NationStates Jolt Archive

But still manages to mess it up.

Bush signed his new energy policy into law today, and one aspect of it is to give tax credit--up to $3,000--on any hybrid car bought after Jan 1, 2006 when the law begins. But here's the catch, every automaker can only sell 60,000 cars with this credit. That's total, not just per year, as Toyota expects to sell about twice that many Priuses in 2005 alone.

Indeed, it is better than no incentive at all, so I thank you Mr. Bush. You did two good things as President, your "do-not-call list", and now the tax credit for purchasing hybrids.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Saveonacar/P125244.asp?GT1=6822

Yeah, this sounds like a big PR stunt to me...

Doesn't make up for the billions in tax credits to hyper-profitable oil companies, but hey, credit where due.

You did two good things as President, your "do-not-call list", and now the tax credit for purchasing hybrids.

You forgot the tax cuts and the dead terrorists. :mp5:

He also forgot bringing freedom to the Iraqi.

You forgot the tax cuts and the dead terrorists. :mp5:

Oh yes the tax cuts. THE TAX CUTS! How could I forget the tax cuts. Bush totally pwns now. w00t w00t. You forgot the recession and the dead soldiers and the dead civillians. See, I can resort to saying simplistic things about what Bush did too.

And creating individuals like Howard Dean who destroy their own party :D

Oh yes the tax cuts. THE TAX CUTS! How could I forget the tax cuts. Bush totally pwns now. w00t w00t. You forgot the recession and the dead soldiers and the dead civillians. See, I can resort to saying simplistic things about what Bush did too.

You know most of those "Dead civillians" were actually insurgents trying to kill our men and women in uniform.

Oh yes the tax cuts. THE TAX CUTS! How could I forget the tax cuts. Bush totally pwns now. w00t w00t. You forgot the recession and the dead soldiers and the dead civillians. See, I can resort to saying simplistic things about what Bush did too.



He inherited the recession from Clinton, the economy was already declining before he even got in office...and would you rather have a few thousand dead volunteers or countless more Iraqi political dissenters and Afghan women and American citizens die?

And creating individuals like Howard Dean who destroy their own party :D

Howard Dean was funny. Is there any way I can get a clip of him screaming! I laugh so hard it makes me dizzy then I lay and make sleep for 2 of 3 moons in the day... HAHA!!

He inherited the recession from Clinton, the economy was already declining before he even got in office...and would you rather have a few thousand dead volunteers or countless more Iraqi political dissenters and Afghan women and American citizens die?

Well, since the recession is Clinton's fault, isn't Saddam's power Reagan's fault then?

Doesn't make up for the billions in tax credits to hyper-profitable oil companies, but hey, credit where due.


While companies like ExxonMobile are already making 9 billion in pure profit every 3 freakin' months!!! gee yeah they really needed those tax incentives you ass! No, no you are pandering to your oil buddies. Not at all. :rolleyes:

You know most of those "Dead civillians" were actually insurgents trying to kill our men and women in uniform.



Insurgent: Die Ah-mare-ee-kahn pigs!!!

*insurgent blows self up in a crowd of schoolchildren*

Liberal news agencies: And in other news, American soldiers bombed a group of schoolchildren today in what witnesses called "an unprovoked display of barbarism."

Haha that's incredible. The above comment makes me laugh;.. a lot. Let's see, the smallest estimate of civilian deaths, i repeat the SMALLEST is around 100,000. NOw when you say "most" I'm thinking you're going around 75%. So 75,000 civilians or insurgents in dusguise have thrown themselves at our troops? INteresting. Well, I guess that overshadows 25,000 innocent deaths then. Or does it? ERRRR Wrong. War is just wrong. I want to see your face walking down a destroyed city looking at orphans, widows, cripples, and ruined lives. War is not anything ANYONE should have to live through. You're misdirecting your anger. I do not wish war on anyone, as unavoidable as it is, and I would go any distance if I could make it so there was enver another one.

Well, since the recession is Clinton's fault, isn't Saddam's power Reagan's fault then?



Allies change, Iraq was opposed to Iran at the time so it was understandable. Would you say the same for us having shared weapons with, say, Britain if Britain somehow became a rogue state?

Insurgent: Die Ah-mare-ee-kahn pigs!!!

*insurgent blows self up in a crowd of schoolchildren*

Liberal news agencies: And in other news, American soldiers bombed a group of schoolchildren today in what witnesses called "an unprovoked display of barbarism."

Which liberal news agency are you talking about?

And creating individuals like Howard Dean who destroy their own party :D
Hmmm--Dean's been DNC chairman for precisely one special election, and in it, the Democrat pulled 48% of the vote in a district that went 64-36 for Bush in 2004, a 12 point improvement. If that's destroying the party, give me more of that.

Haha that's incredible. The above comment makes me laugh;.. a lot. Let's see, the smallest estimate of civilian deaths, i repeat the SMALLEST is around 100,000. NOw when you say "most" I'm thinking you're going around 75%. So 75,000 civilians or insurgents in dusguise have thrown themselves at our troops? INteresting. Well, I guess that overshadows 25,000 innocent deaths then. Or does it? ERRRR Wrong. War is just wrong. I want to see your face walking down a destroyed city looking at orphans, widows, cripples, and ruined lives. War is not anything ANYONE should have to live through. You're misdirecting your anger. I do not wish war on anyone, as unavoidable as it is, and I would go any distance if I could make it so there was enver another one.



100,000 is the highest. I stopped reading after that fallacy.

Haha that's incredible. The above comment makes me laugh;.. a lot. Let's see, the smallest estimate of civilian deaths, i repeat the SMALLEST is around 100,000. NOw when you say "most" I'm thinking you're going around 75%. So 75,000 civilians or insurgents in dusguise have thrown themselves at our troops? INteresting. Well, I guess that overshadows 25,000 innocent deaths then. Or does it? ERRRR Wrong. War is just wrong. I want to see your face walking down a destroyed city looking at orphans, widows, cripples, and ruined lives. War is not anything ANYONE should have to live through. You're misdirecting your anger. I do not wish war on anyone, as unavoidable as it is, and I would go any distance if I could make it so there was enver another one.


War is Hell buddy. But sometimes it is nessecary. I mean if we haven't gone to War with Germany in WW II, Hitler would've over taken the world. We went to War in Afghanistan and Iraq so that the terrorist won't come here and crash planes into buildings.

:rolleyes:

I want you "pro-war" aggressors to watch a little documentary called "Relentless". It's about the MIddle East crisis. That little media scene above is very accurate in that all middle-eastern countries broadcast is propaganda. Kids' shows, yes KIDS shows idealize the martyr and children recite poems of their willingness to end their lives for Islam. its sick but its true. The Middle eAStern peopela r ebeing conditioned to hate us just as we them. I hate to say it, but its not their fault they hate us. To them we are the "great satan". TO us they are unwashed bloodthirsty barbarians. Neither is the truth.

Hmmm--Dean's been DNC chairman for precisely one special election, and in it, the Democrat pulled 48% of the vote in a district that went 64-36 for Bush in 2004, a 12 point improvement. If that's destroying the party, give me more of that.



We'll see who the screamer alienates come '08 ;)

Allies change, Iraq was opposed to Iran at the time so it was understandable. Would you say the same for us having shared weapons with, say, Britain if Britain somehow became a rogue state?

It was stupid to ever share nuclear technology with ANYONE. Britian secretly gave Israel the bomb behind our backs.

Which liberal news agency are you talking about?



Take your pick. I guess we could throw in Al-Jazeera with the rest of them, they may not be liberal but they have the same message :p

We'll see who the screamer alienates come '08 ;)

I guess you're not old enough to appreciate a screamer.

While companies like ExxonMobile are already making 9 billion in pure profit every 3 freakin' months!!! gee yeah they really needed those tax incentives you ass! No, no you are pandering to your oil buddies. Not at all. :rolleyes:
Whoa whoa whoa--what are you jumping my shit for? I was pointing out that the tax credits were pure bullshit and that this credit for the Prius was a joke.

