NationStates Jolt Archive

Notice they aren't covering it while Ted Kennedy is speaking?

That's outright biased, as if you didn't already know that...

Hmmmm, why not, other channels are covering it so...

And after all Ted Kennedy is not that bad, only having killed 1 person.

Assbags. Did they give a reason, and what channel is this?

Ted Kennedy is on CNN...

So? You just find out Fox is baised towards the right or something?

Well, if you're not going to cover someone, Ted Kennedy is probably a fairly good candidate.

So? You just find out Fox is baised towards the right or something?

I'm sure someone as intelligent as Tuesday knew that. She's just showing us this because it is a really harsh case of it.

Hmmmm, why not, other channels are covering it so...

That doesn't make a difference. The DNC, just like the RNC, is national news; FNC should be airing this, not ignoring it, in an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party does not exist.

So? You just find out Fox is baised towards the right or something?

No, I - personally speaking - knew they were biased to the right, but unfortunately, many people, especially here on NS, refuse to see that.

Well, here it is, plain to the eye as you can see.

I'm sure someone as intelligent as Tuesday knew that. She's just showing us this because it is a really harsh case of it.

Thank-you, Cuneo, for the quick defense.

Why bother covering him? One can get the opinion of any cheap lush windbag in their local bar.

They're not going to pre-empt their coverage for the convention. They'll talk about it and maybe listen in on some, but why would they show the same thing that all of the other networks are showing during prime time?

I'm sure O'Reilly is going to be on every night during the Republican convention too. If you want to watch the convention, it's on CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC. If you want to watch Michael Moore on O'Reilly, he's on Fox.

Why bother covering him? One can get the opinion of any cheap lush windbag in their local bar.
Or right here on the NS forums...

Or right here on the NS forums...

Or from the White House...

(I'm not talking about Bush, this was actually a reference to the Terrible Twins.)

They're not going to pre-empt their coverage for the convention.

This is NATIONAL NEWS I will stress, that happens only every four years; they will broadcast EVERYTHING that happens at the RNC, I'm sure of it, as they did in the last election; how is that not biased towards their right wing cause?

I'll defend you any time you need it Tuesday, your welcome girl. Speaking of that, you can hide behind me if you feel you need defense from all these Republicans stalking your thread.

What is on FNC right now...?

I never watch it, so I'm not positive what channel it is at my house...

This is NATIONAL NEWS I will stress, that happens only every four years; they will broadcast EVERYTHING that happens at the RNC, I'm sure of it, as they did in the last election; how is that not biased towards their right wing cause?

You won't know until the Republican convention. The fact is that O'Reilly is the most watched cable news show, and they're not giving him up for something that people can find on 4 other stations. If people want to watch the convention, they'll tune to another station.

I just want to know..."Is he drunk and can you understand him?"

I what all the news stations. You just have to know which ones lean which way. Fox to the right and CNN and others to the left...you have to watch all of them so you can put all their views on what happened together and try to figure out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

You won't know until the Republican convention. The fact is that O'Reilly is the most watched cable news show, and they're not giving him up for something that people can find on 4 other stations. If people want to watch the convention, they'll tune to another station.
On CNN, they still have their regular shows...they're just having all of them at the DNC. The CNN people do their show, talk about the issues, show the speech, comment on the speech, then go back to their show...
Maybe the DNC wouldn't let FOX in Boston for the week, or maybe FOX doesn't want to go to Boston...

I what all the news stations. You just have to know which ones lean which way. Fox to the right and CNN and others to the left...you have to watch all of them so you can put all their views on what happened together and try to figure out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
Exactly, and I bet that when the RNC rolls around, CNN and those other liberal channels will leave the convention when particularly conservative people are speaking. :rolleyes:
But we'll see :cool:

What is on FNC right now...?

I never watch it, so I'm not positive what channel it is at my house...

Michael Moore is on The O'Reilly Factor right now.

You won't know until the Republican convention. The fact is that O'Reilly is the most watched cable news show, and they're not giving him up for something that people can find on 4 other stations.

The only reason The O'Reilly Factor is on right now is because the ignorant Michael Moore is on his show, finally.

Once again, I'm stressing, the DNC is only around every four years - as is the RNC - FNC should follow suit and report on it live, showing the speeches, as well.

Exactly, and I bet that when the RNC rolls around, CNN and those other liberal channels will leave the convention when particularly conservative people are speaking.

And when the "liberal" channels do so, you will find a similar thread to address those issues, too.

I'm an equal-opportunity news media crusader.

On CNN, they still have their regular shows...they're just having all of them at the DNC. The CNN people do their show, talk about the issues, show the speech, comment on the speech, then go back to their show...
Maybe the DNC wouldn't let FOX in Boston for the week, or maybe FOX doesn't want to go to Boston...

Have you put on Fox? O'Reilly is sitting in a press booth overlooking the stage! Sean Hannity was on the floor of the convention last night! :headbang:

Fox doesn't want to just talk over people and analyze speeches. If you don't like Fox, don't watch, plain and simple.

Umm, actually they have played Kennedy speaking. I was just watching it during the O'Reilly Factor. It came on just before the interview with Michael Moore which is still on as I am typing this post. It is funny stuff. Also, to say that Fox News is biased is kind of moot. There is no such thing as an unbiased media source. You can attempt to be unbiased, but no matter what it will always be colored by someone's point of view. Fox News is no more biased than CNN or ABC or MSNBC. I watch all of them personally to get every take on the story. It helps to understand the story in an unbiased manner. Anyways, just making it clear that Fox was showing Ted speaking, not that I think the man is newsworthy, but he is on. His speach will be on again at about 10:00.

Crimson, she's not saying she totally hates Fox.

She is saying it is strange how they are choosing to not cover Ted Kennedy. Maybe it is a coincidence, I haven't looked at this matter as much as Tuesday has.

O'Reilly is a popular guy but the convention is enough to take him off the air isn't it. And being the biggest news channel around it is odd they aren't covering the most newsworthy event.

Here's the bottom line:

I am watching Fox News now. If they were showing the convention speeches only, I would not be watching it. And Fox knows that I'm not the only one. Show me a few clips of ol' Teddy speaking for a minute, but then give me the show I tuned in to watch.

FOX News isn't there just to cover the blathering of an old drunken senator. They are there to provide analysis to the news. If I was in charge, I wouldn't even mention him speaking, but the did actually put him on air. And, his full speech will be shown a little later tonight.

Uh...CNN is still covering other news as well, it just isn't covered near as much as the DNC because the DNC is obviously way more "News"y right now.

We should get a bunch of people to email leftist opinions to O'Rielly and see if he'll put any non-right emails on his show. He's very full of himself.

Well Tuesday if you would have watched the whole thing you would have known that fox news had Ted Kennedy on for about 5-10 minutes then they cut to O' reilly who went to his pre-taped show with Michael Moore.

We should get a bunch of people to email leftist opinions to O'Rielly and see if he'll put any non-right emails on his show. He's very full of himself.

He does that all the time. He gets e-mails calling him a "right-wing blowhard," and then gets another one calling him a Kerry supporter. He reads e-mails that both are complimentary and derogatory.

Well Tuesday if you would have watched the whole thing you would have known that fox news had Ted Kennedy on for about 5-10 minutes then they cut to O' reilly who went to his pre-taped show with Michael Moore.
I wonder why it was pre-taped? So they could play it over Ted Kennedy?

And now FOX calls Moore a vicious anti-American live on Television. FOX and Bush need some lessons in America and what our founding fathers really wanted us to be all about...

I wonder why it was pre-taped? So they could play it over Ted Kennedy?

They probably taped it so that Moore could watch Ted do his speech and get ideas for his next "documentary."

I know this is kind of a hijack, but when the hell is someone going to start a news station that is completely neutral? Really I'm sick of how things are now.

I'm sick of the Clinton or Communist News Network jokes, I'm sick of the the Fox, Fair and Balanced LMAO jokes. Both of the jokes are true, that's the sad part.

When is someone going to do it? And is it even possible now a days?

Here's the bottom line:

I am watching Fox News now. If they were showing the convention speeches only, I would not be watching it. And Fox knows that I'm not the only one. Show me a few clips of ol' Teddy speaking for a minute, but then give me the show I tuned in to watch.

They should be showing all the speeches...

I'm sorry but Ted Kennedy is a great American politican, no matter what any of you want to say to slander his "character," as you so elegantly try to, Fox should've covered it. Period. That's good journalism. Unfortunately, FNC isn't about good journalism, it's about propagandist journalism.

Well Tuesday if you would have watched the whole thing you would have known that fox news had Ted Kennedy on for about 5-10 minutes then they cut to O' reilly who went to his pre-taped show with Michael Moore.

Well, Wolfenstien Castle, if you were at my apartment, I did flip back and forth between FNC and MSNBC, see, there you have it: O'Reilly taped the Moore segment... no reason why had to pre-empt and air it on another day, right?

Opal Isle has a point...

I know this is kind of a hijack, but when the hell is someone going to start a news station that is completely neutral? Really I'm sick of how things are now.

When is someone going to do it? And is it even possible now a days?

As long as humans exist - driven by motives not valued by morals/ethics/principles of fairness - their never will be a completely unbiased network that actually tries to be unbiased.

None of the major networks - MSNBC, CNN, or FNC - are even trying to be fair, unbiased, and neutal.

The O'Reilly Factor was on while Ted Kennedy was speaking.

For those of you who do not know, the O'Reilly Factor is the top rated news cast in all of Cable News. He handily beats out Larry King Live on CNN for example. Maybe with this blunder, O'Reilly might sink...you opposers can only hope.

Anyway, as others have stated, the speech was being played on many other stations, and even on the O'Reilly factor, a show about news analysis from Bill's presepective, he cut back to the speach when he thought the most important things were being said. Furthermore, he had the most important interview (of most likely his career) on ths show tonight; Michael Moore. And that in Me and Bill's opinion is a lot more important/interesting than some worn out lines from Ted Kennedy. If you knew anything about the O'Reilly Factor you would know that these guys have been at Odds for ages. I bet tomorrow morning, or shortly thereafter more people watched this interview than Ted Kennedy's Speech.

