken into acount are they?

No, there are 621 "national" newspapers. :uhhuh:

That statistic has zero relavance, I dunno why its included.

Really?

If most people think the media is too left of them, then the media isn't representing them, is it?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - as we've discussed before, liberal and conservative are just labels - that change over time. Data takes a back seat to method in this case - as the same data with different presentation will have differernt effects. Admittedly, I know very little about american politics, and as such you'll rarely see me on those threads. One thing I do know however is the situation in Canada, where liberal (and perhaps socialist in some cases) values are shoved down our throats by choice of contet, and context and tone of presentation. Our hard copy media only offers one choice - "you're an absolute fool if you think conservatively".

Before our recent national election, a flyer was put out, educating us about "choices". To the discerning eye, all the selections were presented in language that steered the reader to one choice - the liberal party, and outlined key features of the NDP, which IMO will be ruling canada in 20 years.

[Eiger]

Laughable.


Yup, what you've said is basically true. However, my post above points out why individual journalists' opinions are generally irrelevant due to their position in the power structure.

Yes, the people tend to believe that the media is liberal. Thanks for showing exactly how bad the problem is. We already knew that though. Just because the people think something is true, doesn't make it so. They have bought the propaganda they've been fed for so many years - and this is why I push this little agenda of mine - to get through to a few people that they have been lied to.

Thanks for supporting my positions with your data.

[Havard]

And thanks for taking 2 of the 4 of the polls out of context, and adding your own spin.

----
In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to one conducted by the same group (then known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates and the report was released May 23, 2004. In that poll, five times more national outlet journalists identified themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). Just over half of the journalists (54 percent) said they were “moderate.” Also, the percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004.

--------

Edit: I was a bit too harsh in my original response :innocent:

[Eiger]

I'm sorry, but most people I know get there info from sources other than a newspaper, primarily television and the internet. The internet is a bastion of relevant information and stupidity alike (you have to know where to look), but you're tv news stations are heavily slanted liberal(Fox being one exception). Quick example: Why else would the media at large give a Edwards a free pass on his absolute lack of experience, while riding Quayle the whole 9 yards for the same reason (even though Quayle had way more experience and accomplishments in the political arena)? They even ragged Quayle saying how could he represent the little guy when he's worth 20mill. Turns out he was worth about 1mill, but what about Edwards... the guy's loaded, but not a peep.
Eiger, you can site all the essays you want, but I can see the slant every time I click on the nightly news.
You've got a fair point. And Quayle's kinda pissed about this, hehe. But then Edwards is respected and Quayle was an idiot and embarrassment who people are still making jokes about. I suspect that's more the difference on media treatment.

As for the nightly news, yikes! I grew up watching Al Schottelkotte on channel 9. Talk about conservative... I don't know too much about the tv news as I don't watch it much and most evidence is print related. So I'll leave that part of the discussion mostly to others.

[Eiger]

And thanks for taking 2 of the 4 of the polls out of context, and adding your own spin.

----
In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to one conducted by the same group (then known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates and the report was released May 23, 2004. In that poll, five times more national outlet journalists identified themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). Just over half of the journalists (54 percent) said they were “moderate.” Also, the percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004.

--------

Edit: I was a bit too harsh in my original response :innocent:Out of context how? I pointed out that it doesn't much matter what journalists think. It's what they write that matters. Editors and publishers do a fine job of "keeping them in line".

[Lord Chad]

Well I would vote for nader but he has a bigger ego than me.Then again I would vote for kerry but he doesnt like to kill people so forget him.I would vote for george bush but I am smarter than him.So I vote for....my cat Tiger!Who will be my right hand man in my new nation.

[Havard]

Out of context how? I pointed out that it doesn't much matter what journalists think. It's what they write that matters. Editors and publishers do a fine job of "keeping them in line".

I mentioned two kinds of polls: 1) people's opinion of the media and 2) the media members' political stances.

So "out of context" referred to the fact that your first post only addressed the first kind of polls, not both provided in my post. And in addressing these, you interpreted them to your favor, as meaning that people have fallen for the liberal media lie/propaganda. As you put it: "Just because the people think something is true, doesn't make it so." That is a fair point, but it doesn't tell us much, IMO.

There are two explanations, and we can't just assume yours is the right one without a debate. You said that people see a bias because of propaganda. I say they see a bias because they commonly see views and slants put forth that don't agree with. Now, giving people (myself included) the benefit of the doubt is important, so I would say that this propaganda would have to be very subtle and sinister in order to confuse intelligent people so. Can you somehow show that propaganda, not real differences, is the reason for the bias charge?

In your second, more recent post, you reflected upon the other kind of polls, but mentioned editors keeping journalists "in line". I don't know where the evidence is for that, but the 2004 poll I cited included media executives. Further, the National Survey of the Role of Polls in Policymaking, completed by Princeton Survey Research Associates in June 2001, questioned 1,206 members of the public and 301 media professionals, including both reporters and editors from top newspapers, TV and radio networks, news services and news magazines. In the section that looks at survey results relative to members of the public and media professionals, their findings showed that members of the public were six times more likely than members of the media to consider themselves "conservative", and seven times more likely to identify themselves as "Republican."

[Eiger]

I mentioned two kinds of polls: 1) people's opinion of the media and 2) the media members' political stances.

So "out of context" referred to the fact that your first post only addressed the first kind of polls, not both provided in my post. And in addressing these, you interpreted them to your favor, as meaning that people have fallen for the liberal media lie/propaganda. As you put it: "Just because the people think something is true, doesn't make it so." That is a fair point, but it doesn't tell us much, IMO.

There are two explanations, and we can't just assume yours is the right one without a debate. You said that people see a bias because of propaganda. I say they see a bias because they commonly see views and slants put forth that don't agree with. Now, giving people (myself included) the benefit of the doubt is important, so I would say that this propaganda would have to be very subtle and sinister in order to confuse intelligent people so. Can you somehow show that propaganda, not real differences, is the reason for the bias charge?

In your second, more recent post, you reflected upon the other kind of polls, but mentioned editors keeping journalists "in line". I don't know where the evidence is for that, but the 2004 poll I cited included media executives. Further, the National Survey of the Role of Polls in Policymaking, completed by Princeton Survey Research Associates in June 2001, questioned 1,206 members of the public and 301 media professionals, including both reporters and editors from top newspapers, TV and radio networks, news services and news magazines. In the section that looks at survey results relative to members of the public and media professionals, their findings showed that members of the public were six times more likely than members of the media to consider themselves "conservative", and seven times more likely to identify themselves as "Republican."
The problem is that people's opinions and perceptions are very subjective - and not necessarily based in reality. How much of how people perceive the media's leanings is based on their interpretation of what they actually read in the newspaper (especially since fewer and fewer people are reading newspapers) and how much is based on their hearing time and again from pundits and word of mouth (as in here in the forums) that the media is liberal? Who knows? That would be a fairly difficult research project I'd imagine. And if one did it, how valid and reliable would it really be? There are lots of parameters to cover and lots of assumptions to identify. Very difficult indeed. It'd make for a hell of a dissertation though.

The best way to determine whether or not this is true is to pursue objective means. Some examples would be to look at op-ed columns and tally conservative vs. liberal positions; or to count the relative numbers of conservative vs. liberal syndicated columnists which are run; tally which party gets the most endorsements; tally the number of articles presenting candidates in positive and negative lights, etc.

As for the impact of journalists personal views on what they write? I think I've addressed that one adequately already.

[Unreg!stered]

Here's how I break down this election:

Both candidates are spewing all kinds of promises and good, vague ideas about how they're going to make the country better in some way or form for the "average" American. The media is taking what they say and do and spinning it to whatever aims they have (whether it be liberal or conservative). Hence the trash you see on television won't give an accurate account of what a person will be like as head of the country. I've always found it better to look at what a person has done, especially the incumbant (if there is one as there is this year) and then deciding who I vote for based on that.

For this election I don't feel that Bush has really done a bang up job as president. I think he made several key mistakes during his term. However, Kerry's record doesn't seem any better. One particularly glaring issue I see is that he voted for the war, and then voted against spending more money to better equip our troops in Iraq. While it's good to have someone who's willing to admit they made a mistake and change their mind it is not such a good idea to try and make a point by risking the lives of our soldiers. There's no reason the troops should suffer because Kerry doesn't agree anymore with the war. (Although I do agree that military spending is waaaay out of hand)

As of right now I'm very much undecided, and voting for Nader won't help much of anything. It will be an election where we pick the lesser of two evils, we all just have to make sure we make the right choice.

[Booms]

It will be an election where we pick the lesser of two evils, we all just have to make sure we make the right choice.

*cough*Kerry*cough*

[Unreg!stered]

*cough*Kerry*cough*

If you are so completely sure now you should probably take the time to rethink your views. Are you voting for Kerry because of the things he stands for, his record in Congress, or simply because he's not Bush? There's still a lot of time 'till the election.

[Eiger]

Are you voting for Kerry because of the things he stands for, his record in Congress, or simply because he's not Bush?
Three sound reasons to vote for Kerry. Good job!

[Bartleby]

You've got a fair point. And Quayle's kinda pissed about this, hehe. But then Edwards is respected and Quayle was an idiot and embarrassment who people are still making jokes about. I suspect that's more the difference on media treatment.
That makes no sense seeing as how Quayle had way more experience in the political realm. He made Congress at 29, Senate a few years later and then became VP at 41. He wrote a book that was a best-seller and nowadays sits on several corporate boards. I think it's safe to say he's not an idiot. He was however, a poor speaker off the cuff (I saw him on Scarborough and he's fine now). Which is what led to some of his more embarassing clips. Edwards on the other hand is some freshman senator with little if any accomplishments or experience. The only thing he has on his side is charisma.

As for Kerry, can anyone tell me what he stands for this week?