He also forgot bringing freedom to the Iraqi.

I pray to God George W doesn't decide to bring freedom to my country as well.....

We'll see who the screamer alienates come '08 ;)
'08? I'm looking forward to '06--midterm elections, baby.

Let's look at Afghanistan today. I forget th enumbers, but it poroduces like 10 times amount of drugs it did before the war. It is the largest smuggling operation in the world for opium. Its ridiculous. ANd our troops are helping these drug lords that will eventually replace the old oppressive Afghani Government. DOn't tell me its progress. Suicide bombers are given money for their families in return for eliminating American targets. There's not a quarter as many religious fanatics as we believe. They are desperate people looking out for their faimilies. theres more death in Afghanistan now than ever before. War is not necessary.... never, simply never. Especially when the death in it serves no purpose. Those suicide terrorists are paid off by ANYONE. Rich Saudi Arabian families, Syria, Lebanon, anywhere, but wher edo we strike? The weakest country in the Middle East. It was a show put on for the American public! Open your eyes!

Allies change, Iraq was opposed to Iran at the time so it was understandable. Would you say the same for us having shared weapons with, say, Britain if Britain somehow became a rogue state?

Depends on the situation. If Britain just woke up tomorrow and said, let's become a rogue state and use U.S. weapons to do so, then no, that would be incredibly illogical so it would be illogical to say it was our fault. But if they were slowly becoming more and more hostile to us and we continued giving them military aid despite thier resentment then I would probably say, Hey, we were dumb for giving a hostile nation weapons. The middle east has been hostile since we began messing with thier land in WW1. We were simply supporting dictators that were in the best interest of U.S. politics, not U.S. people, or even U.S. business (Ok, most dictators we supported helped large U.S. companies)

Whoa whoa whoa--what are you jumping my shit for? I was pointing out that the tax credits were pure bullshit and that this credit for the Prius was a joke.


I wasn't I was agreeing with you

I pray to God George W doesn't decide to bring freedom to my country as well.....

So you would rather be under a ruthless dictator who gas a certain group of people and kill anyone that doesn't agree with the party that the dictator is a part of? Face it, getting your Independent without war is very hard to do. I can only think of one country that has ever had a peaceful change of powers. And that is Chilie in South America. In every Revoultion and power changes have met with battles and war. Its a fact of life.

Take your pick. I guess we could throw in Al-Jazeera with the rest of them, they may not be liberal but they have the same message :p

Again, list ALL liberal news media. Seriously, I'm not playing dumb or partisan, what would you call liberal news media? Are you thinking like BBC? Conservative bias is obviously on FOX News channel. Those are the only two I can think of as biased to some people.

So you would rather be under a ruthless dictator who gas a certain group of people and kill anyone that doesn't agree with the party that the dictator is a part of? Face it, getting your Independent without war is very hard to do. I can only think of one country that has ever had a peaceful change of powers. And that is Chilie in South America. In every Revoultion and power changes have met with battles and war. Its a fact of life.

If you were the leader of a country and a portion of your citizens took up arms against you in cahoots with another country. What would you do? Give them flowers? Besides. It hasn't been proven that it wass Saddam that did that. It could very well have been Iran. Or It also could have been an accident on the part of the Iraqis while at war with Iran.

So you would rather be under a ruthless dictator who gas a certain group of people and kill anyone that doesn't agree with the party that the dictator is a part of? Face it, getting your Independent without war is very hard to do. I can only think of one country that has ever had a peaceful change of powers. And that is Chilie in South America. In every Revoultion and power changes have met with battles and war. Its a fact of life.

Democratic revolutions can't be brought about by external force. Revolutions need popular support. Iraq is about to collapse into civil war.

The Pentagon knows Saddam has biological weapons cos they still have the receipts

Again, list ALL liberal news media. Seriously, I'm not playing dumb or partisan, what would you call liberal news media? Are you thinking like BBC? Conservative bias is obviously on FOX News channel. Those are the only two I can think of as biased to some people.



BBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc.

If you were the leader of a country and a portion of your citizens took up arms against you in cahoots with another country. What would you do? Give them flowers? Besides. It hasn't been proven that it wass Saddam that did that. It could very well have been Iran. Or It also could have been an accident on the part of the Iraqis while at war with Iran.

Oh come off of it. It has been proven that Saddam gassed the Kurds and he has killed ANYONE that didn't vote for him or even agree with him. His son even kidnapped and rape women. Face it he was a dictator that oppressed his own people.

I wasn't I was agreeing with you
Oh--wow. Sorry about that.

If you were the leader of a country and a portion of your citizens took up arms against you in cahoots with another country. What would you do? Give them flowers? Besides. It hasn't been proven that it wass Saddam that did that. It could very well have been Iran. Or It also could have been an accident on the part of the Iraqis while at war with Iran.


Yes, he "accidentally" bombarded his Kurds with chemicals....

Also the CIA should know the tactics of what AQ is going to do and how they are going to do it because they trained and armed them.

Also, the insurgents that are blowing up civilians are foreign fighters not from iraq. The bulk of the estimated 200,000 insurgents are iraaqi and are not taking Iraqi civilian lives.

BBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc.

I'm gonna keep bothering you because you can't list etc. If there is more, then why don't you list them. And is ABC on thier because of that document thing that happened last November or something?

Also the CIA should know the tactics of what AQ is going to do and how they are going to do it because they trained and armed them.

Also, the insurgents that are blowing up civilians are foreign fighters not from iraq. The bulk of the estimated 200,000 insurgents are iraaqi and are not taking Iraqi civilian lives.

Prove it, because the last I heard they were blowing up hospitals, city squares, schools, and crowded areas.

BBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc.


any station that doesn't tow the Republican party line and actually questions our esteemed leaders in the govt.

any station that doesn't tow the Republican party line and actually questions our esteemed leaders in the govt.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too...

Oh--wow. Sorry about that.


I should have been clearer. I am tryign to rush in with facts to break up the neo-con propaganda that is flooding in so quickly.

Also the CIA should know the tactics of what AQ is going to do and how they are going to do it because they trained and armed them.

Also, the insurgents that are blowing up civilians are foreign fighters not from iraq. The bulk of the estimated 200,000 insurgents are iraaqi and are not taking Iraqi civilian lives.

Exactly. Despite what Oak Tree said, George W has not brought about a democratic revolution: he has created a massive power vacuum in one of the most politically adverse parts of the world

What I don't understand is why people with hybrid cars get the break, but you don't get anything if you have a non-hybrid that still gets very good gas mileage. There are a couple cars with the traditional fuel-only engines that get 40+ mpg and are very clean-running vehicles. Where's the break for those? If you ask me, any vehicle capable of gas mileage 40 mpg or over should get a break, not just the hybrids.

What I don't understand is why people with hybrid cars get the break, but you don't get anything if you have a non-hybrid that still gets very good gas mileage. There are a couple cars with the traditional fuel-only engines that get 40+ mpg and are very clean-running vehicles. Where's the break for those? If you ask me, any vehicle capable of gas mileage 40 mpg or over should get a break, not just the hybrids.

Sorry, the topic has totally changed now.

What I don't understand is why people with hybrid cars get the break, but you don't get anything if you have a non-hybrid that still gets very good gas mileage. There are a couple cars with the traditional fuel-only engines that get 40+ mpg and are very clean-running vehicles. Where's the break for those? If you ask me, any vehicle capable of gas mileage 40 mpg or over should get a break, not just the hybrids.

Oh yeah I forgot we were talking about Hybrid cars...

Prove it, because the last I heard they were blowing up hospitals, city squares, schools, and crowded areas.

It's been proven and linked time and time again. I really don't want to have to link it AGAIN. Too lazy plus you'd counter with a blog or something and completely dismiss it.

There's one problem with the whole dead terrorists thing..... he didn't actually do that much about them. They are still out there blowing stuff up and shooting people.