On an aside note, in my opinion, O'Reilly really lost in this debate. I love the O'Reilly factor, but he completely came off as being on the same level of intelligence as fat socialist slob Michael Moore. I think I might respond with some "viewer mail" for tomorrow's show.

They should be showing all the speeches...

I'm sorry but Ted Kennedy is a great American politican, no matter what any of you want to say to slander his "character," as you so elegantly try to, Fox should've covered it. Period. That's good journalism. Unfortunately, FNC isn't about good journalism, it's about propagandist journalism.



Well, Wolfenstien Castle, if you were at my apartment, I did flip back and forth between FNC and MSNBC, see, there you have it: O'Reilly taped the Moore segment... no reason why had to pre-empt and air it on another day, right?

Opal Isle has a point...

Actually, they show the O'Rielly show every day at 8pm and 11pm. Why would they not show their most popular show when Kennedy will be on all the other news networks?

Furthermore, he had the most important interview (of most likely his career) on ths show tonight; Michael Moore.

So, he taped it instead of doing it live, eh? Sounds like he cared more about his career than being fair and balanced, now doesn't it?

Actually, they show the O'Rielly show every day at 8pm and 11pm. Why would they not show their most popular show when Kennedy will be on all the other news networks?

Why not just show it at 11 PM then?

That's the point you're missing, Neusia; just because they're showing it on other networks doesn't mean that FNC can't add their own political views, being biased as they are like all other networks, at the DNC... instead, they chose to pre-empt it with a taped - that's what gets me - interview of O'Reilly and Moore.

That was a bad journalistic move on FNC's part.

Well...like I pointed out, the interview was pre-recorded, so why play it now, during Ted Kennedy's speech? That isn't fair and balanced...

They probably taped it so that Moore could watch Ted do his speech and get ideas for his next "documentary."
How about a documentary about the chapaquidick murder of a young woman by the massachusets drunk.

They should be showing all the speeches...

I'm sorry but Ted Kennedy is a great American politican, no matter what any of you want to say to slander his "character," as you so elegantly try to, Fox should've covered it. Period. That's good journalism. Unfortunately, FNC isn't about good journalism, it's about propagandist journalism.

They should show what their audience wants to watch. If they have determined that their #1 lineup of prime time cable news shows is better than the Democratic Convention, why should they instead show what every other channel is broadcasting?

If you don't think Fox is doing a good job, don't watch them. If enough people think this, they'll change. But if, as it is now, Fox is pulling in all of the ratings, they aren't going to do anything, and they shouldn't.

Maybe he knows he's too biased and unaccepting to have anything to say about the "Democratic" National Convention. So he brought on Michael Moore so he could argue and be an ass (what he is best at doing) to keep his career steady.

O'Rielly should have criticized Kennedy's speech during his show like the people on CNN do with their shows. If O'Rielly wants to interview Moore, then he can do it...uh, Friday, after the convention? Sunday, before the convention?

Now I know Fox really isn't fair and balanced...

But what isn't Fair and Balanced about a conservative and a liberal debating?

How about a documentary about the chapaquidick murder of a young woman by the massachusets drunk.

Do not hijack my thread, Friends of Bill. I will not tolerate it. Take it to another thread, not here.

They should show what their audience wants to watch. If they have determined that their #1 lineup of prime time cable news shows is better than the Democratic Convention, why should they instead show what every other channel is broadcasting?

If you don't think Fox is doing a good job, don't watch them. If enough people think this, they'll change. But if, as it is now, Fox is pulling in all of the ratings, they aren't going to do anything, and they shouldn't.
News shouldn't be about the Ratings. News should be about being fair and balanced...err...wtf...

Well...like I pointed out, the interview was pre-recorded, so why play it now, during Ted Kennedy's speech? That isn't fair and balanced...

It was played during the O'Reilly Factor, which happens to coincide with the DNC. It's not only tonight that they aired the show, it was on last night and it'll be on again tomorrow, same time same channel. They're not just brushing off Kennedy.

Well...like I pointed out, the interview was pre-recorded, so why play it now, during Ted Kennedy's speech? That isn't fair and balanced...
Have you thought that it might be so most of the populace would be watching the speech on other channels rather than his sorry debate on Fox? God O'Reilly, I love you, but I think you really screwed this one up.

But what isn't Fair and Balanced about a conservative and a liberal debating?

I'm not saying it isn't fair; I'm just saying that the DNC is more important than O'Reilly making a career statement.

O'Rielly should have criticized Kennedy's speech during his show like the people on CNN do with their shows. If O'Rielly wants to interview Moore, then he can do it...uh, Friday, after the convention? Sunday, before the convention?

Exactly, especially if it was ALREADY pre-recorded. I agree with you entirely Opal Isle.

God O'Reilly, I love you, but I think you really screwed this one up.

I agree with your last statement, El Aguila. I think FNC, especially O'Reilly could've brought some Conservative criticism of the DNC instead of showing that taped bit.

It was played during the O'Reilly Factor, which happens to coincide with the DNC. It's not only tonight that they aired the show, it was on last night and it'll be on again tomorrow, same time same channel. They're not just brushing off Kennedy.

I agree with you here, Crimson Sparta. I didn't notice last night, because I was working and missed the DNC last night, that FNC was airing O'Reilly during it. I brought it up now, because I noticed it now. I am by no means suggesting in any way, shape, or form that they are doing it just because Ted Kennedy was speaking.

Now I know Fox really isn't fair and balanced...

But what isn't Fair and Balanced about a conservative and a liberal debating?
Agreed, Fox News IS somewaht right leaning. However, they are no more further to the right than CNN is left. With both of these networks you should get a pretty "balanced" view.

Look...all of the CNN shows work the DNC into their show and no one does anything during the speeches; why can't that arrogant asshole of a Republican do the same thing with his show?

Look...all of the CNN shows work the DNC into their show and no one does anything during the speeches; why can't that arrogant asshole of a Republican do the same thing with his show?
Well thank you for admitting to being on somewhere on the left of a "Republican." But hey, you should be thanking your stars...maybe this is the kind of FNC screw up that CNN needs to go back to being the king of cable news.

I think the Interview was also pre-recorded so that Moore wasn't on set when they actually did the show so that O'Rielly could get in his cheap shots after t he interview was over without giving Moore a chance to retort...

Look...all of the CNN shows work the DNC into their show and no one does anything during the speeches; why can't that arrogant asshole of a Republican do the same thing with his show?

It's not even about him. The network knows he has the highest rated show; so, why not let him do commentary like MSNBC does... knowning that a majority of Bush supporters are going to be watching, and possible some Kerry supporters, to show the other side to everyone.

It doesn't make sense why they wouldn't let O'Reilly do commentary on the DNC... it just doesn't.

I just flipped to CNN, and now we have Republican Bob Dole doing commentary on the DNC, Kennedy, and Dean on Larry King... I mean, the Republicans could be fighting back as it's happening, it'd be good for their supporters and good for those on the fence to hear their side.

Well thank you for admitting to being on somewhere on the left of a "Republican." But hey, you should be thanking your stars...maybe this is the kind of FNC screw up that CNN needs to go back to being the king of cable news.
I don't think news should be a compitition for profit...I couldn't care less if CNN was king of cable news or not. It doesn't change the fact that they are far closer to fair and balanced than FOX is...

Do not hijack my thread, Friends of Bill. I will not tolerate it. Take it to another thread, not here.
I'm not hijacking any thread, I am making a point. "Documenteries" are nothing more than you and your ilk trying to hijack America with lies.

I'm not hijacking any thread, I am making a point. "Documenteries" are nothing more than you and your ilk trying to hijack America with lies.

Friends of Bill, if you would take time to read other political threads I've started/posted in, you'd know that I think Michael Moore and his "documentaries" are full of lies, deceit, and are nothing more than propaganda.

I am not a supporter of blatant propaganda and misrepresentation of truth.

Please, get your facts straight about where my political leanings lie before you confront me with your ignorance to that fact.

I think the Interview was also pre-recorded so that Moore wasn't on set when they actually did the show so that O'Rielly could get in his cheap shots after t he interview was over without giving Moore a chance to retort...
You OBVIOUSLY didn't watch the interview as I did. Or at least you weren't paying attention to the begining. O'Reilly with Moore seated right beside him stated that the interview was uncut and un-edited as Moore had requested. If Moore had only done the same in his movie...then things would really have been fair and balanced.

I don't think news should be a compitition for profit...I couldn't care less if CNN was king of cable news or not. It doesn't change the fact that they are far closer to fair and balanced than FOX is...
Envious SOCIALIST! And with that, I'll go take a shower and forget about this silly thread.

I suppose it is bacause of the Right-wing controlled media that the Major networks canceled the coverage for tonight, and not the fact that the ratings are a turd.

O'Reilly with Moore seated right beside him stated that the interview was uncut and un-edited as Moore had requested.

I don't think Moore would've agreed to do the interview if FNC and O'Reilly didn't agree to leave it as it was done originally.

I don't think Moore would've agreed to do the interview if FNC and O'Reilly didn't agree to leave it as it was done originally.
Yet, he selectively edits all his interviews with people he ambushes, and produces lies like his last craptacular.

I don't think Moore would've agreed to do the interview if FNC and O'Reilly didn't agree to leave it as it was done originally.

Regardless of what people say, Moore is not a complete idiot. He needs good publicity and is not getting it. He's going to make sure O"Reilley doesn't screw him up with little news recording tricks.

You OBVIOUSLY didn't watch the interview as I did. Or at least you weren't paying attention to the begining. O'Reilly with Moore seated right beside him stated that the interview was uncut and un-edited as Moore had requested. If Moore had only done the same in his movie...then things would really have been fair and balanced.
I didn't get to see the beginning of the interview, however, I understand it was unedited. The fact of the matter is, after the interview was done play, O'Reilly made his comments on Moore, did he not? Was Moore there? No. He was at the DNC, watching news happen, when Ted Kennedy was speaking.