[Eiger]

That makes no sense seeing as how Quayle had way more experience in the political realm. He made Congress at 29, Senate a few years later and then became VP at 41. He wrote a book that was a best-seller and nowadays sits on several corporate boards. I think it's safe to say he's not an idiot. He was however, a poor speaker off the cuff (I saw him on Scarborough and he's fine now). Which is what led to some of his more embarassing clips. If he hadn't married Marilyn, who had the brains, he'd never have gotten as far as he did. I remember well the Bush/Quayle years and that guy was an embarrassment to the United States. The poorest choice of a running mate I've seen in my life. And that even includes Spiro Agnew. There was general amazement among the Republicans when he explored running for president in 2000 - and he very quickly withdrew. Usually, a former VP is a hot ticket for a nomination bid - not this time. Really, Bartleby, you should pick someone better to defend. This one's a no win situation.

[Bartleby]

I too believed he was an idiot, before I saw him on Scarborough Country and then actually took the time to look deeper. So I throw out some life stats on the guy, after you called him an idiot, that demonstrate he's actually quite sharp and to hopefully clear up your misconception; and you respond with "oh his wife carried him through it," then you once again say he's an idiot, and finish up with a call on me. I sincerely doubt he could have won the Presidency with the way the press had treated him as a VP and honestly seeing as how Quayle went into business after his term as VP and had almost a decade of absence from the political arena by 2000, is it really a suprise he didn't choose to run? He's too far out of the game now. As for me defending him, it's not really hard to, he got through law school, broke into the big time of politics at an early age, was an active VP, and has done well for himself since leaving the political arena. The only thing you could do would be to drum out his faux pas' when speaking, but then that's a weak leg to stand on.
On the other hand there's Kerry. Where last year alone out of the 119 votes before the senate that Bush took a position on Kerry made himself available 34 times. Good job 28% attendance on major votes. :thumbsup: He should take a page from Teddy's book, he showed up for 116 of the 119 votes. That John Kerry is a real go getter I tell ya, I'm sure he'll show up for at least 2 out of the 5 days a week if he becomes President. That'd be 40% of the time.

[Unreg!stered]

Three sound reasons to vote for Kerry. Good job!

Sound? Hardly.

Only one reason is sound (depending on your opinion), the other is fairly shakey (again, opinions may vary), and the third is one of the worst reasons to vote someone into office. Voting for Kerry simply because he is not Bush is not at all the right thing to do. A candidate needs to stand on his own merits. Too many young democrats are voting for Kerry for the wrong reason.

[Ryu]

im voting for kerry because bush has had his chance in office and i dont like how he ran the country and i agree more with kerry then bush, so i am kinda voting against bush but not blindly like some people may be doing, i dont know

[Eiger]

I too believed he was an idiot, before I saw him on Scarborough Country and then actually took the time to look deeper. So I throw out some life stats on the guy, after you called him an idiot, that demonstrate he's actually quite sharp and to hopefully clear up your misconception; and you respond with "oh his wife carried him through it," then you once again say he's an idiot, and finish up with a call on me. I sincerely doubt he could have won the Presidency with the way the press had treated him as a VP and honestly seeing as how Quayle went into business after his term as VP and had almost a decade of absence from the political arena by 2000, is it really a suprise he didn't choose to run? He's too far out of the game now. As for me defending him, it's not really hard to, he got through law school, broke into the big time of politics at an early age, was an active VP, and has done well for himself since leaving the political arena. The only thing you could do would be to drum out his faux pas' when speaking, but then that's a weak leg to stand on.

I was listening to a radio show today where they were talking about the top presidential campaign errors in recent history. They thumped the democrats far worse than the republicans talking about things like McGovern dumping Eagleton or Mondale's saying at the '84 convention that he'll raise taxes. They ended on what they considered the biggest screw up of all - and just said "Dan Quayle".

I'm sure he's more intelligent than he comes off, but I still remember him as one heartbeat from the Presidency and that thought still scares the hell out of me.

[Eiger]

Sound? Hardly.

Only one reason is sound (depending on your opinion), the other is fairly shakey (again, opinions may vary), and the third is one of the worst reasons to vote someone into office. Voting for Kerry simply because he is not Bush is not at all the right thing to do. A candidate needs to stand on his own merits. Too many young democrats are voting for Kerry for the wrong reason.Then we'll have a difference of opinion. I'd vote for the schnauzer next door before Bush, so that makes Kerry look real good comparatively speaking.

The thing is, if we voted for someone on their own merits, no one would vote much of the time. We have a comparative system where there are effectively only two candidates (subject to change in future elections, but it works for this one). One or the other is going to win. So people are voting comparatively. In such a system, voting against someone becomes just as valid as voting for someone - because in the end, even by voting against someone, you are choosing one over the other as the better candidate.

[Booms]

Haha, I love The Boondocks.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040725.gif

[Unreg!stered]

Then we'll have a difference of opinion. I'd vote for the schnauzer next door before Bush, so that makes Kerry look real good comparatively speaking.

The thing is, if we voted for someone on their own merits, no one would vote much of the time. We have a comparative system where there are effectively only two candidates (subject to change in future elections, but it works for this one). One or the other is going to win. So people are voting comparatively. In such a system, voting against someone becomes just as valid as voting for someone - because in the end, even by voting against someone, you are choosing one over the other as the better candidate.

My point is not that you shouldn't compare the candidates becuase in the end, that is how all of us will decide who to vote for (that is, all of us who aren't dead set one way or the other ;) ). My point is that the reason one should vote for a candidate should never be just because they're not Bush, or even primarily because they're not Bush. You said you'd vote for your schnauzer next door, let me walk through an example for you real quick:

There are two candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B. Candidate A is the incumbent, and in his four years of office has not done the best job. In fact, many people are disgruntled with his leadership and desire a change. They see Candidate B and since Candidate B is not Candidate A they decide to vote for B and be done with it. However, Candidate B has shown signs that he may not be the best fit for president. He seems a bit over zealous in some of his views but his PR department has done a good job hiding most of his comments that would lead people to believe such.

The election comes and Candidate B scores a big victory. Since everyone was satisfied in that he was not Candidate A no one noticed his faults. During Candidate B's term in office things don't get better, they get much worse.

That was just a vague example with vague characters, but hopefully it conveys my point. You cannot ever vote for a candidate simply because he's not the incumbent. Everyone has to look at each candidate closely, look at their voting records, their views on certain issues, listen to their speeches and pay close attention to the debates. Remember, Hitler was a change of pace for the Germans from the Weimar system. While Kerry certainly is no Hitler, not even close in fact, it's a sharp example of what can go wrong when people don't take the time to study their options closely.

Things certainly aren't going so well with Bush now, but things can always get worse. There's still a lot of time left 'till the election. We all need to use it wisely so we can make the right decision for who should be president.

[Ryu]

lol at comic, so true, cept im saying kerrys coming up ahead in my books

[Bartleby]

regarding the comic

saddam and 9/11 - This was the information he was given, that's called you got it wrong, not he's a liar. Although I bet he and Blair embellished to sell America and the UK on the war. Which is not unheard of, but a questionable and failed gamble.

iraq and wmd - See above.

offshoring - Cry me a river, this is what should have happened with all global companies. Offshoring is the 3rd world countries' chance to find economic equity.

health insurance - Yeah, I'm 50/50 on this one, but none of the other administrations have made a feasible system yet. It would be nice to have national buying power, but there should be a big enough copay and incentives to get people to check their bills and rat out the doctors who steal.

gas prices - Supply and demand hurts, but we pay less for our fuel than most other 1st world countries.

If Kerry were anywhere close to a moderate I'd vote for him, but imo the man is ridiculous.

edit #1 - It's funny, I started out interested in Kerry, but the more I learned the less I liked. I should've just waited for the commercials to tell me what to do, cause now I just hate my options.

[Havard]

Actually, Kerry is in a bit of a PR pickle regarding jobs going offshore. His fortune comes from wedding the Heinz heiress, and 72% of Heinz's operations have gone overseas. Further, the past 3 years show a decrease in employees, and an increase in profits. You might call that "higher productivity", but then you'd be using the rhetoric that Bush has been using to praise the economy.

[Eiger]

My point is not that you shouldn't compare the candidates becuase in the end, that is how all of us will decide who to vote for (that is, all of us who aren't dead set one way or the other ;) ). My point is that the reason one should vote for a candidate should never be just because they're not Bush, or even primarily because they're not Bush. You said you'd vote for your schnauzer next door, let me walk through an example for you real quick:

There are two candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B. Candidate A is the incumbent, and in his four years of office has not done the best job. In fact, many people are disgruntled with his leadership and desire a change. They see Candidate B and since Candidate B is not Candidate A they decide to vote for B and be done with it. However, Candidate B has shown signs that he may not be the best fit for president. He seems a bit over zealous in some of his views but his PR department has done a good job hiding most of his comments that would lead people to believe such.

The election comes and Candidate B scores a big victory. Since everyone was satisfied in that he was not Candidate A no one noticed his faults. During Candidate B's term in office things don't get better, they get much worse.

That was just a vague example with vague characters, but hopefully it conveys my point. You cannot ever vote for a candidate simply because he's not the incumbent. Everyone has to look at each candidate closely, look at their voting records, their views on certain issues, listen to their speeches and pay close attention to the debates. Remember, Hitler was a change of pace for the Germans from the Weimar system. While Kerry certainly is no Hitler, not even close in fact, it's a sharp example of what can go wrong when people don't take the time to study their options closely.

Things certainly aren't going so well with Bush now, but things can always get worse. There's still a lot of time left 'till the election. We all need to use it wisely so we can make the right decision for who should be president.
Perhaps. But the theoretical example could easily have been the opposite where things get much better. Many of us believe that Bush is the worst president in a century - so that things can't get much worse... Comparing Kerry to Hitler - just even putting him in the same context is really, well absurd, to put it mildly.

Otherwise, I think our pre-election cycles are too long. Candidates for president begin campaigning about 2 years before the election and campaigning seriously about a year before the election. Basically, I'm saying that everyone really should have come to a decision by now - barring some funky unforeseen circumstance which changes everything. I'll never understand how anyone can be undecided at this point. Especially this year with the differences between the candidates so pronounced. Indecisiveness just isn't a good character trait in my book.