What he actually did was "free" a nation that didn't need freeing. Iraq did not ask him to free them, they are not an ally of america, and they were not threatening anyone involved with america. It was an internal problem that should have been solved internally unless they requested help at which point it would have been acceptable for him to impose his ideology upon them.

So what he did do was get frustrated about not "removing" the terrorists and took his frustration out on someone unrelated to that goal. He's a role model for bullies everywhere yay!

any station that doesn't tow the Republican party line and actually questions our esteemed leaders in the govt.


Try any station with anchors who moan about how terrible it is and how they can't believe it is happening when Bush is winning on election night.

Exactly. Despite what Oak Tree said, George W has not brought about a democratic revolution: he has created a massive power vacuum in one of the most politically adverse parts of the world

And yet, the new Iraqi leaders are now getting together to work on the Iraqi consitution. That sounds like a democratic revolutions to me.

Try any station with anchors who moan about how terrible it is and how they can't believe it is happening when Bush is winning on election night.

And you've seen examples of this, or are you merely repeating what you've been told?

There's one problem with the whole dead terrorists thing..... he didn't actually do that much about them. They are still out there blowing stuff up and shooting people.

What he actually did was "free" a nation that didn't need freeing. Iraq did not ask him to free them, they are not an ally of america, and they were not threatening anyone involved with america. It was an internal problem that should have been solved internally unless they requested help at which point it would have been acceptable for him to impose his ideology upon them.

So what he did do was get frustrated about not "removing" the terrorists and took his frustration out on someone unrelated to that goal. He's a role model for bullies everywhere yay!



Yes, they tried to solve it internally and the helicopters that Bush Sr. let Saddam keep obliterated any traces of resistance.

Try any station with anchors who moan about how terrible it is and how they can't believe it is happening when Bush is winning on election night.

:rolleyes:

In other words, anyone who can be critical of our esteemed govt. leaders must be liberal because they aren't towin gthe party line. Just like I said.

And you've seen examples of this, or are you merely repeating what you've been told?


Yes, ask a certain recently deceased anchorman all about what he said.

:rolleyes:

In other words, anyone who can be critical of our esteemed govt. leaders must be liberal because they aren't towin gthe party line. Just like I said.



They are supposed to be unbiased. That is pure, unadulterated bias if I've ever seen it!

And yet, the new Iraqi leaders are now getting together to work on the Iraqi consitution. That sounds like a democratic revolutions to me.

Even America's first attempt at democracy failed.

Exactly. Despite what Oak Tree said, George W has not brought about a democratic revolution: he has created a massive power vacuum in one of the most politically adverse parts of the world



Tell that to the Iraqi citizens and their democratically-elected government.

Face it, getting your Independent without war is very hard to do. I can only think of one country that has ever had a peaceful change of powers. And that is Chilie in South America. In every Revoultion and power changes have met with battles and war. Its a fact of life.
You can't forget Canada!!!

They are supposed to be unbiased. That is pure, unadulterated bias if I've ever seen it!

So being unbiased means completely trusting everything thr govt. tells you? What kind of journalism is that?

Even America's first attempt at democracy failed.

How so? If your talking about the Civil War. If you remember, Washington DC was there through out the War. It never left.

So being unbiased means completely trusting everything thr govt. tells you? What kind of journalism is that?



So, if Kerry was winning the elections and the FOX anchormen were whining "Oh no, it is the end! The Apocalypse is come, humanity is in its darkest throes!", you wouldn't consider that biased? Gotcha.

What I don't understand is why people with hybrid cars get the break, but you don't get anything if you have a non-hybrid that still gets very good gas mileage. There are a couple cars with the traditional fuel-only engines that get 40+ mpg and are very clean-running vehicles. Where's the break for those? If you ask me, any vehicle capable of gas mileage 40 mpg or over should get a break, not just the hybrids.
You make a good, and on topic, point. There should be insentives for any vehicle that forwards progress in efficiency and emissions-including diesel and alternate fuel cars as well as straight gasoline cars that match or beat emissions and mileage from hybrids.

Giving it just to hybrids (and making the 'limit' such that it will only effect a fraction of the cars sold) smacks of headline grabing to distract from the aforementioned tax gifts to the oil industry. (How about tax breaks for oil companies that start transfering thier infrastructure to alternative fuels such as making bio-diesel more widely available.* Feel free to correct me if such an insentive exists in the bill)


*Bio-diesel is soon going to be available down the street for me, so I have to look into swapping out a diesel into an 85 Vanagon. Yay me.

War , Iraq, I feel it should have happened 10 years ago in the first Gulf war, now its too late. I think there is such a thing as a "just war", no one wants war but sometimes war is needed, the second Iraq war was NOT needed. first they was yellow gold, then black gold and now its red gold stained in blood. the west was not going to let Sadam sit on those large Oil reserves, it was never about freeing the Iraqi people (more Freeing the Iraqi people from the Iraqi oil) from an opresive govement, if it was why havn't we invaded Iran? or North Korea, or Syria or Zimbabwe? all have poor human rights recrods and are every bit as tyranical, what made Iraq so special? shits and giggles?

Like it not not, Iraq has happened, the ship has sailed all we can do now is get our brave men and women home as soon as posable alive. thats whats important now and I speak as someone who has friends and family over there.

So, if Kerry was winning the elections and the FOX anchormen were whining "Oh no, it is the end! The Apocalypse is come, humanity is in its darkest throes!", you wouldn't consider that biased? Gotcha.
Please link to an example of another anchor doing this to Bush numbers-and exactly what you said, not expressing suprise at election results not matching early polls, which would of course be a normal anchor reaction.

They are supposed to be unbiased. That is pure, unadulterated bias if I've ever seen it!

So, the news agencies who were critical of Clinton were guilty of unadultered bias?

Look, it's the job of journalists to be critical of everything. If you don't think so, then you don't know the proper definition of "critical."

So, if Kerry was winning the elections and the FOX anchormen were whining "Oh no, it is the end! The Apocalypse is come, humanity is in its darkest throes!", you wouldn't consider that biased? Gotcha.


Wait are you trying to tell me that FOX news isn't biased? I bet you watch FOX news and love it. Don't lie I know you and Corneliu count the seconds waiting for it to come on.

If anyone on any station says that about any president I woudl call them biased. Did someone on some major news network say that publically when they saw Bush winning? link please.

Of course there is bias in the news. You seem to be saying, though, that all the news stations are critical of the administration so that makes them inherently liberal. Were you alive during the Clinton years or are you like 11 or somethign and can't remember them very well. The news stations were critical of him as well. Whenever a story about anybody came out that seemed popular, no matter what candidate or administrztion official, it was on teh news. I expect news organizations to cover the dirty deeds of our leaders and I will question them if they don't, especially if they are towing the party line.

Your exxagerations have no basis, thats why you are constantly called a troll by so many here.

How so? If your talking about the Civil War. If you remember, Washington DC was there through out the War. It never left.

Uh, America was a country long before that. Try again. In faact, what I'm talking about happened before there even was a Washington DC.

Uh, America was a country long before that. Try again.

Dude, don't even try. I am a History major, I've taken countless class on American History. Trust me you don't want to play this game with me. The only time I could think of would be at the very beginning when the federal power was small and insigicant. All they had was the Article of Confederation. States were their own country essintally and most of them fought one another. If you are referring to that, guess what, that was before they even tried a democratic government.

Dude, don't even try. I am a History major, I've taken countless class on American History. Trust me you don't want to play this game with me. The only time I could think of would be at the very beginning when the federal power was small and insigicant. All they had was the Article of Confederation. States were their own country essintally and most of them fought one another. If you are referring to that, guess what, that was before they even tried a democratic government.
Wow--i'm betting you're right and wrong in the same post. I'm not positive that Gymoor is referring to the period under the Articles, but if he is, your characterization of them is a bit off the mark to say the least. It was certainly as democratic a system as we have today, albeit far less centralized.