Yet, he selectively edits all his interviews with people he ambushes, and produces lies like his last craptacular.

I never said that, so, please don't agree with something I didn't say.

Here is what Fox and Bill are saying about convention coverage. They say they are not showing all the propaganda from either convention.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127140,00.html

I'm just gonna watch CNN and MSNBC like usual. I've never been a fan of Fox News.

I watch Bill O'Reilly! He is at the DNC Convention! Hannity and Colmbs are at the DNC Convention! Most of Fox News is at the DNC!

As for not showing Ted Speak, I can't comment since I didn't see Ted speak. As for O'Reilly and Moore Talking over Teddy's speech, O'Reilly has been trying to get Moore onto his show for a very long time. He finally got him on the show so of course he's going to play it! Its not a dis on Ted Kennedy, just something that he has been trying to do for years.

I watch Bill O'Reilly! He is at the DNC Convention! Hannity and Colmbs are at the DNC Convention! Most of Fox News is at the DNC!

As for not showing Ted Speak, I can't comment since I didn't see Ted speak. As for O'Reilly and Moore Talking over Teddy's speech, O'Reilly has been trying to get Moore onto his show for a very long time. He finally got him on the show so of course he's going to play it! Its not a dis on Ted Kennedy, just something that he has been trying to do for years.
It was pre-recorded. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but that means it's kind of like an mp3 on your computer. He could have played it when ever he wanted to. The Ted Kennedy thing was happening right then and there so why ignore it?

Here is what Fox and Bill are saying about convention coverage. They say they are not showing all the propaganda from either convention.

Right... I'll believe it when I see it.

I watch Bill O'Reilly! He is at the DNC Convention! Hannity and Colmbs are at the DNC Convention! Most of Fox News is at the DNC!

Just because they're there doesn't mean they are covering it.

As for O'Reilly and Moore Talking over Teddy's speech, O'Reilly has been trying to get Moore onto his show for a very long time. He finally got him on the show so of course he's going to play it!

It was a taped interview; they could've shown it at his 11 PM slot instead of interrupting an important event such as Kennedy speaking at the DNC.

Its not a dis on Ted Kennedy, just something that he has been trying to do for years.

We already concluded this.

His 1100 showing is the EXACT same show as his 800 one! I know this because I've watched both of them. ITS TAPED for airing at 1100.

His 1100 showing is the EXACT same show as his 800 one! I know this because I've watched both of them. ITS TAPED for airing at 1100.
They could try showing the Moore debate at 11:00. I wanted to watch Kennedy speak, but I also wanted to watch the Moore debate.

His 1100 showing is the EXACT same show as his 800 one! I know this because I've watched both of them. ITS TAPED for airing at 1100.

O'Reilly said that the interview with Moore was taped earlier in the day, not for his 11 o'clock showing. Check your facts.

O'Reilly said that the interview with Moore was taped earlier in the day, not for his 11 o'clock showing. Check your facts.
Eh...the interview was recorded for the 8 o'clock at a previous time, however, the 8 o'clock show, the whole thing, was taped to show at 11pm.

Eh...the interview was recorded for the 8 o'clock at a previous time, however, the 8 o'clock show, the whole thing, was taped to show at 11pm.

That's what I said. :)

I was clarifying for you what the other guy said. The other guy said and meant (or at least I think so...) that the 8pm show was recorded to play at 11pm

I was clarifying for you what the other guy said. The other guy said and meant (or at least I think so...) that the 8pm show was recorded to play at 11pm

Ah, okay, I appreciate it! Thanks! :)

I tuned into Fox News because my TV Guide said The O'Reilly Factor would be on. I saw that CNN was covering the DNC, and I did not tune it in because, frankly, I have neither the time nor the patience for all the applause or rhetoric of either convention. I watch one night of both conventions and whatever is covered in the morning news of each because bigwigs patting each other on the back, giving high-fives, and waving American flags all night just doesn't do it for me. Bill O'Reilly puts on a show with in-your-face interviews with people I'm curious about such as Michael Moore. Before tonight's Factor, I had little respect for Ben Affleck as anything more than an actor (he is a Democrat, as are most in Hollywood--just being honest, no insult intended); after watching the interview, I can say that, while I may disagree with him, he is not a bad guy. He's open, honest, and ADMITS WHEN HE'S WRONG! No US President has an easy time doing that, but Moore insists Bush should apologize (as perhaps he should more often) for intelligence stating that Iraq has/had WMDs. No one can deny that Iraq still has WMDs; they did NOT however have nuclear weapons. Intelligence stated that Iraq had WMDs, which they HAVE found in everything from storage containers to roadside bombs, and was looking to purchase weapons-grade radioactive material in Africa, as it may have been. The deal apparently didn't go down--yet--but Iraq was still a problem.
The clincher for me isn't whether or not Saddam wanted to nuke us; it's that he (along with many Afghans and undisputed terrorists such as Moussaoui [the "20th hijacker"]) is being an a-hole in court. Just because America tries someone does not mean that person is an American, subject to all American rights. That was Moussaoui's lawyer's claim: his client was being denied his rights! Didn't he forfeit them the minute he took up arms against his own country? I believe that to be defined as treason. The sad thing is, America's Constitution is treated more like an international menu that people can pick and choose what liberties they like and what duties they dislike than the divinely-inspired document the Founders believed it to be.
Bickering that a television station you obviously don't like isn't covering something you want to watch when you could see it on four other stations from four different angles with four separate commentaries isn't going to help anyone. You don't like Bill O'Reilly? Don't watch his show. You don't like Fox News? Switch to basic cable. You don't like this country? No one will stop you from leaving. Don't just state a dissenting opinion about something that's not worth fighting over for the sake of argument. Even the common man has bigger fish to fry than "Where's the remote."

You don't like Bill O'Reilly? Don't watch his show. You don't like Fox News? Switch to basic cable. You don't like this country? No one will stop you from leaving. Don't just state a dissenting opinion about something that's not worth fighting over for the sake of argument. Even the common man has bigger fish to fry than "Where's the remote."

This is exactly what is wrong with America today. Nobody can "handle" a dissenting opinion, and when you make one, you are attacked and told to be complacent, shut your mouth, and sit on the sidelines (as you, Darien Fawkes, just told us all to do).

We, as Americans, have a reason to be dissenters; are country is based on the principle of dissension.

If you can't even see that, perhaps, you should go somewhere where freedoms don't exist, dissension isn't published, and women still wear burkas.

I'm a Journalism major; I want to be a foreign correspondent. I am very much in tune with the current media bias in American - and world - journalism, and I am crusading against it.

This thread is a crusade against it, bringing it into public debate, and discussing it as America affords of the right to do so.

Notice they aren't covering it while Ted Kennedy is speaking?

That's outright biased, as if you didn't already know that...


They are covering it, stop lying.

They are covering it, stop lying.

WRONG

FNC pre-empted it to show a pre-taped interview of Bush with Michael Moore; check your TV Guide.

I never said that FNC in general wasn't covering it, you need to read the entire thread, I merely said they weren't covering Kennedy's speech.

Don't ever call me a liar, again, you'll regret it; I check my facts, check yours before posting here again. This thread has clearly stated more than once that FNC pre-empted it, perhaps, if you would've read through it, you would've seen it.

They are covering it, stop lying.
During this week, the DNC is way more important than Michael Moore. Moore is old news. Play his interview Friday.

During this week, the DNC is way more important than Michael Moore. Moore is old news. Play his interview Friday.

Thank-you for the back-up here, Opal Isle.

I despire being called a liar.

WRONG

FNC pre-empted it to show a pre-taped interview of Bush with Michael Moore; check your TV Guide.

I never said that FNC in general wasn't covering it, you need to read the entire thread, I merely said they weren't covering Kennedy's speech.

Don't ever call me a liar, again, you'll regret it; I check my facts, check yours before posting here again. This thread has clearly stated more than once that FNC pre-empted it, perhaps, if you would've read through it, you would've seen it.


LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!


Maybe you could tell me why I saw Kennedy talking on FNC? Like is said LIAR

Thank-you for the back-up here, Opal Isle.

I despire being called a liar.



If you don't like being called a liar, then just don't lie.

If you don't like being called a liar, then just don't lie.
Did you see all of the Kennedy speech on FNC? Now who is the liar?

Did you see all of the Kennedy speech on FNC? Now who is the liar?


You. I saw all of it, and all of Clinton.

Cold Hard Bitch, I said they pre-empted Kennedy speaking... I never said they didn't show it.

Like I said before, get your facts straight; when I have any entire thread backing me up, I think that says something.

Don't hijack my thread without proof again.

You. I saw all of it, and all of Clinton.
On FOX? That's amazing, because I saw the Moore/O'Reilly interview on FOX while CNN was playing the Ted Kennedy speech.

You. I saw all of it, and all of Clinton.

Really? That's funny, because the rest of us saw Michael Moore being grilled by O'Reilly.

Now, a quick off topic question, CHB, are you on the West Coast? If so, you wouldn't have been pre-empted, now would you?

Cold Hard Bitch, I said they pre-empted Kennedy speaking... I never said they didn't show it.

Like I said before, get your facts straight; when I have any entire thread backing me up, I think that says something.

Don't hijack my thread without proof again.


Don't make a baseless thread again. LIAR!

The real question is why would so many people post commenting on the FACT that Fox played a Moore/O'Reilly interview over the Ted Kennedy speech if it didn't really happen?

Now, a quick off topic question, CHB, are you on the West Coast? If so, you wouldn't have been pre-empted, now would you?
CHB...respond to that please...

CHB...respond to that please...

Yes, I would like a response as well, because that would explain why you assumed I was lying.

I'll take her silence as an admittance of defeat...

I'll take her silence as an admittance of defeat...

I won't.

Check your TGs, Opal.