[Unreg!stered]

Perhaps. But the theoretical example could easily have been the opposite where things get much better. Many of us believe that Bush is the worst president in a century - so that things can't get much worse... Comparing Kerry to Hitler - just even putting him in the same context is really, well absurd, to put it mildly.

Otherwise, I think our pre-election cycles are too long. Candidates for president begin campaigning about 2 years before the election and campaigning seriously about a year before the election. Basically, I'm saying that everyone really should have come to a decision by now - barring some funky unforeseen circumstance which changes everything. I'll never understand how anyone can be undecided at this point. Especially this year with the differences between the candidates so pronounced. Indecisiveness just isn't a good character trait in my book.

Oh indeed it could be the opposite and John Kerry could be the greatest president in history, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :) As for believing Bush is the worst president in history there are many who would agree. I think he's probably one of the worst (Hoovervilles I think take the cake, but that was before my time) but I'll always analyze both candidates, anyway.

As for comparing Kerry to Hitler:
While Kerry certainly is no Hitler, not even close in fact, it's a sharp example of what can go wrong when people don't take the time to study their options closely.
Note disclaimer, as well as the phrase "sharp example." :) The comparison had to have a bit of an edge to it to get the point across, otherwise it gets dismissed too easily.

As for not knowing who to vote for it is not a case of indecisiveness. It's very concerned questioning. Presidential elections are a big deal, this isn't some American Idol contest, real consequences can arise if the wrong man is in office as the previous four years have proven (although, to be fair, we can never really know what Gore would have been like). You are correct that candidates have been campaigning for quite some time but it is foolish to have come to a decision on what has transpired thus far. Everyone knows up until the debates all the garbage the candidates spew is meaningless. It's all fluff and huge broad statements that can mean anything. "I want to win the war on terror." Really, how? "We will destroy Al-Qaeda" That's nice, how are you going to do that? "We are going to look out for the working family." Yes that's a nice idea, but again, how're you going to do that? "We represent one America." "We want to rebuild our relationships with our allies." "I will be a peace time president, not a war time president." "I am determined to see the conflict in Iraq through." "I will bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq." See what I mean? The upcomming months should help extract a few of the methods the Kerry-Edwards camp plans on using to get these nice ideas done. The only tangible idea I've seen thus far is their plan to roll back the tax cuts on the "wealthiest 2%" (Damn them and their money!) to help pay for programs they want to initiate and/or revise. While everyone enjoys making sure those evil rich folk can't spend the money they earn there needs to be a few more plans laid out for the American public to see. Once we see the methods behind their plans we'll have much better information to use when making our decision who should be the next president.

[Danny5]

The only reason I'm even touching this topic is because I found an interesting interview yesterday with Moore.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/28/moore.interview/index.html

Check it out yourself. I give the man credit for sticking to his guns.

[Mastgrr]

George W. Bush -- a liar?

Yes: (http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002849.html)

His time in the National Guard:
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8528

His criminal record:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1006409

His relationship with Ken Lay:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=21

Who would benefit from his tax cuts:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/

On his stamcell policy:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/

His visit to Bob Jones University:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1004636/

Why he wouldn't meet with log cabin Republicans:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1004610/

Reading the EPA report on global warming:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2066846/

Blaming Clinton for middle east-problems:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2064471/

How he pay no attention to polls:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2064077/

How he loves New York:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1007977/

Moving US embassy from Israel to Jerusalem:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1007849/

Finding WMD in Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/potus/texts2003/030530-bush-poland.htm

Making his decision to go to Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62438-2003Feb24.html

CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A56336-2003Jul14&notFound=true

IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/msnbc090702.htm

Funding the fight against AIDS in Africa:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~landolt/international_relations/nyt_foreign_aid_editorial.htm

When the recession began:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/

Seeing the first plane hit the WTC:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,612355,00.html

Supporting Patient Protection Act:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/More_George_W__Bush_Health_Care.htm

His deficit spending:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_06_16_archive.html#85178498

So when I call George W. Bush a liar, I have my facts to back it up.

From another thread in our clan forum:

Bush is borrowing money from China so he can give the top 2% tax cuts. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/defi-f04.shtml)

The Bush Administration is cutting taxes even though we have such the world's largest debt in recorded history. Every American citizen (over 290 million of us) owe over 24,665.61 dollars. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)Does it make any sense that in a time of war to cut taxes? Does it make any sense to in a time of such an enormous debt debt to cut taxes? The right wing usually call the left wing for "taxing and spending", guess what? This administration is "cutting taxes, borrowing and spending".

But let's pretend the debt or the war doesn't matter. Who are these tax cuts meant for? The Average Joe? Not really.
Most of the tax cuts go to the top 1% of rich people in this country.The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will receive over 1/3 of the Bush tax cuts. (http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/taxcutlie-1.htm)The top 20 percent of Americans by income will receive 79.7 percent of the tax cuts. Bush said during his campaign, "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum". What a lie.

According to respected economist Paul Krugman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman), never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, Paul Krugman found out that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war. (http://209.208.176.243/bin/blogEntry.cfm?actionId=blogShowEntry&entryId=15)

Not only is this administration fighting a war without evidence (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2004/bobby_0712.shtml) with a goal to fight terrorism (which had no to Saddam Hussein which this administration claimed (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/)), but this administration has turned the United States of America in to a icon of crony capitalism and greed around the world. Everybody hates us.

Terrorists want Bush elected (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html)

Originally Posted by Drakeon
I hate Kerry's flip-flopping on issues

I love it that they're smearing Kerry (with flip-flopping, ironically enough! (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263)).

The same time they're saying it's not a time for pessimism 75% (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159857/posts) -- of all the ads the Bush campaign have been airing were negative (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3222-2004May30?language=printer)

Junior didn't take his dads advice. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp) Maybe it has to do with that he'd rather listen to this guy (http://onepeople.org/archives/000232.html).

“It would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.” (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm)
-Dick Cheney

Remember how the White House's been trying to paint Kerry as a president who would gut our defence?
"Kerry proposed reductions in funding for the Tomahawk cruise missile and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. And at numerous times, Senator Kerry has voted against funding weapons systems vital to fighting and winning the war on terror, such as the Blackhawk helicopter and the Predator drone." (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2497)
-Dick Cheney

The truth:
Kerry supported at least $6 billion in defense authorizations for the Tomahawk.
Kerry backed at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
Kerry has supported at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk. (http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/001601.html#more)

As for Dick Cheney…

Cheney’s defense budget was so pared-down that it didn’t include any funds for more Tomahawk missiles in 1991, despite stocks rapidly diminished by the military action in the Persian Gulf.
- Washington Post, 2/5/91; Aerospace Daily, 1/23/91; AP, 6/20/90

“Major weapons killed include the Army's M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Navy's Trident submarine and F-14 aircraft, and the Air Force's F-16 airplane. Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons.”
- Boston Globe, 2/5/91

“The Pentagon’s internal budget deliberations recommended termination of the Black Hawk program under Secretary Cheney.”
-Aerospace Daily, 5/15/90

The Washington Post do a good job of debunking his speech. (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0312b.html)

But Cheney doesn't care I guess, as long as his friends get to stay at the finest hotels at the tax payers expence (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/hotel_cost_fraud.html) (the hotel (http://kuwait-kw.hotels-x.net/Hilton-kuwait.html)) while our soldiers don't have it so well. (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22119)

Originally Posted by Drakeon
and he has no real plans for iraq thats different from Bush
Actually, it's vice versa. (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0414a.html)

Originally Posted by Drakeon
he says that he'll get the UN involved, but I don't see how hes going to do that.
See for yourself (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html) I can't even find a similar page on W. Bush's page where it tells about his stance on Iraq.

Originally Posted by Drakeon
Besides, Iraq is a soverign nation
Really? (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0702-09.htm)

skipped the rest, some about the american economy which I haven't bothered debunking yet

[Bhs Crew]

Mastgrr, I'm sorry I underestimated you. You even quoted Fox news. Wow. You the man.

Anyway, now that I'm done praising Mastgrr for his really detailed and backed up post (I don't even want to know how long that took), back to the issue at hand.

The way I look at it, I know Bush is a horrible President. I've seen him work for four years and I don't think the country could truly stand another four. More importantly, I don't think I could stand another four years of Bush.

He still wants to cut taxes even though he's got record deficits. This is the most pressing issue for me. Bush came from a party that in the past has really supported a balanced budget, however he's run this country like one of his failed companies. He seems to have no concept that having a massive deficit now and raising the already large debt ($7,298,671,000,000 and growing as of July 28th) will only raise taxes for future generations. As a future generation myself I don't want to spend the rest of my life paying off the debt of my parents.

When the republicans and Clinton managed to balance the budget during the nineties I thought that the debt (then at under $6 trillion though I can't remember the exact number) would finally be paid down somewhat. As far as I could see, both parties had embraced the idea that they would not make their kids suffer for the country spending more then it had.

Then Bush announces that instead of using the projected trillion dollar surplus over ten years(that was of course actually smaller then people projected, it always is) to pay down some of the debt and in turn reduce the amount of interest we're paying, he's going to pass a trillion dollar tax cut. Now this was incredibly disturbing to me because the surplus would only be a trillion dollars over ten years if the economy continued at its unreasonable pace, which it obviously wasn't going to. This means that instead of reducing the debt, Bush was going to increase it with his tax cut.

9/11 happens. Now the surplus, if it ever existed, is gone. I assume that now Bush has to abandon the tax cut because cutting taxes now would only raise them for future generations. Also war is expensive and we need a way to finance it. Bush's plan is instead to continue cutting taxes and paying for everything by borrowing massive amounts of money. At this point I not only watched my hope of getting this country out of debt disappear, but I realize that we are actually going to increase it.