Dude, don't even try. I am a History major, I've taken countless class on American History. Trust me you don't want to play this game with me. The only time I could think of would be at the very beginning when the federal power was small and insigicant. All they had was the Article of Confederation. States were their own country essintally and most of them fought one another. If you are referring to that, guess what, that was before they even tried a democratic government.

Now, as a history major, why did it take you that long? Also, as a History Major, you should know that it was called the Articles of Confederation.

I call B.S.

In addition, the divisions between the factions in Iraq are much more marked and have a longer history of enmity than the colonies ever experienced. So one would think things might go a bit rougher in Iraq, don't you think?

Tell that to the Iraqi citizens and their democratically-elected government.

The fact that they are having elections does not mean there has been a democratic revolution.

Now, as a history major, why did it take you that long? Also, as a History Major, you should know that it was called the Articles of Confederation.

I call B.S.

In addition, the divisions between the factions in Iraq are much more marked and have a longer history of enmity than the colonies ever experienced. So one would think things might go a bit rougher in Iraq, don't you think?

It took so long because 1. I am not a mind reader and 2. There were several parts in American History that you could've been referring to. And just because I forgot the s doesn't mean anything. I still got the name right. You call B.S. because you know that I am right and you lost.

It took so long because 1. I am not a mind reader and 2. There were several parts in American History that you could've been referring to. And just because I forgot the s doesn't mean anything. I still got the name right. You call B.S. because you know that I am right and you lost.

Uh, what were you right about again? A history major hardly need to be a mind reader to think back to the beinnings of our country. Also, how were the Articles not democratic in the sense that we are democratic now? Did they not contain provisions for voting?

To clear things up a bit. Which several instances in American history can be regarded as the first failed attempt at democracy in America?

Wait are you trying to tell me that FOX news isn't biased? I bet you watch FOX news and love it. Don't lie I know you and Corneliu count the seconds waiting for it to come on.

If anyone on any station says that about any president I woudl call them biased. Did someone on some major news network say that publically when they saw Bush winning? link please.

Of course there is bias in the news. You seem to be saying, though, that all the news stations are critical of the administration so that makes them inherently liberal. Were you alive during the Clinton years or are you like 11 or somethign and can't remember them very well. The news stations were critical of him as well. Whenever a story about anybody came out that seemed popular, no matter what candidate or administrztion official, it was on teh news. I expect news organizations to cover the dirty deeds of our leaders and I will question them if they don't, especially if they are towing the party line.

Your exxagerations have no basis, thats why you are constantly called a troll by so many here.



Here's one page that reaffirms his support of bias: http://www.theomahachannel.com/politics/3833789/detail.html




Oh, and here are some examples:


Spanking voters for electing conservatives: “Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”
— In his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14, 1994, after Republicans won control of Congress.

Only naive racists support welfare reform: “The welfare debate has been getting more intense, ever since President Reagan regularly vilified what he referred to as the ‘welfare queens.’ Attitudes about people on welfare are sometimes based more on myth than reality. Most welfare mothers have only one or two children. Most welfare mothers had their first child when they were adults, not teenagers. Most people on welfare are not black.”
— World News Tonight, January 12, 1995.


Republicans want to destroy the planet: “Next week on ABC’s World News Tonight, a series of reports about our environment which will tell you precisely what the new Congress has in mind: the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years. Is this what the country wants?”
— Jennings in a promotion shown during This Week with David Brinkley, July 9, 1995.



Much better to keep punishing success: “Well, it helps to know this about a flat tax. It’s a very radical notion, and it’s not nearly so simple as it sounds....It is supposed to encourage savings and investment because profits would be tax free. But will plumbers be hurt more than plutocrats?...Certainly the rich would do better than the middle class....No Western country has ever tried to make such a seismic shift. How big will a flat tax need to be to raise the money which the government needs to run the country?”
— World News Tonight, January 15, 1996, referring to Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes’ plan for a single income tax rate.



Those intolerant Republicans: “We begin tonight with what you could call zero tolerance....Today by the time Mr. Dole spoke by satellite to his party delegates, who were already gathered in San Diego, all notions of tolerance on the subject of abortion had disappeared from the party’s platform.”
— World News Tonight, August 6, 1996.

“The right to abortion has never been an overwhelming issue for women at election time. But this fight within the Republican Party has many women questioning how far this party will go to limit their rights.”
— World News Tonight, August 13, 1996.

Tax cuts deprive government: “Mr. Bush believes in a universal tax cut, which would mean a very large chunk of money not available for government programs.”
— World News Tonight, October 4, 2000.

Ridiculing tax relief: “The President’s tax cut is beginning to show up. Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?”
— World News Tonight, July 8, 2003, referring to the estimated increase in one law librarian’s weekly paycheck.

World News Tonight promoted liberal policy ideas in an ongoing feature segment called “American Agenda,” which was introduced shortly after the November 1988 election and continued until August 1996. When it came to health, education, and welfare, Jennings often rued that the United States was “lagging behind” the rest of the “industrialized world” in creating a palette of cradle-to-grave social services and employer mandates. The answer to any social problem was usually more taxes, more spending, and tighter rules to keep evil businesses from ripping off the public.

Let’s copy Sweden: “Tonight we have put the best child care system in the world on the American Agenda. That is to say, the system which is acknowledged to be the best outside the home. It’s in Sweden. The Swedish system is run and paid for by the Swedish government, something many Americans would like to see the U.S. government do as well.”
— World News Tonight, November 22, 1989.

Hungry kids vs. White House greed: “Twelve million American children who do not have enough to eat, who lack adequate health care, and who are behind in schools and being left behind in life. Much of our broadcast will be dedicated to that, which makes the major news in Washington today seem even more of a contrast. The President’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, is at the center of attention again, having to do with his use of limousines and corporate jets.”
— World News Tonight, June 18, 1991.

Poverty is a national disaster: “When you get close to the poor, you recognize right away that very often the level of assistance which they get from government doesn’t lift them up to the legal poverty line, let alone above it, which seems to say your congressmen and your state legislators have failed to recognize that children and families in poverty are a national disaster. In your name, they often argue about other priorities and welfare cheats. Twelve million American children who cheat.”
— World News Tonight, June 20, 1991.

Let’s copy France: “On the American Agenda tonight, France. One of the things we have found with every subject we address on the Agenda...is how often there are lessons to be learned from other societies. It is one thing for the United States to spend less on children than almost any other country in the industrialized world. It is another to see what those countries get in return for their dollar, or in this case, their franc.”
— World News Tonight, December 3, 1991.

America is so backwards: “The United States has this unfortunate distinction: It is one of only two countries in the industrialized world, the other is South Africa, that does not guarantee basic health care for all its children. “
— World News Tonight, April 5, 1994.

Really, we have to be more like the Europeans: “Those who argue for universal coverage very often make the point that the U.S. is practically alone in the industrialized world without it. Thirty million people without health insurance in the U.S. — compare that to Europe and Japan....In the great debate over universal coverage, a good many Americans believe it comes down to choices between haves and have-nots.”
— World News Tonight, July 26, 1994.

Millions hate deregulation: “We begin tonight with something to think about later this evening. You’re at home or in the office or the car, and you go to make a phone call. What do you think the chances are that when you do, you’re going to be ripped off by the phone company? There are millions of complaints in this age of deregulation, millions. And it’s a big enough problem for Congress to take up tomorrow.”
— World News Tonight, April 23, 1998.

We’re the “least generous” in saddling employers with new mandates: “The U.S. is actually the least generous of the industrialized nations. In Sweden, a new mother gets 18 months of maternity and parental leave, and she gets 80 percent of her salary for the first year. Mother or father can take the parental leave any time until a child is eight. England gives 18 weeks maternity leave. For the first six weeks, a mother gets 90 percent of her salary from the government and $86 a week thereafter. German women get two months of fully paid leave after giving birth. The government and the company kick in, and either parent has the option of three full years in parental leave with some of their salary paid and their jobs protected.”
— World News Tonight, April 19, 2001.