This is exactly what is wrong with America today. Nobody can "handle" a dissenting opinion, and when you make one, you are attacked and told to be complacent, shut your mouth, and sit on the sidelines (as you, Darien Fawkes, just told us all to do).

We, as Americans, have a reason to be dissenters; are country is based on the principle of dissension.

If you can't even see that, perhaps, you should go somewhere where freedoms don't exist, dissension isn't published, and women still wear burkas.

I'm a Journalism major; I want to be a foreign correspondent. I am very much in tune with the current media bias in American - and world - journalism, and I am crusading against it.

This thread is a crusade against it, bringing it into public debate, and discussing it as America affords of the right to do so.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I don't intend to shut everyone up, but rather to make everyone think about what he or she is fighting about. I welcome dissenting opinions when they are for a purpose, especially the common good.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not in fact based on dissention. It is based on majority rule. Dissenters have a say, and it is covered on CNN. (The argument may be presented that America was FOUNDED by dissenters, but that wasn't America at the time. Since the government has been established, majority rule has been the law of the land.)
As an individual in higher education, I applaud you. However, since you seem to be oblivious to the liberal TREND in MOST newscasts, you are most likely oblivious to the primarily liberal population comprising America's professors (though I blame that on conservatives for not wanting to teach). I can't hold it against you regardless as it is commonly overlooked. On a side note, best of luck with college.
A word of caution: Crusades are notoriously lacking in popular backing. If you are out to eliminate ALL bias from the news media, I applaud and wholeheartedly support you. Just be careful--there are a lot more of me out there. :p Good luck.

***There was a lot more to this, but Jolt disconnected me and I lost it ALL. Ugh, the wonders of modern technology STRIKE AGAIN!!! :headbang:

However, since you seem to be oblivious to the liberal TREND in MOST newscasts, you are most likely oblivious to the primarily liberal population comprising America's professors (though I blame that on conservatives for not wanting to teach).

I'm well-aware of the "liberal" bias out there, as well as the "conservative" bias, too. It's just that this case was a clear-cut conservative bias towards liberal, when the RNC airs, I'll gladly say the same thing about the liberal networks.

I do see the liberal trend in news, too, don't get me wrong; this case is just the one being addressed now, and elsewhere on these forums, I've fought against media bias with all my heart.

I'm well-aware of the "liberal" bias out there, as well as the "conservative" bias, too. It's just that this case was a clear-cut conservative bias towards liberal, when the RNC airs, I'll gladly say the same thing about the liberal networks.

I do see the liberal trend in news, too, don't get me wrong; this case is just the one being addressed now, and elsewhere on these forums, I've fought against media bias with all my heart.
I think when the RNC roles around, CNN will be there commenting on the speakers...they've already been commenting on who they've chosen for speakers...

I'm well-aware of the "liberal" bias out there, as well as the "conservative" bias, too. It's just that this case was a clear-cut conservative bias towards liberal, when the RNC airs, I'll gladly say the same thing about the liberal networks.

I do see the liberal trend in news, too, don't get me wrong; this case is just the one being addressed now, and elsewhere on these forums, I've fought against media bias with all my heart.

Since I'm not willing to verify this personally, I'll accept it as truth. :D I can't exactly agree that it's bias versus plain old good television, but that's just a matter of opinion anyway. I like O'Reilly, and I like Colmes. They're both a bit feisty on opposite sides of the fence, but that's what they're there for. If the news were presented by robots, we'd all be a little happier now wouldn't we? Bah, there's no winning. Even so, best of luck with the "crusade."
I'm going to bed, so there will be no more posts from me for a while.

I think when the RNC roles around, CNN will be there commenting on the speakers...they've already been commenting on who they've chosen for speakers...

Well, like I said, I'll have to wait and see and judge what happens based on what actually happens rather than speculation.

Since I'm not willing to verify this personally, I'll accept it as truth. :D

Thank-you for the leap of faith and the good luck cheers; it's refreshing to see a discussion develop like this.

I like O'Reilly, too, I hardly agree with him; but, he does dish it out to everyone involved, not just conservative/liberal/whatever opinions.

Night!

I've seen more conservative bias than liberal.

Okay, anyone who missed the Moore/O'Rielly interview, it is on right now. Switch to FOX News and watch it. You'll see what I'm talking about. At the end of the interview O'Reilly takes his cheap shots on Moore without Moore having a chance to make any retort because the interview was pre-recorded and Moore wasn't there for the actual recording of the show.
.

Bill O'Reilly knows little about history.

"No matter how much evidence we produce, no matter how much we say that Clinton and Bush [senior] admitted Hussien had WMDs, you can never get a Bush-hater to concede that there were no lies, and that ladies and gentlemen is blind ideology" then he commented something negative about blind ideology. This comment, from Bill O'Reilly was a blatant attack on Michael Moore AFTER the pre-recorded part of the show was over. Moore was not there and had no chance to defend himself. Not only that, but the same can be said about people on the opposite side of the spectrum. Fair and balanced? Not quite.

Then he attacks Dean for not subjecting himself to O'Reilly's idiocy.

Bill O'Reilly knows little about history.

You might want to check your facts on this. He probably knows more about history than you do!

Me? My historical preference is WWII, Civil War, and the Revolutionary War.

You might want to check your facts on this. He probably knows more about history than you do!

I think the only "history" O'Reilly is into is the type he can spin to make anything he disagrees with look bad.

I think the only "history" O'Reilly is into is the type he can spin to make anything he disagrees with look bad.

I doubt it highly Tuesday. He slams bothsides, just one side more than the other because of their spin. He asks their personal opinion and they spout the party line. He doesn't like that. When the Republicans do it, he does the same to them. I've seen it happen TH! I love O'Reilly because of this. He has a fair and balanced debate and when someone starts spouting the partyline, that is when he gets hot. However, most of his guests don't spin the party line. Most of his guests state what they think. Yea they stray but when told to stop spinning, the debate gets back on track. I have seen this occur time and time again.

I watch O'Reilly from time-to-time to, I'm not oblivious to the fact that he slams both sides if they spin, but he spins both sides on every issue he confronts. He also claims not to inject political opinion into his show, yet, his Talking Points is a clear example of his conservative values being pushed onto his audience who doesn't know better.

This debate isn't about O'Reilly, I'd thank-you kindly to start a new thread if you want to discuss him in General.

This debate is about FNC pre-empting Ted Kennedy's speech at the DNC and the implications of that choice.

I watch O'Reilly from time-to-time to, I'm not oblivious to the fact that he slams both sides if they spin, but he spins both sides on every issue he confronts. He also claims not to inject political opinion into his show, yet, his Talking Points is a clear example of his conservative values being pushed onto his audience who doesn't know better.

This debate isn't about O'Reilly, I'd thank-you kindly to start a new thread if you want to discuss him in General.

This debate is about FNC pre-empting Ted Kennedy's speech at the DNC and the implications of that choice.

I think that is how this thread started? Ted was speaking during O'Reilly's show. O'Reilly did cover Kennedy's speech. Yes it was bits and pieces but he only cut to him when he thought something important was coming up. Fox News is a NEWS CHANNEL! Just because Kennedy is talking, doesn't make it news worthy. That is a simple fact!

Corneliu, this thread started out how FNC - not O'Reilly specifically - wasn't covering Kennedy's speech.

His speech -as is the ENTIRE DNC - is national and news-worthy. Hence, it should be covered, end of story.

If you really think O'Reilly knows much about history, please find and download the Moore/O'Reilly interview and watch the part when they start arguing about World War II.

If you really think O'Reilly knows much about history, please find and download the Moore/O'Reilly interview and watch the part when they start arguing about World War II.

I saw part of it this morning. Amazing how Moore deflected the question on what he would do if he the same intel as Bush and Clinton. Moore said that he wouldn't have let Hitler come to power however, we didn't know what hitler was capable of in 1933. Saddam we did know what he was capable of! Hitler though came to power by LEGIT MEANS!!! Hitler actually did help the German People but yet he embarked on World Conquest. Not our fault that Britian and France didn't enforce the Treaty that ended WWI! That should've been our first clue but alas, European Affairs at that point in time wasn't our concern. That is a known fact. Then he invaded Poland. Again, US did nothing because we want nothing to do with ANOTHER European war. We only got involved in Europe when Hitler and Mussolini declared war ON US! Anyone who has studied history knows all of this.

You're right; I do know all of this. Thanks for wasting your effort, but hey, at least you got your post count. Hitler may have got his initial power legitimately (so did the other European dictators of the time), but he got even more power by convincing the German version of congress (which I can't remember the German word for) into giving him basically limitless power. Also, he had written Mein Kampf well before any of this had happened. We chose to not take him seriously in the same way we did not take Osama bin Laden seriously. On the other had, Saddam Hussein did not come to power so legitimately. He came to power with the assistance of our CIA...

You're right; I do know all of this. Thanks for wasting your effort, but hey, at least you got your post count. Hitler may have got his initial power legitimately (so did the other European dictators of the time), but he got even more power by convincing the German version of congress (which I can't remember the German word for) into giving him basically limitless power. Also, he had written Mein Kampf well before any of this had happened. We chose to not take him seriously in the same way we did not take Osama bin Laden seriously. On the other had, Saddam Hussein did not come to power so legitimately. He came to power with the assistance of our CIA...

The Richstag is what you were looking for!

The Richstag is what you were looking for!
Are you sure? (I'm sure that's the wrong spelling.) I thought it was a one syllable word maybe...starting with a K...maybe?

Notice they aren't covering it while Ted Kennedy is speaking?

That's outright biased, as if you didn't already know that...


They did dover it, its just Bill O'Reilly (who is a much more important political) figure was talking over him.

Anyone see Michael Moore v O'Reilly. Talk about being outclassed, that fat, communist oaf proved himself to be a total moron.

Are you sure? (I'm sure that's the wrong spelling.) I thought it was a one syllable word maybe...starting with a K...maybe?

Yea my spelling is wrong and yes i'm sure!