Fast forward to this election. Bush has continued his pattern of letting future generations pay for the expenses of the current generation. He won't veto or even threaten bills containing massive pork barrel spending. Now he says that balancing the budget is unreasonable during this war, especially because we need more tax cuts. Well I'm just a student. I don't make enough to get a tax cut, however in the future I will make enough to be affected by the raising of taxes that will have to happen to pay off the debt.

Kerry says that he wants to pay off the deficit. Bush says that he wants to cut taxes regardless. In this case I have to assume that Bush is telling the truth. If he is elected he will continue to cut taxes without worrying about how much we are spending.

So I trust Bush to do what he says, and because of that I'm voting for Kerry. I don't know if Kerry is going to reduce the deficit like he promises but as Bush is guaranteed to increase it I don't have much of a choice. I don't like voting for a liberal but Bush lacks any economic sense (liberal or conservative) so at this point I'll settle for a liberal who can balance an account, over a man who can't.

I know Bush is a bad president. There's a chance Kerry will be better, and I don't think he could be worse. I vote for Kerry.

[Eiger]

Holy crap! Talk about the uber smackdown... You guys just thumped dubya something awful good. Gee, I'm awful proud of you! :love:

[Booms]

Wow...Mastgrr, you are awesome. :winner:

[Mastgrr]

A couple of dead links there, but -- meh.

Cutting taxes while we are at war. Is that supporting our troops? Cutting your own source of income when your troops need that money? Wow. What a patriotic president. First send them to war, then underfund them.

[Ryu]

mastgrrs post is why im voting for kerry, giving him a chance as Bush keeps screwing up

[Mastgrr]

mastgrrs post is why im voting for kerry, giving him a chance as Bush keeps screwing upThe worst part is that there is just so much, much more stuff from where that came from. I barely scraped the surface.

[Ryu]

yeah, just saying, this is one case where voting against someone is a legit move and must be done this time in my and most ppls opinion

[Sage the Mage]

Heh master, keep on going. I bet you can fill up 4 pages forum wise :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

"In fact, there's a difference between Bush's fibs and Gore's. The difference is that Bush's tend to be consequential, while Gore's do not"
(ref. "criminal record")

Kerry fibs about even what he doesn't know :uhhuh:.

[Ryu]

bush criticizes kerry for flip flopping when bush flip flops just as much(not nec amount wise but in the end its just as bad) if not more possibly
no one is perfect, its trying to decide who youd rather have, and id rather have anyone but bush so kerry is my choice atm

[Mastgrr]

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.
- George W. Bush (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/)

Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.
- George W. Bush (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20040720/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc)

Good luck on that, war-boy.

By the way, just read here (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64378,00.html) that some liberals are planning to start a liberal version of Fox News (it's not Al Gore's network). Pretty cool that we're building up a liberal media echo chamber like the one the right've had for years now.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You should really be a journalist Mastgrr. You've got a great way of removing language from the context in which it stemmed from.

[Havard]

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.
- George W. Bush (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/)

Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.
- George W. Bush (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20040720/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc)

Good luck on that, war-boy.

By the way, just read here (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64378,00.html) that some liberals are planning to start a liberal version of Fox News (it's not Al Gore's network). Pretty cool that we're building up a liberal media echo chamber like the one the right've had for years now.

Kinda like Air America? :uhhuh:

In all seriousness, Fox News has three popular primetime shows: The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren.

-O'Reilly is an independent conservative: he often chides the negatives of the Republicans, including Bush.
-Hannity is a Republican and Colmes is a Democrat. Of the two, Hannity usually comes off looking like an angry fool, and Colmes the intelligent, reasonable one.
-Greta is a Democrat who made her name blasting Ken Starr during the Whitewater investigation.

That's 1 Republican, 1 independant conservative and 2 Democrats.

So the "liberal version" would be what?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

"Pwned" ^^;;

[Bhs Crew]

Obviously it would be 1 Democrat, 1 independant liberal, and 2 Republicans.

I wouldn't bother with it. There isn't much demand for a new liberal cable-tv news station.

[Havard]

Obviously it would be 1 Democrat, 1 independant liberal, and 2 Republicans.

Lol, yep... and I'm sure they'd do it just like that. :lol:

[Morphina]

Bush is like a puppet on a string, and noboddy knows whome is pulling them strings. That man is dangerous, not only to himselves but also to the US of A and the rest of the world. <Hopes that many Americans become sane again before November> Dang, those people behind the strings destroyed everything bill clinton has built in his 8 years, and more.

[Mastgrr]

Kinda like Air America? :uhhuh:

In all seriousness, Fox News has three popular primetime shows: The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren.

-O'Reilly is an independent conservative: he often chides the negatives of the Republicans, including Bush.
-Hannity is a Republican and Colmes is a Democrat. Of the two, Hannity usually comes off looking like an angry fool, and Colmes the intelligent, reasonable one.
-Greta is a Democrat who made her name blasting Ken Starr during the Whitewater investigation.

That's 1 Republican, 1 independant conservative and 2 Democrats.

So the "liberal version" would be what?Wow. You sure proved me...

...Not.

The Most Biased Name in News. Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)
Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test. Special Report leans right, white, Republican & male (http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html)
Fox's Slanted Sources. Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html)
Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness. Don't call him conservative-- but he is (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/oreilly.html)
Conceived as a platform for conservative opinion (http://www.kenauletta.com/voxfox.html)
Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html)
Clips from the movie Outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/Clips.php)
And finally, my favorite study which proved that the more you watch Fox News, the stupider you get. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf)

CNN is also a sellout. (http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-gop.html)

Oh... And Alan Colmes? (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/12924) "I'm quite moderate." (http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/fritz-b-11-12.html) (which he tried to back out from saying, obviously after being hired by Fox News)

[Bhs Crew]

Bush is like a puppet on a string, and noboddy knows whome is pulling them strings. That man is dangerous, not only to himselves but also to the US of A and the rest of the world. <Hopes that many Americans become sane again before November> Dang, those people behind the strings destroyed everything bill clinton has built in his 8 years, and more.
Let's not give Bill Clinton all the credit, he did have a Republican controlled congress. Congress always has a part to play in everything.

Bush losing the election has nothing to do with Americans becoming sane and everything to do with the people in the various states where the race is close feeling that Kerry is a decent enough alternative.

As for Bush I have to say that I think he's more in control then many people believe. You just have to understand the reasoning behind his actions. I'm not saying that this makes his actions any better, but I'm pretty sure that they are his actions not those of some mysterious puppeteers.

[Mastgrr]

Havard, still think Fox News is fair and balanced?

[Chiba]

Just curious, what's the point of having debates like this about politics? It's obvious that the people who are voting for Kerry won't change their mind, they'll just keep coming up with stuff that Bush did wrong etc. And the Bush people won't change their vote cause they think he did a good job etc. And like someone mentioned before, to be undecided at this point would show a lack of character and consideration for this election. So...what is the point?

[SaroDarksbane]

Wow. What a patriotic president. First send them to war, then underfund them.
I thought that was Kerry's job. :lol:

And that article on O'Reilly was laughable.

"Ooh, ooh he criticzed someone as extreme left-wing! He's a republican in disguise!"

Not to mention they repeated Franken's lie about the Peabody situation, and the other one about where he grew up. Bleh.

If you want to know O'Reilly's stance on the issues, here they are:


• Supports raising automobile fuel efficiency standards

• Supports action due to his belief in global warming

• Supports campaign finance reform

• Supports de-criminalizing marijuana

• Supports *** adoption

• Supports civil unions

• Supports *** marriage if voted on by the people

• Supports gun control

• Opposes the death penalty

• Opposes additional regulation of pornography

• Opposes moral judgments based on religious teachings.

• Opposes government regulation of private sexual acts between consenting adults

• Opposes the criminalization of most forms of abortion (partial-birth abortion being the exception), though personally finds the practice offensive

• Lists Robert F. Kennedy as his favorite politician

• Believes that corporation owned media influences reporting.


There's your raging right-winger alright! And to be fair, here are his conservative views:
• Supports cutting taxes across the board and eliminating the inheritance tax

• Supports use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific experiments

• Supports harsher prosecution for hard drug offenders

• Supports U.S. military action against the Taliban and Afghanistan and Iraq (though he later apologized for using faulty reasoning in his analysis after no weapons of mass destruction were found almost a year after the invasion).

• Opposes strict separation of church and state and secularization

• Opposes illegal immigration (e.g., proposes placing United States National Guard on the U.S. border with Mexico)

• Opposes partial-birth abortion

• Believes that most news media has a liberal bias [5]

(since approximately October 18, 2003, previous view was "... the issue of the liberal media. Bogus. Rush Limbaugh has the most powerful radio program in the country and the Fox News Channel is the highest rated cable news network — at least in primetime." March 29, 2001 [6]. He changed his opinion on it after being repeatedly and unfairly attacked from the left in major news outlets in print, online and television.

[Mastgrr]

I thought that was Kerry's job. :lol:What are you talking about?

I'm over Bill O'Reilly. You know what I think of him already.

[Booms]

I'm just curious, but after seeing how Bush has done with:

- Government spending
- Job loss
- The environment

Why should he be re-elected?

[Ryu]

he shouldnt...
the ppl who follow him refuse to look at all the harm hes done and instead just attack kerry or praise how hes done with military even though hes giving more money to iraq then to us and our poor people who need help

[Robomonke]

Completly agree with the guy above me. ( I meant Booms with this)

(Sigh) I hate to give a history lesson and i'm not going ot make this as encompassing as I should but here it goes, anyone who cares to do a little research can see these are validated facts, most of them on Fox New's corporate site.