Price controls for prescriptions, now: “The pharmaceutical industry’s products have saved and improved millions of lives, but overall, are we getting our money’s worth? We do not believe so....The rules by which this hugely profitable industry operates do not always serve consumers adequately, and nothing is going to happen – no matter how angry consumers get – unless the Congress and the President decide that the time has come. The country can do better.”
— Peter Jennings Reporting, “Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health,” May 29, 2002.

Let’s reverse those budget totals: “And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got 5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got 290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— From ABC’s September 12, 1989 news special, Capital to Capital.

Don’t waste money on bombers: “But if America wanted to go back to the Moon, it would take three years to get ready again. It might cost $10 billion to send men to Mars, which by the way is what it cost to produce just four of the nine B-2 bombers that Congress wants and the Pentagon says it does not need.”
— World News Tonight, December 12, 1997

Let’s not be optimists: “We’re going to take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at the plans for an anti-missile defense system. The one that has never been proven to work and may never work.”
— World News Tonight, June 12, 2000.

There’s a fire in your e-mail: “There is a little skepticism in the air here today. Some cynicism, too. The government has an idea of how to spend $50 billion of your money. That’s BILLION. It will be spent on building a system to safeguard the national security – but by the government’s own assessment it will probably not be foolproof, it will unnerve America’s allies, and in the end it may cost considerably MORE than $50 billion. A more critical assessment is that this system can never be made to work, that it will torpedo the basis of all arms control arrangements, and that in any event, any terrorist or ‘rogue nation’ that means to wreak havoc on U.S. soil can do so in ways that this system will not prevent.”
— From the anchorman’s Jennings Journal e-mail to viewers, May 1, 2001.

A liberal disclaimer: “One other note. Critics often object to the animation in news reports because the animation usually has the systems working.”
— On World News Tonight, May 1, 2001, as ABC graphics showed how an anti-missile defense system would destroy incoming warheads.

Feminism helps us all (except maybe the unborn): “And, so we choose Betty Friedan because she had the ability and the sensitivity to articulate the needs of women, which means that she did us all a favor.”
— World News Tonight’s “Person of the Week,” February 19, 1988.

Carter “renewed respect” for America: “The person we have chosen this week has continued his life with distinction, considerable grace, and with a very strong commitment to peace and justice....In the public’s mind, the scales were never balanced. [Former President Jimmy] Carter’s success in foreign affairs — peace between Egypt and Israel, renewed respect for the United States in Latin America — have always been outweighed in the public mind by the hostage crisis.”
— World News Tonight’s “Person of the Week,” May 12, 1989.

Marian Wright Edelman loves children: “[She’s] always on Congress’s back for coming up with too little money....From her point of view, as you hear, it is a matter of the whole country’s future. The children are fortunate to have such an advocate.”
— Making the head of the Children’s Defense Fund the “Person of the Week,” World News Tonight, March 29, 1991.

Blessed are the federal regulators: “This week we have chosen a man who has appeared on our radar many times, for many reasons, a man who makes an enormous difference because he takes his public service so seriously...It is always the children for David Kessler. Dr. Kessler was trained as a pediatrician...All of this has made David Kessler something of a folk hero. Sometimes in Washington they call him `Eliot Nessler,’ after Eliot Ness, who fought the mob during the ’30s...He conducts himself as the people’s guardian in matters of food and drugs with the utmost conviction.”
— Making the chairman of the Food and Drug Administration the “Person of the Week,” World News Tonight, June 24, 1994.




Care for more? That's not even half of them!


Edit: Oh, and I was alive through those horrible 8 years in which moral values took a plunge in favor of secularism. I pray to God his aspiring czarina doesn't get elected.

The fact that they are having elections does not mean there has been a democratic revolution.



Braving terrorist threats to attend the voting booths is a democratic revolution!

The United States had a lot of problems after it won independance from Britain (both times).

We had to write two constitutions and deal with several rebellions and near secessions.

Over 200 years and we are still figuring things out.

It is way too early to call Iraq and Afghanistan failures or quagmires or victories.

I feel that the invasion had to happen, but people here need some serious perspective. Its going to be atleast another decade before we can even take an educated guess as to how this will all turn out.

Uh, what were you right about again? A history major hardly need to be a mind reader to think back to the beinnings of our country. Also, how were the Articles not democratic in the sense that we are democratic now? Did they not contain provisions for voting?

They were democratic in the looses of sense. They only had 13 congressman , 13 states. We barely had a President during that time. If you want to call that period democratic then go ahead. To me it was more like a loose confederation of Nation states with poor central power. It respent nothing we have today.

--snip--

The only evidence of bias I saw there were your strawman comments before each quote.

Here's one page that reaffirms his support of bias: http://www.theomahachannel.com/politics/3833789/detail.html




Oh, and here are some examples:


Care for more? That's not even half of them!


Okay but the same kind of attacks are constantly made against democrats policies from all of these same news organizations. It's called covering a story and being critical of the govt (why would you be against such a thing?).

This webpage that you copied from made statements about each story like "Only naive racists support welfare reform", but not once was this kind of rhetoric used in the actual story that was merely presenting facts.

If you take issue with the facts being presented then post a refutation rather than paraphrasing the stories with ridiculous lines.

Quit trolling with exagerations if you want to sit at the grown up table.

They were democratic in the looses of sense. They only had 13 congressman , 13 states. We barely had a President during that time. If you want to call that period democratic then go ahead. To me it was more like a loose confederation of Nation states with poor central power. It respent nothing we have today.

What does any of that have to do with whether something is a democracy or not? I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that you're a history major.

You know most of those "Dead civillians" were actually insurgents trying to kill our men and women in uniform.

Actually, most were innocent people (including a whole lot of women and children) killed by our bombs, stray bullets, and bombs from the Insurgency (that didn't exist before we Invaded).

Edit: Oh, and I was alive through those horrible 8 years in which moral values took a plunge in favor of secularism. I pray to God his aspiring czarina doesn't get elected.

Yeah, I hated that period of lowering crime and unprecidented economic growth. What a Dark Age.

Actually, most were innocent people (including a whole lot of women and children) killed by our bombs, stray bullets, and bombs from the Insurgency (that didn't exist before we Invaded).


Following the trend set by Saddam, couldn't we infer that about as many if not more would be dead had we allowed him to remain? Hmm? We're talking hundreds of thousands murders throughout his reign that can be attributed to him and his dictatorship.

Oh, and in case you didn't hear, Peter Jennings died yesterday, so you can quit attacking him now.

Following the trend set by Saddam, couldn't we infer that about as many if not more would be dead had we allowed him to remain? Hmm? We're talking hundreds of thousands murders throughout his reign that can be attributed to him and his dictatorship.

True, but how many of those murders took place after the first Iraq war when we fairly effectively emasculated Saddam? Got any figures on that?

Oh, and in case you didn't hear, Peter Jennings died yesterday, so you can quit attacking him now.


Oh, I'm sorry *waits the customary two weeks* ok now?

Oh, and in case you didn't hear, Peter Jennings died yesterday, so you can quit attacking him now.

Heaven forbid! The best time to attack someone is when they are unable to defend themselves.

Edit: Oh, and I was alive through those horrible 8 years in which moral values took a plunge in favor of secularism. I pray to God his aspiring czarina doesn't get elected.

really? So then you must remember all the news stories critical of Clinton and Co.

Then you will see that journalism goes after stories for profit and not for propaganda. Or maybe you won't if you want to keep those blinders on.

Also, while Clinton was in office you make it sound like your rights were trampled on as you were persecuted daily for your beliefs. is this true? Do tell.

Heaven forbid! The best time to attack someone is when they are unable to defend themselves.



I suppose most of the resident libs would have a stroke waiting after Bush died ;)

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

I suppose most of the resident libs would have a stroke waiting after Bush died ;)

Are you flirting with me, young lady?