They did dover it, its just Bill O'Reilly (who is a much more important political) figure was talking over him.

Anyone see Michael Moore v O'Reilly. Talk about being outclassed, that fat, communist oaf proved himself to be a total moron.
I don't care if you think Bill O'Reilly is a more important political [missing noun], the fact of the matter is that the interview was pre-recorded which...in case you were wondering...means he could play it any time he wanted, but instead of listening in on and criticizing Ted Kennedy, he had to play the Moore interview. That isn't fair and balanced and that isn't news. That's entertainment and not much more. And I really don't think that self-absorbed asshole of a conservative can outclass anyone.

LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!


Maybe you could tell me why I saw Kennedy talking on FNC? Like is said LIAR

Wow... you sound just like Bill O'Reilly :-P

I doubt it highly Tuesday. He slams bothsides, just one side more than the other because of their spin. He asks their personal opinion and they spout the party line. He doesn't like that. When the Republicans do it, he does the same to them. I've seen it happen TH! I love O'Reilly because of this. He has a fair and balanced debate and when someone starts spouting the partyline, that is when he gets hot. However, most of his guests don't spin the party line. Most of his guests state what they think. Yea they stray but when told to stop spinning, the debate gets back on track. I have seen this occur time and time again.

I've also seen him tell people to stop spinning when they weren't. He just shuts everybody up who doesn't say something he agrees with, on either side. I guess his show is an equal-opportunity joke. Anyway, are you insinuating that the liberals have more spin than the conservatives? Let's see here... the "patriot act" removes basic rights guaranteed by the first 10 amendments (I know it's the bill of rights, but "rights from the bill of rights" just sounded bad), the "clear skies act" makes cleaning toxic waste optional (maybe it clears the skies by removing all of those trees in the way), the "no child left behind" wasn't funded, and with the restrictions and not the funding, it's crapping out our educational system... quite frankly, if Bush decided to invade Canada (not saying he will) he would probably call it the "friendly neighbors act". Whew. See the spin? Yes, the left has spin. But the right's spin is a tremendous bluff, and they hold to it and win.

I don't care if you think Bill O'Reilly is a more important political [missing noun], the fact of the matter is that the interview was pre-recorded which...in case you were wondering...means he could play it any time he wanted, but instead of listening in on and criticizing Ted Kennedy, he had to play the Moore interview. That isn't fair and balanced and that isn't news. That's entertainment and not much more. And I really don't think that self-absorbed asshole of a conservative can outclass anyone.

Agreed.

The Richstag is what you were looking for!
Reichstag is the word, but you were close.

Reichstag is the word, but you were close.

I knew I was missing a letter somewhere just couldn't place my finger on it! Thanks PN

What were they covering instead of Ted? The DNC isn't the only thing going on in the world.

What were they covering instead of Ted? The DNC isn't the only thing going on in the world.
O'Reilly's pompous ass playing a PRE-RECORDED debate with Moore...

Ok, I got into this thread when there was already 8 pages of stuff, so I'll mass-reply. Some of this stuff is old, but w/e.
1. As far as "if it's not good journalism people will stop watching and they'll change", ummm..... no. Good journalism is about ethics, not ratings. Consider the ratings of Jerry Springer. Anyway, there is proof all around us that quality is not nearly as important as other factors to ratings. McDonald's, for example. Everybody knows (those lawsuits were bs) that the food is horrible for you, but it tastes good. O'Reilly and friends are biased, and don't do good-quality reporting, but it FEELS good.
2. When O'Reilly have a democrat on, like Michael Moore (say what you want about him, he's a smart guy... a bit of an @$$hole, but he speaks truth) it's not necessarily fair and balanced. If you haven't noticed, O'Reilly shuts everybody up. They are half way through a sentence which is making a valid point, and he shouts them down. He has that power, because it's his show. Forget having to edit it, the Factor is censored on the spot.
3. This is just a silly comment, but please nobody say "DNC convention". It's like saying "ATM machine" or "USA of America". Democratic National Convention Convention? Even politicians aren't that redundant...
4. Darien, you have some facts wrong. First off, it has not been proven that Iraq has stockpiles of WMD, like Bush said. I remember that roadside bomb, but not the containers, maybe I just missed it. Also, I find it funny that you mention the supposed materials from Africa (Niger I believe). That has been admitted, months ago I believe, to be false. There was a decent-sized scandal about Bush lying about intelligence that didn't exist during his State of the Union.
5. Darien again. You think that people who break the rules of the Constitution should not be granted their right to a fair trial? I ask you, when do you have a trial except when the Constitution has been broken (or laws added onto it)? The point is, the trial is there to see if they're really guilty. People guilty of a certain offense may not deserve rights, but you don't know that they're guilty unless you have a fair trial. That's just the way justice works, and that's what separates us from, say, Saddam Hussein. When he decided someone was guilty of treason, he had them killed. Because they were guilty. If you decide to suspend rights before a trial, you are no better. But you may say, "but it's treason!" and I say, "damn straight it is". The more serious the offense, the more certain we have to be in order to find someone guilty. You find that in the varying size of juries for different crimes, as well as the lengthy appeal processes for death row inmates. And sometimes we STILL make mistakes. Please reconsider your opinion. If the government can find people guilty without a trial, because they claim they are sure, then they can do whatever they want. Claim that they're a terrorist, and ::poof::, they're gone. No silly "proof" required.

I knew I was missing a letter somewhere just couldn't place my finger on it! Thanks PN
Yup! No problem.

Actually regarding Uranium, it has been proven that Saddam ATTEMPTED to buy it from Niger. It is backed up by the Senate Intel Report, the Butler Report, the Italian intel Agency, the French Intel Agency, and Niger themselves admitted he tried to Buy Uranium!

Actually regarding Uranium, it has been proven that Saddam ATTEMPTED to buy it from Niger. It is backed up by the Senate Intel Report, the Butler Report, the Italian intel Agency, the French Intel Agency, and Niger themselves admitted he tried to Buy Uranium!
Bush said that he had it. Anyway, you might have me on that one, but I never heard about that.
Also, lots of people TRY to get stuff. But if they don't... whatever.
I know that we're "more responsible" and all, but it's really kinda arrogant that we don't let other countries have WMDs. We have probably around half of the world's supply ourselves.

Bush said that he had it. Anyway, you might have me on that one, but I never heard about that.
Also, lots of people TRY to get stuff. But if they don't... whatever.
I know that we're "more responsible" and all, but it's really kinda arrogant that we don't let other countries have WMDs. We have probably around half of the world's supply ourselves.

Just the mere fact that Iraq TRIED to buy Uranium from Africa, violated UN resolutions! Most nations that try to get stuff don't have UN resolutions on them. Some due though but most don't! Iraq has had 17 UN resolutions, the most on any nation, except maybe Israel! He violated many if not ALL of them.

I think you have serious misconceptions if you believe that the news media (specifically television) is designed to inform. Nowadays television news is primarliy aimed to entertain rather than inform and I think all media outlets are guillty of that, as is the public for being so shallow, ignorant and narrow minded.

What I like about Bill O'Reilly is that he actually is prepared to ask tough questions of BOTH sides even if he is a little sensationalist.

I think you have serious misconceptions if you believe that the news media (specifically television) is designed to inform.

This is what news is supposed to do; if it isn't doing that, it isn't news and shouldn't be broadcasting as such.

FNC = FEC (Fox Entertainment Channel)
CNN = CNE (Cable Network Entertainment)

Get the drift?

Regardless of what people say, Moore is not a complete idiot. He needs good publicity and is not getting it. He's going to make sure O"Reilley doesn't screw him up with little news recording tricks.Once again, Moore didn't want his own dirty scummy tricks turned on him.

Just the mere fact that Iraq TRIED to buy Uranium from Africa, violated UN resolutions! Most nations that try to get stuff don't have UN resolutions on them. Some due though but most don't! Iraq has had 17 UN resolutions, the most on any nation, except maybe Israel! He violated many if not ALL of them.

So, then, any one who violates a UN resolution should be held accountable? I couldn't agree more with you Formal. The UN must be very important to you to feel so strongly about their resolutions.. it's nice to see people still hold the UN with such respect.

So, then, any one who violates a UN resolution should be held accountable? I couldn't agree more with you Formal. The UN must be very important to you to feel so strongly about their resolutions.. it's nice to see people still hold the UN with such respect.

HAHA! The UN did crap when Iraq violated UN resolutions! They ALLOWED them too. It took the US and our allies to enforce them. UN is not as important as you think but if any nation that has violated it should be held accountable. They didn't hold Iraq accountable though Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions! UN Holding nations accountable? Only the nations they want too! Iraq wasn't one of them! Because they failed to enforce their resolutions in Iraq, the UN lost all Credibility with me! Just maybe they can gain it back with Sudan. However, France is standing in the way of that so I doubt its going to happen. Sudan doesn't want foreign troops on its soil. They've stated as such. If the UN votes to send in the troops, then the credibility notch will slowly inch upward but its going to be a long time before the UN gains my full confidence!

HAHA! The UN did crap when Iraq violated UN resolutions! They ALLOWED them too. It took the US and our allies to enforce them. UN is not as important as you think but if any nation that has violated it should be held accountable. They didn't hold Iraq accountable though Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions! UN Holding nations accountable? Only the nations they want too! Iraq wasn't one of them!

Oh, I see, so then you freely admit that the USA cherry picks who should be held to UN resolutions against them and who should not be.. hmm interesting.. I think I just proved my point! Thanks for reacting just as I suspected you would!

HAHA! The UN did crap when Iraq violated UN resolutions! They ALLOWED them too. It took the US and our allies to enforce them. UN is not as important as you think but if any nation that has violated it should be held accountable. They didn't hold Iraq accountable though Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions! UN Holding nations accountable? Only the nations they want too! Iraq wasn't one of them! Because they failed to enforce their resolutions in Iraq, the UN lost all Credibility with me! Just maybe they can gain it back with Sudan. However, France is standing in the way of that so I doubt its going to happen. Sudan doesn't want foreign troops on its soil. They've stated as such. If the UN votes to send in the troops, then the credibility notch will slowly inch upward but its going to be a long time before the UN gains my full confidence!