FOx is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He has consistantly funded highly conservative politicians and has and still does employ many famous conservative politicians including Oliver Notrth (who really should be in jail for breaking the law, then lying to congress about it, then blaming an innocent man, enough ranting though). Ruport was quoted during an interview answering the question "Why did you pick fair and balanced as your slogan?" he and his VP of the board have said "To annoy liberals". In a recent freewave study in a period of a month Fox new's broadcasts contained only 7% negative views of the president (and 3% that could be considered negative but were listed as "negative-opinon").
He also was being sued by some employees because he would fire his employees for having liberal views, he fired his primetime producer because he said "It is wrong to defend people who murder abortionists." His executive editor quit his job in disgust, and unfortunatly it is in Ruports power to fire someone for any reason he wants. Even if it is descrimination. Anyone who has signed and application knows about the termination clause says "I understand that my job may be terminated at any time and without notice at the discrepancy of the company"

Ruport has funded millions into the republican party and conservative senators. He has also funds grassroot conservative groups in swing states.

As for Mr. O'Reily, I don't understand why people think he because he has a news related show he's smart. He has no qualifications whatsoever to assess anything political. (and Btw he said he was Republican "all the way" in an interview, is a registered republican, and filled out Republican on his voting application).
I'm not sure how old most people are on this forum. And Frankly it doesn't matter a whole lot, since it's easy to lie with the anonymity of the internet. But I'm old enough to have seen and remember O'Reilly back before he was a Fox news pundit. He used to work for Inside Edition. A Show which i believe is still on now. He used to report about issues such as "Faith Hill, rising star or riding the wind of Dolly" "Swimsuits: How much is too much?" " And "Hollywoods breasts really real? or famous fakes?" He has had no other major reporting job since that.
Even Fox news itself makes it fairly clear that O'Reilly isnt there because he's smart of knowledgable, it's because in order to get mainstream and/or uniterested/unintelligent people (not to say that anyone who doesnt watch the news is unitelligent, but obviously many people think its "too complicated and boring") people to actually sit and watch a news debate show they have to make it interesting. He rarely defends his positions with facts and resorts to screaming or cutting people's mics in the middle of an interview, this draws in a crowd and makes money, even O'Reilly says the opinions "I[O'Reilly] have aren't professional, they are mine" O'Reilly is just Jerry Springer on news. He's trash TV but fun to watch none the elss.

Hannity needs a bigger explanation than the one im going to give, but oh well. He grew up in a strictly catholic family and spent alot of his time at church. He has said that he seriously believes all people who aren't catholic or who don't hold catholic views (traditional conservatism views mostly) to be "idiots" "soulless zombies" and "Unholy anarchists" He is a self described "Arch-conservative" It seems to me he is just avery conservative man stuck in his views. Which there is nothing wrong with that, everyone has their own views. However he does tend to skew things to his side very havily.
He's only been recorded making up statistics a few times (unlike O'Reilly who constantly makes up sources statistics and even whole Cities one time) He has however had quite a few cases of intellectual dishonesty. Like when trying to prove that Reagan's economic policies didn't cause the massive 80's defecit he collected all the information and compile it into a graph. The problem was that all the information showed that Reagan did cause the defecits, so he censored out a few key numbers and used a creative way of lying. He said if you look at the praph you can clearly see Reagan had nothing to do with the defecit. However he made a new graph with his censured info and altered it slightly and claimed it tracks the money flow's average growth. Which applied to every year of Reagans presidency and the previous years. (For anyone who didnt understand that he used the other years of reagans presidency as an average, but reagan had to make a new budget each year, so basically he was saying "100 is a big number, but if you divide 100 over 10 years you get less than 100." But Even over time 10x10 is still 100.

I really need to wrap this up. Went on far longer than I planned. Comes was a former stand up comedian (a pretty funny one, I've seen some of his old routines), he is not very liberal, and has been a self proclaimed moderate, however he is the only somewhat liberal person on fox. He is often forced to take the liberal side on arguments and since he is not very liberal doesn't do a good job arguing them, and he agrees with Hannity on 45% of the issues.
That is where one of the many points of bias comes into play. Also Hannity and Colmes has almost exclusivly conservative guests and the liberal ones are all bashed and discredited even by Colmes himself.

Im summation, Fox most definitly has a heavy Conservative bias.

And for the record, I watch Fox News, CNN, and The Daily Show as my favorite places for news. And since I know this is going to come up I'm not a Democrat, I'm a libertarian. I think Gore should be president and wish he was running instea dof John Kerry. I don't like Bush (he's not even a true conservative, every party should hate him) at all and Kerry isn't a whole lot higher. I did however very much like Clinton and Gore and Bush the first (Except for his big tax lies)

[Ryu]

bravo
very good post
and yeah im not thrilled about kerry but i like him much better then bush and i liked clinton much better

[Havard]

In his first book, The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly states: "...You might be wondering if I'm conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what... I don't want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That's my political position."

If you think he isn't tough on Republicans, watch his show. He bashes Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Pearl (during his time in office) all the time and cracked down hard on Bush for his lack of evidence of WMD's. He has called the Bush administration "deceptive" regarding the war, something you won't hear from partisans.

He is an intelligent man, that much I can tell from listening to him. He is not diplomatic, but he is informed and bright. He has a Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, and attained another Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He's won two Emmy Awards for Excellence in reporting, two National Headliner Awards while working as a national correspondent for ABC News, and was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his reporting and analysis on and after September 11th, 2001.

[Robomonke]

Just 2 comments on that. I didn't say he wasn't tough on Republicans, but I didn't say he was either. He just is much more leniant to Right wing guests. He criticizes people who aren't on his show, but he never ever goes after anyone of any real importance. He have never made a serious accusation of any kind against Bush.

I still don't believe that he is intelligent at all, knowledge and intelligence are two completly different things. An Encyclopedia is knowledgeable, but Einstien was Intelligent. Schooling doesn't make you a smarter person. it gives you more knowledge, with intelligence comes intellectual honesty and grace, neither of which are qualities O'Reilly has. I don't mind the fact that he shuts off people's microphones when he's losing an argument or that he is incredibly right wing and has said so before, but now he denies it because he works for Fox, what bothers me is he has no intellectual honesty. He makes up sources and figures. He fabricates things and then shouts people down for trying to prove him wrong. He purposfully invites timid guests or people he agrees with.

(On the same note about Schooling not making you intelligent, Bush has a degree in Buiseness from Harvard and I don't think you can find anyone who will say they think Bush is a very intelligent person, even graduating from a school of buiseness he thinks supply side economics works, also Nathan Annuls has a masters degree from stanford and he killed 6 people and left the bodies in his driveway. That's not very smart)

He says he agrees on civil rights, but he agrees with Rush Limbaugh that Women should have a more servitude position to men. He listens quietly without interrupting Rush Limbaugh, but shouts down Senator Biden when Biden was saying that Iraq had no WMDs. He gets guests on for shock Value, 90% of his guests are people he doesn't agree with and are only there to shout them down. If you saw his Moore interview he wouldn't even answer questions Moore had about the war. He just ignored them and kept yelling. There's no civility in that, nor is it intelligent.

[Havard]

I agree that education doesn't make you smarter.

Sean Hannity is, in my opinion, not the sharpest tool in the shed. That one strikes me as an overgrown frat boy. But I think that O'Reilly is intelligent enough as most editorialist/talk show hosts. What makes him any less intelligent than Chris Matthews, for example?

There certainly are more polished hosts, such as Tim Russert, but polish and intelligence aren't nec. related. James Carville is a brilliant political strategist and overtly offensive, e.g.

I just don't see it. :scratch:

[Robomonke]

Your last post was pretty much dead on, except the reason I find him unintelligent is that he makes up figures and fabricates sources. If you are wrong about something or it's just your opinion at least try to defend it. O'Reilly has been tacked several times, one of his more recent reviews was calling an econmist a liar because he said the jobs growth in america is much slower than th egrowth in france. O'Reilly called him a bald faced liar and cited the french Buiseness review for his source. There is no magazine called the french buiseness review. Thats's just one of the times he has fabricated things. It's just intellectually dishonest and nonrespective at all. He compared the Koran to Mein Kompf. And says Islam and Judism breed terrorism. Springer does the same thing except he's not so adament about it.

[Havard]

If O'Reilly did these things, then I'll take that into consideration.

There are better mouthpieces for conservatism, but he's better than Rush, Hannity and Savage for sure. The problem (on both sides of the ideological spectrum) is that the more antagonistic you get, the more popular you become. So the sensible folks like George Will and Jack Kemp get sidelined for the more popular jingoists.

By the way, if you're a libertarian, check out Doug Bandow (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) from Cato. I like him a lot.

[Bhs Crew]

Just curious, what's the point of having debates like this about politics? It's obvious that the people who are voting for Kerry won't change their mind, they'll just keep coming up with stuff that Bush did wrong etc. And the Bush people won't change their vote cause they think he did a good job etc. And like someone mentioned before, to be undecided at this point would show a lack of character and consideration for this election. So...what is the point?
Well, I personially like political threads because often other people hit on things I haven't thought about and it makes me re-examine and refine my own opinions. That's why I bother.

[Coltaine]

Just curious, what's the point of having debates like this about politics? It's obvious that the people who are voting for Kerry won't change their mind, they'll just keep coming up with stuff that Bush did wrong etc. And the Bush people won't change their vote cause they think he did a good job etc. And like someone mentioned before, to be undecided at this point would show a lack of character and consideration for this election. So...what is the point?

You should properbly think back a few years from now. Do you really have the same views as then?
I certainly have not. My views have come a little closer to the center i think. And as my philosophy prof. said: "There is a right standing point." And political discussions sure can help to find it.

Just to proof my point:
I was to write something about the coverage of CNN of the Irak war (which i watched). But thought the better of it, because i don't want to blame them for supporting the war at that time and by doing so the president.
But only one thing. Not sure if i got it wrong but there was nearly to zero coverage on the antiwar-protests right?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A correct education should make you smarter - by thinking more clearly, and knowing more. A good base intelligence must be cultivated.