(suddenly, conservative females don't seem so bad... :D )

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/



Reported Minimum Reported Maximum
23456 26559


Now who was it that said the lowest estimations were in the hundreds of thousands? Liberal propagandists amuse me. :)

Reported Minimum Reported Maximum
23456 26559


Now who was it that said the lowest estimations were in the hundreds of thousands? Liberal propagandists amuse me. :)

Ah, perhaps, but its not nearly as funny as "WMDs"

Also, keep in mind that these are strictly CIVILIAN deaths

Ah, perhaps, but its not nearly as funny as "WMDs"



I suppose they just magically disappeared? We knew he had them back in '91 and we're certain he did in '98 based on his reactions to Clinton's demands to let inspectors in. We have no proof of them being destroyed, so did they just defy the laws of physics and cease to exist?

Ah, perhaps, but its not nearly as funny as "WMDs"

Also, keep in mind that these are strictly CIVILIAN deaths



Add 1000 or so American soldiers to the list. You still won't get more than 30000 at the most.

Interesting though, how we'll go to war with countries that may or may not have WMDs instead of the ones that Definitely do, and why do we get to be the only ones with "noo-q-lar" (as Bush likes to say it) weapons anyway?

Bush had this war planned from the minute he stepped into office. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

And with that, I bid you all a good nite.

I can only think of one country that has ever had a peaceful change of powers. And that is Chilie in South America. In every Revoultion and power changes have met with battles and war. Its a fact of life.


So you wern't around in '73 when we backed the bloody coup that overthrew Allende, huh? You were unaware that the Pinochet regime, which we installed, killed thousands?

So you wern't around in '73 when we backed the bloody coup that overthrew Allende, huh? You were unaware that the Pinochet regime, which we installed, killed thousands?

Shh, don't question the history major. You'll only get wrath.

Interesting though, how we'll go to war with countries that may or may not have WMDs instead of the ones that Definitely do, and why do we get to be the only ones with "noo-q-lar" (as Bush likes to say it) weapons anyway?

Bush had this war planned from the minute he stepped into office. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

And with that, I bid you all a good nite.



1. You fail to grasp the concept of pre-emption: You don't attack the countries that already have nukes, lest your nation should resemble the sun. You invade them before they can develop the weaponry.

2. Attacking his speech will get you nowhere. Want me to start on Howard Dean's screaming or Bill Clinton's quasi-stuttering?

I suppose they just magically disappeared? We knew he had them back in '91 and we're certain he did in '98 based on his reactions to Clinton's demands to let inspectors in. We have no proof of them being destroyed, so did they just defy the laws of physics and cease to exist?


No. They weren't there in '98. We probably knew that. We definitely knew that in '03. That's why the mission suddenly changed from searching for WMD's to "freeing the Iraqi people".

No. They weren't there in '98. We probably knew that. We definitely knew that in '03. That's why the mission suddenly changed from searching for WMD's to "freeing the Iraqi people".



Yes, I'm sure that's why he decided to have Baghdad bombed mercilessly instead of letting inspectors into his weapons facilities to show them the WMD's he didn't have...

1. You fail to grasp the concept of pre-emption: You don't attack the countries that already have nukes, lest your nation should resemble the sun. You invade them before they can develop the weaponry.


Just on the off chance that they might, you see. Hey you know, maybe we should find out what those Swiss are up to at the CERN supercollider. :rolleyes:

1. You fail to grasp the concept of pre-emption: You don't attack the countries that already have nukes, lest your nation should resemble the sun. You invade them before they can develop the weaponry.

2. Attacking his speech will get you nowhere. Want me to start on Howard Dean's screaming or Bill Clinton's quasi-stuttering?

1. So, Bush's primary goal was to attack an easy target, rather than protecting the world from rogue nuclear powers?

2. All old men talk funny. One day not too far off, I will too,

Yes, I'm sure that's why he decided to have Baghdad bombed mercilessly instead of letting inspectors into his weapons facilities to show them the WMD's he didn't have...


He let that happen because he wasn't ready to give up his bluff yet and because he didn't give a shit about his people.

He let that happen because he wasn't ready to give up his bluff yet and because he didn't give a shit about his people.



His "bluff" was the main reason for US retaliation. He may have been a sociopath, but I'm certain he was intelligent enough to know that bluffs are designed to prevent attacks, not cause them.

He let that happen because he wasn't ready to give up his bluff yet and because he didn't give a shit about his people.

Exactly. Saddam didn't have the WMD's, but he couldn't afford to let his neighbors know. Neighbors, mind you, more closely aligned with OBL than Saddam was.

Oh, I'm sorry *waits the customary two weeks* ok now?


No, no, no. There's a certain rhythm to sarcasm that you just don't have, little girl. :D

1. So, Bush's primary goal was to attack an easy target, rather than protecting the world from rogue nuclear powers?

2. All old men talk funny. One day not too far off, I will too,



1. Yes, let's attack NK which has a psychotic leader in power who has threatened to turn the US into "a sea of fire." Maybe if Clinton could have called the bluff when negotiating a nuclear reactor, it wouldn't be this way.


2. *shakes her cane* Why you little!!--dozes off

His "bluff" was the main reason for US retaliation. He may have been a sociopath, but I'm certain he was intelligent enough to know that bluffs are designed to prevent attacks, not cause them.

Considering the violence level of the region, Saddam would know that defeat at the hands of the U.S. was preferrable to defeat at the hands of Iran.

1. Yes, let's attack NK which has a psychotic leader in power who has threatened to turn the US into "a sea of fire." Maybe if Clinton could have called the bluff when negotiating a nuclear reactor, it wouldn't be this way.


2. *shakes her cane* Why you little!!--dozes off

1. Better to attack them when they only have 6 or so warheads of dubious power without long range missiles than to wait until they have 100 or so loaded on ICBM's.

2. Puts her hand in warm water...tiptoes off...

Neo Regolia sounds pretty dense to me. :(

Considering the violence level of the region, Saddam would know that defeat at the hands of the U.S. was preferrable to defeat at the hands of Iran.



Even after the Gulf War, he could still have defended Iraq from Iran with his conventional army.

Neo Regolia sounds pretty dense to me. :(

While her opinions are other than mine, such comments help not at all. Thanks for playing though [points to the exit reserved for hacks, trolls, and users of unoriginal insults.]

1. Better to attack them when they only have 6 or so warheads of dubious power without long range missiles than to wait until they have 100 or so loaded on ICBM's.

2. Puts her hand in warm water...tiptoes off...



What about poor Anchorage?

Neo Regolia sounds pretty dense to me. :(


Just out of curiousity, what has your contribution to this argument been? Oh, thats right, politcal cheerleading.

Even after the Gulf War, he could still have defended Iraq from Iran with his conventional army.

His army was pretty much crap, his armor was a bunch of rusting hulks, and he had no air force to speak of. Not only that, but some of the Shiites of Iraq might have sided with Iran, and the Kurds certainly would not have come south to help.

Without the lingering threat of WMD's, Saddam would have been a headless corpse.

1. Better to attack them when they only have 6 or so warheads of dubious power without long range missiles than to wait until they have 100 or so loaded on ICBM's.

Actually, better to deal with the ones holding Kim Jong Il's leash (China) through diplomacy and avoiid armed conflict altogether.

Unfortunatly, Saddam didn't have a higher up we could talk to.

2. Puts her hand in warm water...tiptoes off...

Dude, I am not cleaning that couch.

What about poor Anchorage?

It could use the heat. Besides, in summer, the radioactive glow wouldn't be visible, since it never gets dark.

It could use the heat. Besides, in summer, the radioactive glow wouldn't be visible, since it never gets dark.



Oooh, what if the radiation had an effect on the atmosphere? We could have one giant, super aurora borealis :D

It could use the heat. Besides, in summer, the radioactive glow wouldn't be visible, since it never gets dark.


Actually, the sun does set in Anchorage in the summer. It's south of the Arctic Circle (61 deg N). It just stays kind of twilighty.

Oooh, what if the radiation had an effect on the atmosphere? We could have one giant, super aurora borealis :D

Tesla was supposedly working on that before he died.