Really?

Interesting.

Now that Iraq has become a case where Bush really just went in out of humanitarian needs - (he just forgot to stress that the first time around I guess) - you would think that this bold new policy to free the oppressed by whatever means neccessary was now the norm.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040728/2004072814.html

Nope. The Brits have even offered up 5000 troops for the effort, but Colin thinks that sanctions is the way to go.

LEt's see. Poor starving country brought to heel by further starving it's citizens. Oh yeah - it's France's fault...........

Oh yes - and newsflash - Saddam didn't want troops on his soil either. So what the hell did that have to do with anything?

Oh, I see, so then you freely admit that the USA cherry picks who should be held to UN resolutions against them and who should not be.. hmm interesting.. I think I just proved my point! Thanks for reacting just as I suspected you would!

No we don't cherry pic! However, the UN does cherry pick! Iraq clearly violated 17 UN resolutions, UN did squat! It took the US and her allies to do something to enforce said resolutions! If your talking about Israel, I'm not up on current events there so I won't comment though I do know that the GA voted nearly unamously for Israel to tear down the wall. Unfortunately for the UNGA, what they say is like the World Court, non-binding so Israel can ignore it and I'm suspecting they are!

I will say this, if the UN went after every nation that has violated UN Resolutions, How much bloodshed will there be? The answer is alot of bloodshed. More than what is going on now in Iraq. That is My honest Opinion. If the UN did that, then Maybe the UN could accomplish what it was designed to do. STOP GLOBAL CONFLICTS! I won't deny that they haven't prevented some, they have, but there is still global strife and the US is not the Chief cause of it. Somewhat yea, no denying, but yet, nations always come to the USA to bail them out and we oblige them.

I'm wonder when "US and its allies" turns into "US and its ally" and then turns into "US"

Not respecting others' opinions isn't really that good of an idea either...

Really?

Interesting.

Now that Iraq has become a case where Bush really just went in out of humanitarian needs - (he just forgot to stress that the first time around I guess) - you would think that this bold new policy to free the oppressed by whatever means neccessary was now the norm.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040728/2004072814.html

Nope. The Brits have even offered up 5000 troops for the effort, but Colin thinks that sanctions is the way to go.

LEt's see. Poor starving country brought to heel by further starving it's citizens. Oh yeah - it's France's fault...........

Britian can still send in their 5000 troops. Nothing is stopping them! However, Sudan has said they don't want them so Britian will more than likely not send them unless a UN resolution is passed. I haven't heard much more on a resolution though regarding Sudan. US is also thinking of sending a small contigent of troops over to Sudan too but we haven't decided on doing that or not.

No we don't cherry pic!.

Actually that is true.. because the war had nothing to do with any UN resolutions.. read up.. PNAC doctrine. It wouldn't of mattered if the UN said Saddam had nothing (which he didn't) Bush was going to war with Iraq.. had nothing to do with violated resolutions nor humane reasons.. and we all know it had nothing to do with 9/11!

Just wanted to see how gullible you were..lol

No we don't cherry pic! However, the UN does cherry pick! Iraq clearly violated 17 UN resolutions, UN did squat! It took the US and her allies to do something to enforce said resolutions! If your talking about Israel, I'm not up on current events there so I won't comment though I do know that the GA voted nearly unamously for Israel to tear down the wall. Unfortunately for the UNGA, what they say is like the World Court, non-binding so Israel can ignore it and I'm suspecting they are!

I will say this, if the UN went after every nation that has violated UN Resolutions, How much bloodshed will there be? The answer is alot of bloodshed. More than what is going on now in Iraq. That is My honest Opinion. If the UN did that, then Maybe the UN could accomplish what it was designed to do. STOP GLOBAL CONFLICTS! I won't deny that they haven't prevented some, they have, but there is still global strife and the US is not the Chief cause of it. Somewhat yea, no denying, but yet, nations always come to the USA to bail them out and we oblige them.

The UN did exactly what it was mandated to do. Define international agrements on sanctions etc.

The UN does NOT have an army. It never has. It was never intended to.

What exactly do you expect the UN to do?

I think that you have no idea at all what it's mandate is, hence your confusion.

Actually that is true.. because the war had nothing to do with any UN resolutions.. read up.. PNAC doctrine. It wouldn't of mattered if the UN said Saddam had nothing (which he didn't) Bush was going to war with Iraq.. had nothing to do with violated resolutions nor humane reasons.. and we all know it had nothing to do with 9/11!

Just wanted to see how gullible you were..lol

Not as gullible as you think Stephistan! I don't really care about the PNAC doctrine. All I care about is making this world a better place for when I have children. Right now the UN is failing in that regard. The UN hasn't made the world a better place. The UN botched the Korean War (armistace), botch Vietnam (we were not the only troops there though we're the ones that suffered more), did a decent job in Operation Desert Storm.

However, that doesn't exclude their faults. Failed to enforce 17 UN resolutions on Iraq, the Oil for Food Scandal, Bosnia (never was a UN sanction and the only thing I agree with Clinton on besides Op. Desert Fox in '98) and others I can't think of right now!

I wonder what FNC and DNC have to do with the UN? Do the people at FOX even know what the UN is?

Britian can still send in their 5000 troops. Nothing is stopping them! However, Sudan has said they don't want them so Britian will more than likely not send them unless a UN resolution is passed. I haven't heard much more on a resolution though regarding Sudan. US is also thinking of sending a small contigent of troops over to Sudan too but we haven't decided on doing that or not.


Errr.... so the fact that Colin is expressing the official US position is that there is no need for military intervention but that sanctions are the way to go is fine, but it is the UN's fault that nothing is being done? When the US has veto power over resolutions? And you are now stating that unilateralism by Britain against US wishes is okey-dokie too? But only in this case right... not in a case that you disagre with?

But it's all the UN's fault, and especially France's. Because THEY are the ones that don't know how to manage a cooperative foregn policy to acheive desired goals?

Such an interesting train of logic....


My head hurts.

I sense a tangent from the topic.

Errr.... so the fact that Colin is expressing the official US position is that there is no need for military intervention but that sanctions are the way to go is fine, but it is the UN's fault that nothing is being done? When the US has veto power over resolutions? And you are now stating that unilateralism by Britain against US wishes is okey-dokie too? But only in this case right... not in a case that you disagre with?

But it's all the UN's fault, and especially France's. Because THEY are the ones that don't know how to manage a cooperative foregn policy to acheive desired goals?

Such an interesting train of logic....


My head hurts.
I have an idea, start another "Iraq and the UN and Bush lied and Moore is fat" thread...or better yet...I will...

Errr.... so the fact that Colin is expressing the official US position is that there is no need for military intervention but that sanctions are the way to go is fine, but it is the UN's fault that nothing is being done? When the US has veto power over resolutions? And you are now stating that unilateralism by Britain against US wishes is okey-dokie too? But only in this case right... not in a case that you disagre with?

But it's all the UN's fault, and especially France's. Because THEY are the ones that don't know how to manage a cooperative foregn policy to acheive desired goals?

Such an interesting train of logic....


My head hurts.

Your forgetting that Britian, France, Russia and China all have Veto power! However, France is threatening to block any action on Sudan be it a resolution or intervention!

France is also threatening to block NATO personel to train Iraqi Soldiers!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343758 <- have fun...take it there...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343758 <- have fun...take it there...

Thanks.

Notice they aren't covering it while Ted Kennedy is speaking?

That's outright biased, as if you didn't already know that...

SO WHAT!!!

I wouldn't want to listen to that huge gasbag anyway. Fox can cover or not cover whomever they choose. If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH!

That pesky First Amendment...you have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to demand that anyone listen.

This thread has gone off topic.

SO WHAT!!!

I wouldn't want to listen to that huge gasbag anyway. Fox can cover or not cover whomever they choose. If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH!

That pesky First Amendment...you have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to demand that anyone listen.
uh...but it's the news and they claim to be fair and balanced...oh wait, you're a blubbering idiot...seriously though

Ted Kennedy speaking at the DNC live = News, like him or not.
O'Reilly/Moore prerecorded debate = news that isn't live and can be played later.

I don't like Bush, but CNN and MSNBC play them when he speaks...Larry King doesn't feel like he is more important...

Anyway

On Fox News recently...
They basically just argued that Kerry isn't the answer to stopping our dependency on foreign oil because he is against ANWR drilling and for the Kyoto treaty...

How is switching to non-oil energy sources not decreasing our dependency on foreign oil??

Anyway

On Fox News recently...
They basically just argued that Kerry isn't the answer to stopping our dependency on foreign oil because he is against ANWR drilling and for the Kyoto treaty...

How is switching to non-oil energy sources not decreasing our dependency on foreign oil??

Why is it that we would be bearing the brunt of the cost of Kyoto? Oh wait we won't because it'll never get ratified by the US Senate since that is the law of the land that every treaty needs to be approved by the US Senate so we will have nothing to fear from that!

He hasn't come up with a plan for Non-oil energy sources nor has he come out with a plan on how to PAY FOR it. What's he going to do? Raise our taxes? won't pass the House! Probably won't get out of committee.

Why is it that we would be bearing the brunt of the cost of Kyoto? Oh wait we won't because it'll never get ratified by the US Senate since that is the law of the land that every treaty needs to be approved by the US Senate so we will have nothing to fear from that!
You're anti-environment?

You're anti-environment?

Hmm no i'm not but i'm not pro-environment either! Just because I'm against Kyoto, doesn't make me anti-environmental.

However, if we didn't have all of the regulations, maybe just maybe we wouldn't have all of the pollution. Clean air Tech is expensive and all the regulations are keeping many industries from upgrading! US hasn't ratified it and I dont think it will ever be ratified. That was why it was never sent to the US Senate for ratification.