[SaroDarksbane]

He has no qualifications whatsoever to assess anything political.
Can he vote in the US? Then he has the qualifications neccesary to assess the political landscape.
and Btw he said he was Republican "all the way" in an interview
Link.
is a registered republican
Flat out wrong.
He used to work for Inside Edition. A Show which i believe is still on now.
Which ironically enough, sparked a huge liberal attack wing to criticize him whe he defended the show by saying it won a Peabody when it won a Polk. Then they made up the "He said he won a Polk, but they were awarded it after he left!; He's a liar!" which he never said. Oops.
He rarely defends his positions with facts and resorts to screaming or cutting people's mics in the middle of an interview
I can count the times on one hand when I've seen him cut a person's mike, and it was never a "Crap he asked me a question I can't answer, cut it!" moment. It was always more of a "He's been talking for five minutes straight about something not even on the topic and I can't get him to shut up" moment.
He says he agrees on civil rights, but he agrees with Rush Limbaugh that Women should have a more servitude position to men.
Link.
If you saw his Moore interview he wouldn't even answer questions Moore had about the war. He just ignored them and kept yelling. There's no civility in that, nor is it intelligent.
That's a flat out lie. He never yelled once, and he answered all the questions Moore asked.

[SaroDarksbane]

And if you want to read a good piece about the debate, PLF posted an awesome one on the DII OTF:
Before reading this post, if you do decide to respond, please do so by SECTION without quoting anything but the headings I have and relevant quotes from what I put, just to keep it shorter and more manageable. I spent a considerable amount of time really reading the transcript and this is what I came up with analysis-wise and score-wise. You are free to disagree, but PLEASE explain why rather than just saying something sucks. Now on to the post...

On Bush Lying:

Moore stated that Bush didn't tell the truth, and that is accurate (as far as we know). Since Bush did say that Saddam had WMD and we haven't found any, what Bush reported wasn't the truth. I think that is clear enough. However, a lie requires someone to tell something they know as false and pass it as the truth. O'Reilly is right, as far as we know, that Bush didn't lie.

Now they banter back and forth about this for a while, with them each stating two different statements as if they are opposites and mutually exclusive. They aren't. While Bush may not have told the truth, that doesn't mean he lied, especially if he didn't know for certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They are arguing about which way to view the hazy grey area that this issue lies in.

The change on this discussion is when Moore states, "It was a lie."

From that point forward, he is directly opposing O'Reilly's statement, and unless Moore has some information proving that Bush lied -- information nobody else has -- then Moore just made a false statement that is not backed up by any proof. In other words, he's doing exactly what he claimed Bush to be doing -- 'not telling the truth.' If we extend that with Moore's logic, then Moore is lying on this point, and he's pretty-much shot himself in the foot on this issue.

O'Reilly 1, Moore 0

On the dead soldiers:

Moore is stating that these soldiers died for something that wasn't there (WMD) and therefore their deaths were for nothing. O'Reilly's point is that despite there being no WMDs, they died to remove a dictator even if that wasn't the original reason they went in. These points, unlike the previous ones, are mutually exclusive. Either they died for nothing, or they died to remove a dictator.

Since Saddam was toppled, and since he was a brutal dictator, I'd say that their deaths enabling the latter to have happened pretty-much seal the deal on that issue.

The reason Moore may seem to have a point here is because of a popular misconception that soldiers need a reason. While I think a good solid reason is a good thing, and don't approve of going to war with Iraq, whether or not there is a solid reason they are sent to a foreign country is irrelevant in their charge of duty. To paraphrase the Last Samurai, "If you want me to kill terrorists, I'll kill terrorists, if you want me to kill Iraqis, I'll kill Iraqis." That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct.

I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think?

The fact is that, while tragic, it is the job of soldiers to do what they're ordered to. The fact is that they were charged with invading and securing Iraq because he had WMDs. The latter half turned out not to be true as far as we know, but that's irrelevant in the charge of the soldiers which was invading Iraq. What they accomplished was the ousting of a dictator, so despite the lack of the justification for the invasion, their lives were not 'for nothing' as the invasion certainly caused something.

O'Reilly 2, Moore 0

On making mistakes:

Moore's point is that these soldiers died for a mistake, and that people feel bad about it. O'Reilly agrees that it was a mistake, and says that there's nothing that can be done with it.

As many times as Moore tries to raise sympathy, O'Reilly sticks to his ideological guns. The fact is that mistakes happen, and mistakes are unintentional. Moore said earlier Bush lied, which is intentional, so he is weakening a claim (perhaps because he realizes that the slip he made earlier shoots himself in the foot). So we can see, first off, that Moore is backtracking from his earlier claims (probably due to lack of support).

O'Reilly makes a VERY Moore-esque statement in this section, stating that "...if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that." This re-states his original point that Bush didn't lie, and really hammers an important point home. Morally, that is in the absolute judgment of right and wrong, he cannot hold you responsible for a mistake, an accident. He, however, doesn't state that the mistake should be forgotten, or that the culprit shouldn't be responsible in other facets.

By making the argument more broad and using more refined language, he manages to make a logically sound statement that makes perfect sense.

For all of Moore's attempts to get O'Reilly to make a mis-step that undercuts his argument about Bush, it fails miserably as O'Reilly remains calm and sticks to his ideological guns, making a logically sound statement defending his point of view while not undercutting his argument by trying to leave out any discussion of other potential culpability the person who made the mistake may be subject to. Had he said, "I can't find you morally responsible, but I would enjoy seeing you thrown in jail and having your license revoked" then Moore could have come back with a statement about how Bush should be impeached and/or voted out of office. He didn't, and so I think O'Reilly handled the set-up perfectly.

O'Reilly 3, Moore 0

On O'Reilly's children and willingness to die in these wars:

Moore tries to get O'Reilly to state whether or not he would send his children off to die in these conflicts. O'Reilly argues that he doesn't have the right to send his children, but would send himself.

Moore is trying to prove that O'Reilly is all talk and no action by asking whether or not he would send his own children off to war in these conflicts. O'Reilly accurately points out that he would sacrifice his life, but that he can't talk for his children. Moore tries to press the same issue several times, but O'Reilly keeps coming up with the same response -- 'I would sacrifice myself, but I can't make a decision for my children.'

I think O'Reilly is very strong on this point because he's right -- he can't speak about whether or not he'd send his children off to war, because it isn't his choice. He does, however, stick to his guns by pointing out that he would be willing to give his OWN life for the conflict. Since one's own life is the highest price you can pay realistically, O'Reilly is making the strongest statement possible without looking like an arse for saying that he'd make decisions for his children (who I presume are legal sovereign adult individuals).

O'Reilly then swaps the question around on Moore, asking Moore if he would give his life for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Moore goes through a huge process of entirely evading the question. He'd give his life to go after Al Qaeda, but he wouldn't attack the Taliban. He doesn't give any answer on how he'd do that, and switches to when it's justified to attack a government. His answer? 'Only if it poses a threat to us.' So O'Reilly brings up Hitler, to which Moore responds Pearl Harbor, and O'Reilly points out '33-'41. Moore claims mistakes were made in the statement, "There’s a lot of things we should have done."

If we should have done something, and we didn't, that would be a mistake. And I don't hear Moore trying to crucify FDR... Therefore he is strengthening O'Reilly's earlier statements about mistakes being made.

But Moore goes further, and states that he would have made sure Hitler never came into power. O'Reilly (correctly) points out that would be pre-emption, the very policy Moore likes to criticize Bush over. Moore is not a fan of any of the cases where the US does covert things in other countries trying to interfere with their government (the whole Nicaragua thing in specific seems to be a favourite), yet he suggests that the same thing should be done in hindsight, oops?

Basically, Moore is using hindsight to support the same policies he speaks out against.

O'Reilly 4, Moore 0

On revolution:

Moore argues that Iraq could have changed regime via revolution, while O'Reilly argues that Moore opposes the ways that America supports revolutions.

Although slightly parallel with the previous line of discussion, I think this merits a separate point. O'Reilly points out that if Moore were president, Saddam would likely still be in power. Moore argues that there's no way to know that, because perhaps revolution would have broken out. They get into a discussion about the history of revolution and how people have successfully risen up against dictatorships throughout the world. O'Reilly points out that Moore opposed the policies of Reagan which helped to supply guns to these countries that revolted.

Moore doesn't respond to that point, and it is dropped, but Moore keeps prodding at the popular revolution concept as a successful catalyst in regime change. I think that Moore has an excellent point on rebellion, but that O'Reilly also has a point that Moore opposes presidents who have supported revolutions in other countries... I think they both have a good point and tie on this segment of the argument.

O'Reilly 5, Moore 1

Conclusion:

So in the end, I really think that O'Reilly's points were a lot stronger logically than Moore's, and that he made far fewer slip-ups on the issues. However, I think that Moore probably had a better command of rhetoric and didn't look that bad despite some of the gaffes he made. The fact is that Moore is great at rhetoric, but his arguments tend to be lacking of a real solid point or punch instead reveling in playful images and political satire of sorts. However, if you really read the transcript, you will realize that Moore's arguments, though maybe more convincing, just aren't logically sound.

People say that O'Reilly isn't that bright? Well, I think the fact that he came up against Moore and managed not to make any serious mistakes logically, or speak himself into a trap says something about his intelligence. Moore is the fiery speaker who relies on emotions to make points, and in some strange cosmic joke, O'Reilly actually became a calm debater concentrating on the facts rather than trying to belittle his opponents.

I think O'Reilly, while being a royal arse, is probably quite intelligent, gauging his tactics according to the person he's debating. Since he can't strong-arm Moore (getting emotional and loud towards Moore is the sort of thing that Moore thrives on and can work off of), he just stuck to the issues and made some dynamite logically sound arguments against Moore's points, and ended up making Moore slip up and contradict himself instead.

Moore, on the other hand, is full of rhetoric and preying on mistakes. I think that Moore was hoping to find the O'Reilly that you usually see on the program berating his interviewees and trying to belittle them, and catch him off-guard with a statement that O'Reilly shouldn't have made. The fact is that while there's plenty to be down on Bush and Iraq about, Moore picks very extreme things that aren't actually provable and changes the argument just enough to make it impossible to disprove (for instance changing 'Bush lied' to 'Bush didn't tell the truth'). This makes him weak if someone just sticks to the issues.