Actually, the sun does set in Anchorage in the summer. It's south of the Arctic Circle (61 deg N). It just stays kind of twilighty.

Well damn. Still, it'd be harder to see in the twilight.

Just out of curiousity, what has your contribution to this argument been? Oh, thats right, politcal cheerleading.

Political cheerleading? I have two posts to my name. One of them referenced my short-term opinion of a fellow poster's comments and another consisted of a single emoticon.

Sorry for not going into detail on why I see her as "dense"... I thought I'd just sum up the general sentiment I felt after taking in each of the posts. From the "they must be somewhere" reasoning behind the WMDs (which no credible source now believes they had) to copy-and-pasted opinions on Peter Jennings (which included some wonderful welfare information spinning) she has come off as overly apologetic in my eyes.

Political cheerleading? I have two posts to my name. One of them referenced my short-term opinion of a fellow poster's comments and another consisted of a single emoticon.

Sorry for not going into detail on why I see her as "dense"... I thought I'd just sum up the general sentiment I felt after taking in each of the posts. From the "they must be somewhere" reasoning behind the WMDs (which no credible source now believes they had) to copy-and-pasted opinions on Peter Jennings (which included some wonderful welfare information spinning) she has come off as overly apologetic in my eyes.

So, you have nothing to say that actually adds to the conversation. You just felt the need to take a shot at someone who falls under different opinions than you.

Not actually refute her, just take a cheap shot.

Thanks, that really moves thing forward.

Here's one page that reaffirms his support of bias: http://www.theomahachannel.com/politics/3833789/detail.html




Oh, and here are some examples:


Spanking voters for electing conservatives: “Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”
— In his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14, 1994, after Republicans won control of Congress.
As FOX defenders are fond of pointing out-try to remember the difference between commentary with reporting.

Only naive racists support welfare reform: “The welfare debate has been getting more intense, ever since President Reagan regularly vilified what he referred to as the ‘welfare queens.’ Attitudes about people on welfare are sometimes based more on myth than reality. Most welfare mothers have only one or two children. Most welfare mothers had their first child when they were adults, not teenagers. Most people on welfare are not black.”
— World News Tonight, January 12, 1995.
Your lead in does not match the text. Please provide support that the assertations contained within are incorrect. Otherwise, we call this 'reporting.' Reagan did villify 'welfare queens' and did rely on that image to push reform. If you have evidence about the rest not being true, please provide it. Otherwise, again-this is reporting.


Republicans want to destroy the planet: “Next week on ABC’s World News Tonight, a series of reports about our environment which will tell you precisely what the new Congress has in mind: the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years. Is this what the country wants?”
— Jennings in a promotion shown during This Week with David Brinkley, July 9, 1995.
Slightly yellow in tone, for sure-but did that bill roll back more protections than had been in 25 years? Reporting.



Much better to keep punishing success: “Well, it helps to know this about a flat tax. It’s a very radical notion, and it’s not nearly so simple as it sounds....It is supposed to encourage savings and investment because profits would be tax free. But will plumbers be hurt more than plutocrats?...Certainly the rich would do better than the middle class....No Western country has ever tried to make such a seismic shift. How big will a flat tax need to be to raise the money which the government needs to run the country?”
— World News Tonight, January 15, 1996, referring to Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes’ plan for a single income tax rate.
I'm seeing a pattern early. Questioning is not bias. Is anything wrong here? I don't think so-the rich will do better. How will they raise enough money? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't ask questions?



Those intolerant Republicans: “We begin tonight with what you could call zero tolerance....Today by the time Mr. Dole spoke by satellite to his party delegates, who were already gathered in San Diego, all notions of tolerance on the subject of abortion had disappeared from the party’s platform.”
— World News Tonight, August 6, 1996.
Did I miss a change in platform that made the Republicans lax on abortions? Are we talking about the same republicans?

“The right to abortion has never been an overwhelming issue for women at election time. But this fight within the Republican Party has many women questioning how far this party will go to limit their rights.”
— World News Tonight, August 13, 1996.
So are you suggesting that there has never been a dispute within the party about the subject, that a hard line doesn't alienate some?

Tax cuts deprive government: “Mr. Bush believes in a universal tax cut, which would mean a very large chunk of money not available for government programs.”
— World News Tonight, October 4, 2000.
You do know what a cut is, don't you?

Ridiculing tax relief: “The President’s tax cut is beginning to show up. Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?”
— World News Tonight, July 8, 2003, referring to the estimated increase in one law librarian’s weekly paycheck.
This far down and all you've managed is two yellow-tinged statements, and yet valid again-that's what most got, was it going to be enough? Containing just this statement is not evidence of bias without the content of the rest of the program. Most of use have long enough attention spans and watch more than just the lead in line.

World News Tonight promoted liberal policy ideas in an ongoing feature segment called “American Agenda,” which was introduced shortly after the November 1988 election and continued until August 1996. When it came to health, education, and welfare, Jennings often rued that the United States was “lagging behind” the rest of the “industrialized world” in creating a palette of cradle-to-grave social services and employer mandates. The answer to any social problem was usually more taxes, more spending, and tighter rules to keep evil businesses from ripping off the public.
Again, was any of that first part not true? The rest is summary of what was stated, you do not have enough credibility, nor does this list, for me to take your word for it.

Let’s copy Sweden: “Tonight we have put the best child care system in the world on the American Agenda. That is to say, the system which is acknowledged to be the best outside the home. It’s in Sweden. The Swedish system is run and paid for by the Swedish government, something many Americans would like to see the U.S. government do as well.”
— World News Tonight, November 22, 1989.
I believe you'll find that Sweden is acknowledged as such and that many Americans would indeed want. Sounds like reporting to me.

Hungry kids vs. White House greed: “Twelve million American children who do not have enough to eat, who lack adequate health care, and who are behind in schools and being left behind in life. Much of our broadcast will be dedicated to that, which makes the major news in Washington today seem even more of a contrast. The President’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, is at the center of attention again, having to do with his use of limousines and corporate jets.”
— World News Tonight, June 18, 1991.
This is getting tiring. Why is this bias? Honestly, why did you even post this list. Do you actually know what the word bias means? Are you sure? Maybe you should look it up again, just in case.

Poverty is a national disaster: “When you get close to the poor, you recognize right away that very often the level of assistance which they get from government doesn’t lift them up to the legal poverty line, let alone above it, which seems to say your congressmen and your state legislators have failed to recognize that children and families in poverty are a national disaster. In your name, they often argue about other priorities and welfare cheats. Twelve million American children who cheat.”
— World News Tonight, June 20, 1991.
Yay, a third yellow tinge in the reporting. However, we invaded people because of conditions similar to this (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)
So....

Let’s copy France: “On the American Agenda tonight, France. One of the things we have found with every subject we address on the Agenda...is how often there are lessons to be learned from other societies. It is one thing for the United States to spend less on children than almost any other country in the industrialized world. It is another to see what those countries get in return for their dollar, or in this case, their franc.”
— World News Tonight, December 3, 1991.
Seriously, bias is actually looking outside ourselves? If that's your idea of bias then we need way more of it in media.

America is so backwards: “The United States has this unfortunate distinction: It is one of only two countries in the industrialized world, the other is South Africa, that does not guarantee basic health care for all its children. “
— World News Tonight, April 5, 1994.
I'm guessing that your evidence of bias is the word 'unfortunate.' Your right, many nations have been lining up to share the stage with South Africa....


Really, we have to be more like the Europeans: “Those who argue for universal coverage very often make the point that the U.S. is practically alone in the industrialized world without it. Thirty million people without health insurance in the U.S. — compare that to Europe and Japan....In the great debate over universal coverage, a good many Americans believe it comes down to choices between haves and have-nots.”
— World News Tonight, July 26, 1994.
Reporting a side of the argument. Unless you have evidence that they didn't also state the argument against, then....