However, if we didn't have all of the regulations, maybe just maybe we wouldn't have all of the pollution. Clean air Tech is expensive and all the regulations are keeping many industries from upgrading!
This doesn't make much sense to me...

This doesn't make much sense to me...

It doesn't make much sense to you because you can't see how much the technology is. Under current regulations, its easier now to upgrade than it was before Bush deregulated said regulations. Before he did it, many industries had to build new factories and/or power plants! Now they can upgrade their systems without all the red tape thus making their industries cleaner and more efficient than they used to be!

It doesn't make much sense to you because you can't see how much the technology is. Under current regulations, its easier now to upgrade than it was before Bush deregulated said regulations. Before he did it, many industries had to build new factories and/or power plants! Now they can upgrade their systems without all the red tape thus making their industries cleaner and more efficient than they used to be!
I'm still not completely following you I don't think...

I'm still not completely following you I don't think...

Obviously not!

Obviously not!
At least I admit to it instead of continuing to blindly argue against you like some rights tend to do...

At least I admit to it instead of continuing to blindly argue against you like some rights tend to do...

actually its the left. I'm a conservative and a republican! I'm all for protecting the environment but did you know that in the rockies, there is a huge, untapped natural gas resevoir? Alaska is sitting on millions of barrels of oil? If you want energy independence, look at the untapped natural resources we have in our country that environmentalists don't let us tap. Don't get me wrong, I can see some of their reasons, truely I can, however, many of their reasons can be described as Ludicrous. Some of them do hold weight, won't deny they don't but the effects on the environment today can be minimized thanks to technology. Should we tap these resources? Maybe. I haven't yet made up my mind on these issues.

actually its the left. I'm a conservative and a republican! I'm all for protecting the environment but did you know that in the rockies, there is a huge, untapped natural gas resevoir? Alaska is sitting on millions of barrels of oil? If you want energy independence, look at the untapped natural resources we have in our country that environmentalists don't let us tap. Don't get me wrong, I can see some of their reasons, truely I can, however, many of their reasons can be described as Ludicrous. Some of them do hold weight, won't deny they don't but the effects on the environment today can be minimized thanks to technology. Should we tap these resources? Maybe. I haven't yet made up my mind on these issues.
How cheap would a war to secure a foreign oil source be if we were using water-powered tanks?

It doesn't make much sense to you because you can't see how much the technology is. Under current regulations, its easier now to upgrade than it was before Bush deregulated said regulations. Before he did it, many industries had to build new factories and/or power plants! Now they can upgrade their systems without all the red tape thus making their industries cleaner and more efficient than they used to be!Wow--do you even understand what you're talking about? I doubt it. Let me enlighten you.

During the Clinton administration, there was something called new source review--enacted even before he was elected, I believe, but heavily enforced by Clinton's EPA. What that meant was that older, more heavily polluting plants had to be brought up to modern standards when they were refurbished so they wouldn't pollute so much anymore. With me so far?

When Bush got rid of new source review, or rather, stopped enforcing it and cut the EPA's budget so severely that they couldn't go after violators and dropped almost every lawsuit that was pending against the energy industry, the energy industry kept upgrading their older, more heavily polluting plants, but without the more stringent pollution controls. Net result? More shit in the air than ever before. Not less--more. The only way Bush was able to claim that pollutants had decreased during his tenure was by changing the reporting to say that carbon dioxide was no longer a pollutant and then comparing the old numbers (that included CO2) to the new numbers (that excluded it). Got it?

actually its the left. I'm a conservative and a republican! I'm all for protecting the environment but did you know that in the rockies, there is a huge, untapped natural gas resevoir? Alaska is sitting on millions of barrels of oil? If you want energy independence, look at the untapped natural resources we have in our country that environmentalists don't let us tap. Don't get me wrong, I can see some of their reasons, truely I can, however, many of their reasons can be described as Ludicrous. Some of them do hold weight, won't deny they don't but the effects on the environment today can be minimized thanks to technology. Should we tap these resources? Maybe. I haven't yet made up my mind on these issues.
Also...I'm just going to ignore your comment about who is and is not blindly arguing more often because you're opinion obviously is not biased...

Also...I'm just going to ignore your comment about who is and is not blindly arguing more often because you're opinion obviously is not biased...
Not that my opinion is unbiased...it's just that I'm not hopping around saying "It's the left that's blindly arguing things and I know this and know I'm right because I'm right and conservative!"

Wow, this thread has a mind of its own! :headbang:

Wow, this thread has a mind of its own! :headbang:

It sure does. Well we are off topic, hurry up and telegram me Tuesday, I'm missin ya babe.

This is what news is supposed to do; if it isn't doing that, it isn't news and shouldn't be broadcasting as such.

FNC = FEC (Fox Entertainment Channel)
CNN = CNE (Cable Network Entertainment)

Get the drift?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it CEN? Cable Entertainment Network?

This is what news is supposed to do; if it isn't doing that, it isn't news and shouldn't be broadcasting as such.

FNC = FEC (Fox Entertainment Channel)
CNN = CNE (Cable Network Entertainment)

Get the drift?

Thats my point, I don't believe it is right that the media aims to entertain rather than inform, I think one just has to accept it as a fact of life.

Hmm no i'm not but i'm not pro-environment either! Just because I'm against Kyoto, doesn't make me anti-environmental.

However, if we didn't have all of the regulations, maybe just maybe we wouldn't have all of the pollution. Clean air Tech is expensive and all the regulations are keeping many industries from upgrading! US hasn't ratified it and I dont think it will ever be ratified. That was why it was never sent to the US Senate for ratification.
Forgive me if this has already been said (I'm a page or so behind right now) but... ahem... WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Wait... now I suddenly understand your reasoning... of course! Letting big business do whatever they want will of course make them invest heavily on cutting pollution! And regulating pollution will increase pollution! Bush is a genius! I can use exclamation points almost as much as Formal!

Forgive me if this has already been said (I'm a page or so behind right now) but... ahem... WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Wait... now I suddenly understand your reasoning... of course! Letting big business do whatever they want will of course make them invest heavily on cutting pollution! And regulating pollution will increase pollution! Bush is a genius! I can use exclamation points almost as much as Formal!
No wonder I wasn't following him...

Forgive me if this has already been said (I'm a page or so behind right now) but... ahem... WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Wait... now I suddenly understand your reasoning... of course! Letting big business do whatever they want will of course make them invest heavily on cutting pollution! And regulating pollution will increase pollution! Bush is a genius! I can use exclamation points almost as much as Formal!
I know--I went into this long discussion of new source review, and it got buried at the end of the last page, so noone ever responded to it. It's amazing to me how people can actually buy into the idea that a business will do something that's more expensive just because it's good for humanity as a whole.

No wonder I wasn't following him...
I'm assuming you noticed my five metric tons of sarcasm?

I know--I went into this long discussion of new source review, and it got buried at the end of the last page, so noone ever responded to it. It's amazing to me how people can actually buy into the idea that a business will do something that's more expensive just because it's good for humanity as a whole.
Lol yeah I know. But off-topic. How's this for a summation:
Fox news is biased to the right. Heavily. It's their right to be so, and some other organizations are also biased in different directions, but "fair and balanced" is a joke. Ok everyone?

Lol yeah I know. But off-topic. How's this for a summation:
Fox news is biased to the right. Heavily. It's their right to be so, and some other organizations are also biased in different directions, but "fair and balanced" is a joke. Ok everyone?
Only if you add that Bill O'Reilly would make for a better talk show host and stay out of "News" as he isn't very informative...

Only if you add that Bill O'Reilly would make for a better talk show host and stay out of "News" as he isn't very informative...O'Reilly does news? Since when? :D

Uhm...oh wow...I'm taking something I just saw on Fox and making a new thread...

Okay, caution, I'm entering a no-spin zone, so I'll be unspinning some BS probably...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it CEN? Cable Entertainment Network?

Yeah, I realized that... :headbang:

OMFG LTFOL!! Wesley Clark turned O'Reilly down for Larry King! Haha. Excellent choice.

OMFG LTFOL!! Wesley Clark turned O'Reilly down for Larry King! Haha. Excellent choice.

Haha!!!

Haha, now they're arguing about whether or not Fox is right-winged...

Oh God...O'Reilly wants Bill and Hillary on his show...

O'Reilly also wants to talk to Barak Obama, and amazingly, O'Reilly hasn't said anything flamatory about him...

Oh God...O'Reilly wants Bill and Hillary on his show...

Cool that'll be an interesting debate though I heard that the DNC Chair likes Bill O'Reilly and said he delves into FACTS!

O'Reilly also wants to talk to Barak Obama, and amazingly, O'Reilly hasn't said anything flamatory about him...I'd love to see that--Obama would slice him and dice him and do it with a smile. O'Reilly talks a good game, but the fact is if he were to get in a room with Obama or god forbid, Clinton, he'd be so out of his league it would be hysterical. Oh Jesus that would be terrific.

I'd love to see that--Obama would slice him and dice him and do it with a smile. O'Reilly talks a good game, but the fact is if he were to get in a room with Obama or god forbid, Clinton, he'd be so out of his league it would be hysterical. Oh Jesus that would be terrific.
The way Obama speaks reminds me a lot of "The Rock," anyone else?

I'd love to see that--Obama would slice him and dice him and do it with a smile. O'Reilly talks a good game, but the fact is if he were to get in a room with Obama or god forbid, Clinton, he'd be so out of his league it would be hysterical. Oh Jesus that would be terrific.

I don't think he'll slice and dice, I think they'll have a very good and civilized debate! Much like how it went with the DNC Chair and O'Reilly! As for Clinton, I think it'll be an interesting debate!

Peter Jennings now on O'Reilly!

Peter Jennings now on O'Reilly!
Yep.

Peter Jennings now on O'Reilly!
How come he can't pronounce "forte" properly? It is only on syllable.

How come he can't pronounce "forte" properly? It is only on syllable.

Peter Jennings is Canadian!