All in all, I think it was a good debate most likely, and I'll try to watch it later to see how they looked and maybe revise this post or create an addendum, but I think that at the end of the day, Moore lost in the real world, and probably won in the eyes of many viewers just because he has a nice style and most people say, "sucks to your logic!" However, I have a feeling that as with most political issues on this forum, people will be divided along ideological lines and likely care very little about the actual logic behind the debate so much as promoting their ideology.

[Havard]

Hmm.... interesting stuff, Saro.

[Unreg!stered]

Just curious, what's the point of having debates like this about politics? It's obvious that the people who are voting for Kerry won't change their mind, they'll just keep coming up with stuff that Bush did wrong etc. And the Bush people won't change their vote cause they think he did a good job etc. And like someone mentioned before, to be undecided at this point would show a lack of character and consideration for this election. So...what is the point?

I like this line the best:
"To be undecided at this point would show a lack of character and consideration for this election."

Just because many are not willing to take their time, weigh both sides, and come to a sound decision does not mean that everyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon at the get go lacks character or consideration.

Since for some reason I'm cursed to placing bad links here's a copy of what I posted earlier in response to Eiger saying that undecideds were simply indecisive, and as you say, "lacked character."

As for not knowing who to vote for it is not a case of indecisiveness. It's very concerned questioning. Presidential elections are a big deal, this isn't some American Idol contest, real consequences can arise if the wrong man is in office as the previous four years have proven (although, to be fair, we can never really know what Gore would have been like). You are correct that candidates have been campaigning for quite some time but it is foolish to have come to a decision on what has transpired thus far. Everyone knows up until the debates all the garbage the candidates spew is meaningless. It's all fluff and huge broad statements that can mean anything. "I want to win the war on terror." Really, how? "We will destroy Al-Qaeda" That's nice, how are you going to do that? "We are going to look out for the working family." Yes that's a nice idea, but again, how're you going to do that? "We represent one America." "We want to rebuild our relationships with our allies." "I will be a peace time president, not a war time president." "I am determined to see the conflict in Iraq through." "I will bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq." See what I mean? The upcomming months should help extract a few of the methods the Kerry-Edwards camp plans on using to get these nice ideas done. The only tangible idea I've seen thus far is their plan to roll back the tax cuts on the "wealthiest 2%" (Damn them and their money!) to help pay for programs they want to initiate and/or revise. While everyone enjoys making sure those evil rich folk can't spend the money they earn there needs to be a few more plans laid out for the American public to see. Once we see the methods behind their plans we'll have much better information to use when making our decision who should be the next president.

Hopefully that'll help you understand. :thumbsup:

[Robomonke]

I totaly agree with Unreg!stered :winner:

Actually Saro he was a registered Republican. O'reilly is not an independant. he was a republican who claimed to be an independant. however, in 2000, the washington post reported that he was indeed a registered republican. in response, o'reilly changed his party registration, and claimed it was a "clerical error" (a clerical error that lasted eight years, apparantly) Also anyone who votes, knows that everytime you vote in a primary or presidential election you are informed as to what party you are 3 seperate times. Once when you show your credential, once on your card, and once when you are leaving. You also will be asked if you want to cange your party registration at nearly every primary, at which you are informed of your party status in case you didn't know. O'Reilly has voted ni 2 Republican Primaries. (Also CNN, ABC, and Al Franken have shown pictures of O'Reillys voter registration Card that show he clearly filled out Republican, and there was no clerical error).

He on 3 separeate occaisions said he won "a peabody with them[inside edition]" "Yes we [inside edition] won 2 peabodys" "We won one...or actually i believe it was 2 peabodys]" He never won a peabody, but inside edition won a Polk the year after he left.

Don't call something a lie if you don't at least research it, check the nexis for transcripts of his show if you don't believe but at least check your facts.

And about him being able to vote meaning he has the qualifications to direct/asses other isn't true. Voting is a right, everyone who is a citizen can vote. Just like everyone who isnt a felon can own a gun, so by your logic, if you aren't a felon you are fully capable of using a gun safely and effectivly?

He has cut off a guests microphone 8 times (more than one hand) 2 of them for him going off topic and not shutting up after he told them too. One time he cut a september 11th victims family member off because he wanted to blame George Bush for not having a 9/11 council. Here's quotes:

Guest: Why is he [Bush] so strongly resisting an independent investigation? We need answers and we-

O'Reilly: I'm not here to debate international politics with you.

Guest:Why not? this is about international politics.

O'Reilly: Ok, CUT HIS MIC NOW. Out of respect for your father I'm not gonna let you say anything more about the this.

3 more of the other instances are like this. 2 are off topic ones and 2 more are about people that called him a liar or challenged his stance on France.
Once again Check the nexis. They have transcripts of all of them.

About the Moore interview it was not a flat out lie, he did refuse to answer 2 questions.


When Moore asked if he would send his kids to Iraq he said no. Then Moore said Ok, can we get quote here? Say I Bill O'Reilly wouldn't send my kids to Fallujah? Would you? After that he would only respond with I would send my self. And not give him a straight answer.

He also wouldn't Comment on the WMDs. Everytime Moore asked about those he just said that they removed a dictator instead. Also to be technica Bush did lie, not initially,but after it was proven he did infact in 13 campaign speeches repeat the messgae that Iraq had WMDs. But to be fair, you are right about him not lying initially. Also that copied post is mostly opinions, so im not going to try and debate it with you. You are entitled to your opinions, people have a natural bias and alot of the time seeks a source that confirms them. If you are Right wing there is nothin wrong witht hat, but calling someone who disagrees with you on an opinion a liar is falling down O'Reilly's path. (Also I think I should note that the person who wrote that article stated that they didn't even watch the interview on TV)

Finally, I understand some peope are too stuck in their views to change their views and will challenge anything to prove a point, please before you post do a little research. Lexisnexis is an excellent tool and please stop trying to disprove opinions.

I don't think O'Reilly is qualified to talk about politics, but maybe you do. It's an opinion. Please don't try to disprove opinons. I understand that some of the more interview can be an opinion, some peopel see dodging a question differently. There's no need to get defensive or call people flat out liars. Partisanship can ruin good debates, lets try to keep it a little civilized here. It's a video game board after all. I had enough pointless arguing in High School, lets keep it there. :buddies:

[Semidi]

I don't care for O'reilly.

That being said O'reilly has said sorry many times for saying he won a peabody, and he usually cuts people off for spinning. It's his show let him do with it what he wants.

About him being a Republican... right, he is for
1. Stronger enviromental restrictions
2. He doesn't like SUV

Wow, he really is a republican... :scratch:

[Eiger]

I'm very pleased to see that Nader only got one vote. Good job guys! Keepin it real!

[SaroDarksbane]

Actually Saro he was a registered Republican.
Was, not is. Technically, I'm a registered Republican too since I haven't gotten around to changing it yet.
He on 3 separeate occaisions said he won "a peabody with them[inside edition]" "Yes we [inside edition] won 2 peabodys" "We won one...or actually i believe it was 2 peabodys]" He never won a peabody, but inside edition won a Polk the year after he left.
Here are the actual quotes:

"I anchored a program called Inside Edition which has won a Peabody Award."

"Well, all I’ve got to say to that is inside edition has won, I---I believe two Peabody awards, the highest journalism award in the country."

"NEVILLE: You hosted Inside Edition…

O’REILLY: Correct

NEVILLE: Which is considered a tabloid show.

O’REILLY: By whom?

NEVILLE: By many people

O’REILLY: Does that mean…

NEVILLE: And even you…

O’REILLY: …we throw the Peabody Awards back? We won Peabody Awards."

O'Reilly was defending the reputation of the show. He never said he won Peabodys. He was mistaken in that it was a Polk, not a Peabody, but he set the record straight on two occasions.

And about him being able to vote meaning he has the qualifications to direct/asses other isn't true.
Well, if you shouldn't assess politics unless you're qualified, put a reminder on your desk to never discuss them in this forum again. Wouldn't want to be posting around here "unqualified", especially since O'Reilly:

"He graduated with a degree in history from Marist College, with a Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, and attained another Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Bill O'Reilly has won two Emmy Awards for Excellence in reporting. He was awarded two National Headliner Awards while working as a national correspondent for ABC News, and was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his reporting and analysis on and after September 11th, 2001."

He has cut off a guests microphone 8 times (more than one hand)
I said that I've seen. Read closer. 8 WHOLE times??!?? Tell me real quick how many shows he's done?

3 more of the other instances are like this.
Instances like what?

When Moore asked if he would send his kids to Iraq he said no. Then Moore said Ok, can we get quote here? Say I Bill O'Reilly wouldn't send my kids to Fallujah? Would you? After that he would only respond with I would send my self. And not give him a straight answer.
He saids:

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban.

I.e. he can't speak for his children. because it's not his choice wheteher or not they sign up for military service. That's an answer, my friend.
He also wouldn't Comment on the WMDs.
Moore didn't ask him a question about the WMD's.
Everytime Moore asked about those he just said that they removed a dictator instead.
No, Moore asked him:

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”

MOORE: But what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Also to be technica Bush did lie, not initially,but after it was proven he did infact in 13 campaign speeches repeat the messgae that Iraq had WMDs.
Sources, man. Sources.
If you are Right wing there is nothin wrong witht hat,
I'm not, but thanks anyway.
but calling someone who disagrees with you on an opinion a liar is falling down O'Reilly's path.
He never yelled once in the whole interview! That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And saying he did would be a lie, not an opinion.
please stop trying to disprove opinions.
Keep your opinions all you want. I'm setting the record straight for the people out there who'd like to know the truth.

[Mastgrr]

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself

Guess what Bill? You had your chance: Vietnamn. But you dodged that one, didn't you?

[Chiba]

Guess what Bill? You had your chance: Vietnamn. But you dodged that one, didn't you?

Just observing, but I think (at least from the post above yours) he said

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the Taliban was related with Vietnamn.