Peter Jennings is Canadian!
Okay. I suppose it's excusable then.

Okay. I suppose it's excusable then.

Yea I'll agree with you there! Hey at least its a civilized debate here!

Yea I'll agree with you there! Hey at least its a civilized debate here!
...boring...

Whoa...wait a second...does O'Reilly ever do live interviews?

...boring...

Agreed now we're listening to Al Sharpton Speaking!

Whoa...wait a second...does O'Reilly ever do live interviews?

Yea he does but sometimes when you cornor someone to talk to, you quickly tape it so that they can't back out later they way Wesley Clarke did.

What the...why is it that Fox and CNN all have the exact camera angles and shots and such?!

Oh I love Dick Morris! Very Grounded!

What the...why is it that Fox and CNN all have the exact camera angles and shots and such?!

I don't know! probably how the cameras are set up?

I don't know! probably how the cameras are set up?
(they're using the same cameras.)

(they're using the same cameras.)

Thanks for the info!

Hmm...purpose of government isn't to make sure the right people are sleeping together in the bedroom, it's to make sure that the people are able to eat in the kitchen...

Hmm...purpose of government isn't to make sure the right people are sleeping together in the bedroom, it's to make sure that the people are able to eat in the kitchen...

Ok? That made no sense to me personally!

Ok? That made no sense to me personally!
Sharpton paraphrase...
And here is another one:
"When Lincoln's promise of 40 acres and a mule never came through, African-American voters took this donkey and rode it!"

Now he's talking about the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Right to Organize all coming from Democratic administrations...

I think Sharpton just pwnt Bush as far as getting "The African-American vote" that Bush keeps talking about (as if they're just one huge citizen with 1 mega-super-vote...)

Now he's talking about the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Right to Organize all coming from Democratic administrations...

Yea amazing how he blames the republican party when they haven't done anything to hamper it. Or have both parties done so equally? I'm not 100% sure.

Yea amazing how he blames the republican party when they haven't done anything to hamper it. Or have both parties done so equally? I'm not 100% sure.
huh?

I think Sharpton just pwnt Bush as far as getting "The African-American vote" that Bush keeps talking about (as if they're just one huge citizen with 1 mega-super-vote...)

YOu could be right but I'm not watching Al Sharpton!

Don't ask Opal! I confused myself! LOL

Where's my "I had an abortion" T-Shirt?

Elizebeth(sp?) Edwards is on now.

Amazing...her daughter introduced her...so that...she...could...introduce her husband? HAHAHAHA!!

Elizebeth(sp?) Edwards is on now.

She was now its John Edwards Turn! Can't wait to hear what he has to say.

He's from South Carolina? He's got a better southern draw then almost any Arkansas hillbilly I know...

Hmm...purpose of government isn't to make sure the right people are sleeping together in the bedroom, it's to make sure that the people are able to eat in the kitchen...
Ok? That made no sense to me personally!Let me spell it out--the purpose of government isn't to worry about who's sleeping together (as in same-sex rights), but is to make sure that people are able to eat in the kitchen (as in they've got the chance to earn a living and put food on the table).

He's from South Carolina? He's got a better southern draw then almost any Arkansas hillbilly I know...
...in case anyone was wondering...I lived in Nebraska until I was like 6 or 7 before I moved down to Arkansas (and I'm 18 now) and never picked up on the southern accent...

He's from South Carolina? He's got a better southern draw then almost any Arkansas hillbilly I know...
The accents are pretty close--my sister lives in Georgia on the SC border, and I've heard it a number of times.

Oh well, it's part of what the people like about him.

South Carolina I believe he was born in but he's the Senator from North Carolina!

I don't care what side of the fence you're on...I don't see how you can't respect Edwards.

South Carolina I believe he was born in but he's the Senator from North Carolina!
Okay, thanks for the clarification.

He is doing pretty good. He hasn't mentioned terrorism, Iraq, George Bush, or any other republican. That's pretty respectable.

Here he goes to talk about the war...hopefully he keeps this positive image...

It's good to see that Edwards has troted out his tired "two Americas" speech. This guy is pathetic. What a scummy man, this trail lawyer is. I am surprised he isn't channeling another baby, telling the world is has asked him to abort it.

I don't care what side of the fence you're on...I don't see how you can't respect Edwards.

Nevermind! I've read the wrong thing! LOL! Bill, as much as I don't like Kerry, I actually respect Edwards though that last bit there can be debated since He too voted against the 87 Billion dollars to fund them.

It's good to see that Edwards has troted out his tired "two Americas" speech. This guy is pathetic. What a scummy man, this trail lawyer is. I am surprised he isn't channeling another baby, telling the world is has asked him to abort it.
...flam, bam, thank ya mam...

It's good to see that Edwards has troted out his tired "two Americas" speech. This guy is pathetic. What a scummy man, this trail lawyer is. I am surprised he isn't channeling another baby, telling the world is has asked him to abort it.
How sad your life must be, to be so deluded and consumed by ignorance.

Hmm did I disrespect him? No I don't think I did though he did a nice job of lawayering early one but he did bring up a few could points!
I meant "you" in a plural sense...

Edwards knows as much about the military as I know about huckstering a jury. WHat a crock of crap.

How sad your life must be, to be so deluded and consumed by ignorance.
Shut your tired little flamebait hole.

Edwards knows as much about the military as I know about huckstering a jury. WHat a crock of crap.
...he's not running for Cheif General of the Army...

Ok Edwards just proved that he doesn't follow current events. France is blocking NATO from training Iraqi forces according to an unnamed ambassador!

Not to mention how many nations are helping in reconstruction! Its just not Britian and US rebuilding, its Poland and many other nations that are helping too!

Nevermind! I've read the wrong thing! LOL! Bill, as much as I don't like Kerry, I actually respect Edwards though that last bit there can be debated since He too voted against the 87 Billion dollars to fund them.Just remember--the Republican party voted against the $87 billion first, because they had to protect those tax breaks for the top 2% or wage earners--that's the bill Edwards and Kerry voted for. So when you bitch out Kerry/Edwards, remember that the Republicans did it first, and did it more expensively.

Just remember--the Republican party voted against the $87 billion first, because they had to protect those tax breaks for the top 2% or wage earners--that's the bill Edwards and Kerry voted for. So when you bitch out Kerry/Edwards, remember that the Republicans did it first, and did it more expensively.

Hmmm however, he didn't fund the forces Incertonia! Granted there was other bills that didn't pass and I'm not saying that the current one was the correct one that passed. What I am saying though that he and Edwards and a couple of other Senators that voted FOR the war then Voted AGAINST the bill that would fund our troops. I can't give someone my vote that does that.

"When someone calls from the office and can't get head, you tell them: HOPE IS ON THE WAY!"

haha, he kind of failed to pronounce the "a" in "ahead"

"When someone calls from the office and can't get head, you tell them: HOPE IS ON THE WAY!"

haha, he kind of failed to pronounce the "a" in "ahead"

You noticed that too?

It has always seemed that FOX News Channel has covered everything late, or just didn't cover it at all! One day, some Iraqi-important guy (I don't remember who) was talking, MSNBC and CNN were covering it, but FNC was still airing DaySide. I don't understand: should FNC just stop covering the Democratic National Convention, all together? I bet that when the RNC comes along in August, FNC and CNN will dedicate even more time to the Republicans then they did the Democrats...a bias America...

Hmmm however, he didn't fund the forces Incertonia! Granted there was other bills that didn't pass and I'm not saying that the current one was the correct one that passed. What I am saying though that he and Edwards and a couple of other Senators that voted FOR the war then Voted AGAINST the bill that would fund our troops. I can't give someone my vote that does that.
You're deliberately missing the point--Kerry and Edwards wanted to fund the troops, but they insisted on doing it responsibly. The Republicans wanted to fund the troops, but insisted on doing it irresponsibly.

I remember a time when the Republicans were the ones who were constantly talking about a balanced budget--it was never anything more than a lot of talk, but at least they talked about it. They don't even pretend anymore.

I think at times all channels cover one thing and not the other, but FNC has covered a lot more of the conservative side - just as MSNBC has done the liberal - in recent years.

You're deliberately missing the point--Kerry and Edwards wanted to fund the troops, but they insisted on doing it responsibly. The Republicans wanted to fund the troops, but insisted on doing it irresponsibly.

I remember a time when the Republicans were the ones who were constantly talking about a balanced budget--it was never anything more than a lot of talk, but at least they talked about it. They don't even pretend anymore.

Playing with peoples tax cuts that they deserve isn't what I call responsible. I call it taking extra food off the table or a lost down payment to owning a home or maybe an educational payment will be missed or to start a college fund. I call that irresponsible.

Kerry/Edwards should be renamed Shuck/Jive.

Playing with peoples tax cuts that they deserve isn't what I call responsible. I call it taking extra food off the table or a lost down payment to owning a home or maybe an educational payment will be missed or to start a college fund. I call that irresponsible.
Oh Jesus Christ--we're talking about the top 2% of wage earners here. We're not talking about middle class families, not even upper middle class families. We're talking about people who make, at the minimum, $200,000 a year. They're not struggling to put food on the table or cutting corners to buy a home or ekeing out a paycheck to start a college fund. These are wealthy people who would have been asked to forgo a tax break they hadn't even received yet, in order to keep from borrowing more money and adding to the annual deficit and the national debt.

Oh Jesus Christ--we're talking about the top 2% of wage earners here. We're not talking about middle class families, not even upper middle class families. We're talking about people who make, at the minimum, $200,000 a year. They're not struggling to put food on the table or cutting corners to buy a home or ekeing out a paycheck to start a college fund. These are wealthy people who would have been asked to forgo a tax break they hadn't even received yet, in order to keep from borrowing more money and adding to the annual deficit and the national debt.No, they are just paying all those people struggling to put food on the table.

And didn't your mother ever taught you not to swear infront of a lady?

And didn't your mother ever taught you not to swear infront of a lady?
No, my mother didn't ever "taught" me anything!