[Ryu]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5578293/
“Knowing what I know today we still would have gone on into Iraq,” Bush said. “He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He had terrorists ties ... the decision I made is the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.”


So he never cared about the wmd's it sounds like, he just wanted saddam, as revenge, and so far the world isnt better off at all without saddam as his followers are doing just as bad to military/iraqis atm

[Ryu]

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/bush-flip-flops.html
For all those calling kerry a flip-flopper...

"10. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work toŠestablish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] "

thats one that totally pisses me off




lots of good info on http://www.independentsforkerry.org/

[SaroDarksbane]

Did you ever see that one Daily Show where they had Governor Bush arguing against President Bush?

That was a classic. :D

[Mastgrr]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the Taliban was related with Vietnamn.You misunderstood my point. My point was that Bill O'Reilly had a chance to sacrifice himself to protect freedom and democracy (aka "secure Fallujah") -- in Vietnamn!

But did he? No.

[Chiba]

You misunderstood my point. My point was that Bill O'Reilly had a chance to sacrifice himself to protect freedom and democracy (aka "secure Fallujah") -- in Vietnamn!

But did he? No.

But maybe he feels more strongly about this issue than Vietnamn? Unless he was trying to make the point that he would sacrifice himself, in this situation, because the fact he wants to protect freedom and democracy, not just this specific situation.

[Mastgrr]

But maybe he feels more strongly about this issue than Vietnamn?Not really. I think him saying that he'd sacrifice himself to secure Fallujah is a pretty emtpy statement since he know's he'll never get sent.

Unless he was trying to make the point that he would sacrifice himself, in this situation, because the fact he wants to protect freedom and democracy, not just this specific situation.Isn't protecting Falluhah and protecting freedom and democracy in Iraq the same thing?



Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/)

In his first major address on the “Iraqi threat” in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

...

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

[Mastgrr]

Just before the new citizens left the June 29 event, an immigration official directing the swearing-in urged the them to stop by a voter registration table -- a not uncommon sight at naturalization ceremonies.

But this table was unusual: Those handing out forms were Republican volunteers -- and the party affiliation box had been checked off ahead of time to make all of the new voters members of the GOP.

All of it was suspicious to Linda Cross, who was there to watch her husband, Dario Cruz, take his citizenship oath. Cross asked one of the women sitting at the table in the foyer of the University of North Florida auditorium whether there were any forms that left the party affiliation blank.

She was told no.

''They said they didn't have any forms that weren't checked,'' Cross recalled. 'She said, `We're a Republican organization.' '' (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9220188.htm?ERIGHTS=-3828168963248474050miami::betz133@netscape.net&KRD_RM=7nwwrpounptuwwqsvqnnnnnnnn|BJ|Y)What a sham. How can the Republicans sink so low?

Asked at a hearing of a House appropriations subcommittee how many American troops had died in Iraq, the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, estimated the total was about 500 - more than 200 soldiers shortWolfowitz is a stupid, moronic idiot. How can the Deputy Secretary of Defense not keep track of how many of our troops've been killed in Iraq? Shameless. Completely and utterly shameless!


[url=http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0802-04.htm]Jeb Bush says (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-23567)The newspaper also reported that Jeb Bush and state election officials "have repeatedly opposed Democratic moves, in the Legislature and courts, to require a paper trail on the machines." According to the paper, a spokeswoman for Jeb Bush said that "the governor certainly does not support that message regarding touch-screen machines" and that "people need to have confidence in these machines."

Republican Party of Florida says
The Republican Party of Florida has urged its supporters to use absentee ballots because "new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote." The glossy GOP mailing read: "Make sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot today." (http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0802-04.htm)

Wow... Michael Moore missed this one (http://americablog.blogspot.com/Dubya.jpg)

[Mastgrr]

Fat lie by obese Michael Moore distorting the truth to spread his liberal Goebbels propaganda.

"Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' with the children." (http://www.viscidity.com/fahrenheit/transcript.htm)

It's not called "My Pet Goat" you stupid fat blimp-sized pinko commu-fascist hippy, it's called "The Pet Goat" (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367341). You're fat Michael Moore. You're obese and a liar.

[Bhs Crew]

Fat lie by obese Michael Moore distorting the truth to spread his liberal Goebbels propaganda.

"Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' with the children." (http://www.viscidity.com/fahrenheit/transcript.htm)

It's not called "My Pet Goat" you stupid fat blimp-sized pinko commu-fascist hippy, it's called "The Pet Goat" (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367341). You're fat Michael Moore. You're obese and a liar.
Nope, I still don't understand your point. Sorry.

There are legitimate complaints about the accuracy of Moore's film as a documentary. That isn't one of them. You know this.

The object here is to use this to try to redirect attention away from the film's actual problems. Please don't do this, it's pointless and it just makes you look bad.

[Mastgrr]

Nope, I still don't understand your point. Sorry.Okay, sorry then.

To cheer you up, listen to this clip (http://mastgrr.ath.cx/rushkerrystupidspeech.mp3).

[SaroDarksbane]

Okay, sorry then.

To cheer you up, listen to this clip (http://mastgrr.ath.cx/rushkerrystupidspeech.mp3).
Omg, I got about 1/3 of the way through that before my brain exploded from Limbaugh's obnoxious voice.

[Ryu]

http://www.local10.com/news/3598475/detail.html
"A South Florida woman who died this week had an unusual last request. Instead of flower or contributions in her name to a charity, she asked those who loved her to try to make sure President George W. Bush is not re-elected."
"Abbey's nephew, Martin Shapiro, said, "What she cared most about was improving circumstances in this country... getting rid of George Bush and making this a better country for all people.""

Yet another interesting thing against bush somewhat

[Ryu]

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/
got this in an email
"One firefighter from the neighboring city of Wyoming stood up and told me that his town will vote today on whether it can maintain current funding levels for first responders. If the vote fails, the town will be forced to shut down one of its two firehouses. That would mean one already-understaffed station would be forced to answer all 4,700 annual calls for help. Our communities should not have to make these kinds of dire choices. If we can build new firehouses in Baghdad, then we should not be closing them down here at home.

Sadly, the firefighters of Wyoming, Michigan are not alone. Nearly two-thirds of firehouses are understaffed, making it difficult to respond to fires and medical emergencies, let alone the threat of terrorism.

John Edwards and I have proposed to create the Father Mychal Judge Fund -- named for the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department who died delivering last rites on September 11 -- to hire up to 100,000 new firefighters and provide the equipment necessary to ensure that our heroes are always prepared. We will also create an Orange Alert Fund to reimburse communities for additional costs incurred in responding to raised threat levels.

George Bush seems to be satisfied with the way things are. John Edwards and I feel that obvious priorities are being neglected and that our homeland can be more secure. That is why we are proposing a united strategy that will eliminate homeland security vulnerabilities and make America safer. The major points of our plan are:

1. Improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down terrorists and stop them before they cause us harm.
2. Better secure our airports, seaports, and borders.
3. Harden likely terrorist targets and critical infrastructure.
4. Improve domestic readiness.
5. Win the war on terror without losing the values of freedom and justice for all that make us proud to be Americans.
"


Like I and many others said, work on our country before putting so much money into Iraq PLEASE

[Bhs Crew]

Okay, sorry then.

To cheer you up, listen to this clip (http://mastgrr.ath.cx/rushkerrystupidspeech.mp3).

Thanks man, that really hit the spot. The clip was hilarious and it pointed out Rush saying one of his many, many lies. Of course all I need to do to catch Rush telling a lie is record him speaking.

[Ryu]

hmm, no reply on the things i posted?
kinda unusual especially the first one

[Ryu]

"Here are some of the results of George Bush's economic policies that make a difference to American families right now:

* 1.8 million Private sector jobs lost since Bush took office;
* New jobs pay less, paying an average of 21% less than jobs lost;
* Family income has declined - The typical family has seen inflation adjusted income decline by nearly $1,500;
* Costs of health insurance, child care and gasoline have risen dramatically -- the price of oil has now risen to a historic high, which means gas prices will continue to rise"

"While George W. Bush first delayed, and has now issued a watered down response to, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, John Kerry is very clear: He supports the recommendations, and he has called for immediate action, saying: "We must act on the commission's recommendations now, and keep working, without pause, until we have done everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack.""

[Mastgrr]

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we," the US president told a high-level meeting of Pentagon officials.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

- George W. Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3541706.stm)

Did you know...

...job gains were revised lower for the preceding two months, to 78,000 for June and 208,000 in May, or 61,000 less than originally stated by the Labor Department? (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=azbLE.ZVSNXc&refer=home#)

...we are now 7 million jobs below the forecast made by Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in February, 2002 (after 9/11)? (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=134891)

I mean, not only is the economy in really bad shape, but the economic recovery is absolutely horrendous. Only 32 000 jobs! It's not even sufficient enough to keep up with the growing population (over 125 000 (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9CC09C22-E4C1-42D4-A6B8A676EC150C47)). And as that could be any worse -- the recovery is even more terrible than what the Bush Economic Advisers predicted in the first place (7 million jobs short!).

When Bush officials praise the economy or the economic recovery they're lying straight in your face.

Bush Redefines "The War on Terror" (http://airamericaradio.com/audio/Bush1.mp3)

[powermongor]

I quit reading my threads after 2 pages usually, but its good to know I spark debate.

Anyhow, yall should read the post I made called "Scary stuff."

[Ryu]

I quit reading my threads after 2 pages usually, but its good to know I spark debate.

Anyhow, yall should read the post I made called "Scary stuff."

Umm how about hell no? if you dont even follow through on your threads yet expect us to consider your points and points of view, you are a sad sad man, you have to show respect and dedication to recieve it

[Mastgrr]

Both George HW Bush and George W Bush during their presidential terms haven't created a single net job. Think about this... If both George Bushes were running this country from it's very conception, not a single American would have ever worked.
- Al Franken

He said something like that over a half a year ago, still applies.

[Ryu]

haha
like father like son, out to destroy our country, hopefully the same will apply to only one term