Millions hate deregulation: “We begin tonight with something to think about later this evening. You’re at home or in the office or the car, and you go to make a phone call. What do you think the chances are that when you do, you’re going to be ripped off by the phone company? There are millions of complaints in this age of deregulation, millions. And it’s a big enough problem for Congress to take up tomorrow.”
— World News Tonight, April 23, 1998.
Did congress not take up the issue the next day? Where there not millions of complaints? Evidence please.

We’re the “least generous” in saddling employers with new mandates: “The U.S. is actually the least generous of the industrialized nations. In Sweden, a new mother gets 18 months of maternity and parental leave, and she gets 80 percent of her salary for the first year. Mother or father can take the parental leave any time until a child is eight. England gives 18 weeks maternity leave. For the first six weeks, a mother gets 90 percent of her salary from the government and $86 a week thereafter. German women get two months of fully paid leave after giving birth. The government and the company kick in, and either parent has the option of three full years in parental leave with some of their salary paid and their jobs protected.”
— World News Tonight, April 19, 2001.
I'm seeing the pattern. Never report about anything the rest of the world does, lest it be bias.

Price controls for prescriptions, now: “The pharmaceutical industry’s products have saved and improved millions of lives, but overall, are we getting our money’s worth? We do not believe so....The rules by which this hugely profitable industry operates do not always serve consumers adequately, and nothing is going to happen – no matter how angry consumers get – unless the Congress and the President decide that the time has come. The country can do better.”
— Peter Jennings Reporting, “Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health,” May 29, 2002.
With only this, I'd give it to you. But I suspect some context is missing here, given the pattern so far.


Let’s reverse those budget totals: “And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got 5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got 290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— From ABC’s September 12, 1989 news special, Capital to Capital.
Are those number incorrect? What does it tell us? It has yet to tell us about bias....

Don’t waste money on bombers: “But if America wanted to go back to the Moon, it would take three years to get ready again. It might cost $10 billion to send men to Mars, which by the way is what it cost to produce just four of the nine B-2 bombers that Congress wants and the Pentagon says it does not need.”
— World News Tonight, December 12, 1997
What? For crying out loud. What is the bias here? Where is the 'the world is ending' hyperbole that this list is supposed to be proving?

Let’s not be optimists: “We’re going to take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at the plans for an anti-missile defense system. The one that has never been proven to work and may never work.”
— World News Tonight, June 12, 2000.
Never examine an idea or plan that's going to cost taxpayer dollars...it's bias...

There’s a fire in your e-mail: “There is a little skepticism in the air here today. Some cynicism, too. The government has an idea of how to spend $50 billion of your money. That’s BILLION. It will be spent on building a system to safeguard the national security – but by the government’s own assessment it will probably not be foolproof, it will unnerve America’s allies, and in the end it may cost considerably MORE than $50 billion. A more critical assessment is that this system can never be made to work, that it will torpedo the basis of all arms control arrangements, and that in any event, any terrorist or ‘rogue nation’ that means to wreak havoc on U.S. soil can do so in ways that this system will not prevent.”
— From the anchorman’s Jennings Journal e-mail to viewers, May 1, 2001.
More questioning is bias. Unless you have the rest of the context that doesn't contain the argument for, this is pointless.

A liberal disclaimer: “One other note. Critics often object to the animation in news reports because the animation usually has the systems working.”
— On World News Tonight, May 1, 2001, as ABC graphics showed how an anti-missile defense system would destroy incoming warheads.
Snide at best. I'll give you partial credit.

Feminism helps us all (except maybe the unborn): “And, so we choose Betty Friedan because she had the ability and the sensitivity to articulate the needs of women, which means that she did us all a favor.”
— World News Tonight’s “Person of the Week,” February 19, 1988.
Missing context, do not trust yours.

Carter “renewed respect” for America: “The person we have chosen this week has continued his life with distinction, considerable grace, and with a very strong commitment to peace and justice....In the public’s mind, the scales were never balanced. [Former President Jimmy] Carter’s success in foreign affairs — peace between Egypt and Israel, renewed respect for the United States in Latin America — have always been outweighed in the public mind by the hostage crisis.”
— World News Tonight’s “Person of the Week,” May 12, 1989.
In Latin America. Provide evidence that he didn't. Otherwise, the Nobel Peace Prize indicates agrees with the assesment.

Marian Wright Edelman loves children: “[She’s] always on Congress’s back for coming up with too little money....From her point of view, as you hear, it is a matter of the whole country’s future. The children are fortunate to have such an advocate.”
— Making the head of the Children’s Defense Fund the “Person of the Week,” World News Tonight, March 29, 1991.
Partial credit. However could be removed if a list of 'Persons of the Week was presented that showed that just as often conservatives where made PotW as well.

Blessed are the federal regulators: “This week we have chosen a man who has appeared on our radar many times, for many reasons, a man who makes an enormous difference because he takes his public service so seriously...It is always the children for David Kessler. Dr. Kessler was trained as a pediatrician...All of this has made David Kessler something of a folk hero. Sometimes in Washington they call him `Eliot Nessler,’ after Eliot Ness, who fought the mob during the ’30s...He conducts himself as the people’s guardian in matters of food and drugs with the utmost conviction.”
— Making the chairman of the Food and Drug Administration the “Person of the Week,” World News Tonight, June 24, 1994.
Wow. Just wow. I'm guessing at this point you had lost point of what it was you where arguing and where just copy and pasting by rote.




Care for more? That's not even half of them!
Do any of them actually contain an example of what you where asked for? If so, you should have posted them instead of wasting our time with that.


Edit: Oh, and I was alive through those horrible 8 years in which moral values took a plunge in favor of secularism. I pray to God his aspiring czarina doesn't get elected.
Please be more specific about this moral values plunge that was lead by secularism. It doesn't sound like any nation I've heard of.

So, you have nothing to say that actually adds to the conversation. You just felt the need to take a shot at someone who falls under different opinions than you.

Not actually refute her, just take a cheap shot.

Thanks, that really moves thing forward.

There are a lot of people who've fallen under different opinions than myself in this thread; that's not why I took a "shot" at her, or else I would have done the same for the rest of them.

If she is unclear as to how any points she has brought up could be refuted, then she could ask for some specific clarification. Refuting dozens of spun quotes and proclamations on weapons of mass destruction isn't exactly a quick task and honestly not one I have the time to spend on at this point. Looking now, it seems like "Cannot think of a name" has taken up part of that task.

I don't consider it a great attack on someone to call them "dense", though... just that they are being very selective with either their memory or with the factual information they actually incorporate into their opinions. Confirmation bias is a very powerful thing.


Your lead in does not match the text. Please provide support that the assertations contained within are incorrect. Otherwise, we call this 'reporting.' Reagan did villify 'welfare queens' and did rely on that image to push reform. If you have evidence about the rest not being true, please provide it. Otherwise, again-this is reporting.

I'll help you guys out with the information. Here is the official 1994 Green Book (http://aspe.hhs.gov/94gb/contents.htm) that Jennings (or his researchers) undoubtedly got their information from. Section 14 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/94gb/sec14.txt) is the one that you'll want to be looking at... all of the information he proclaimed is correct. And as far as bias goes, considering that the "welfare queen" Reagan singled out did not actually exist, I would chalk that one up as honest reporting... not liberal bias. Calling a lie a lie is not a partisan issue.

I'll help you and her out. Here is the official 1994 Green Book that Jennings (or his researchers) undoubtedly got their information from. Section 15 is the one that you'll want to be looking at... all of the information he proclaimed is correct. And as far as bias goes, considering that the "welfare queen" Reagan singled out did not actually exist, I would chalk that one up as honest reporting... not liberal bias.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/94gb/contents.htm
That's pretty much as expected. Thank you.

Insurgent: Die Ah-mare-ee-kahn pigs!!!

*insurgent blows self up in a crowd of schoolchildren*

Liberal news agencies: And in other news, American soldiers bombed a group of schoolchildren today in what witnesses called "an unprovoked display of barbarism."
*Applauds*

1. Better to attack [North Korea] when they only have 6 or so warheads of dubious power without long range missiles than to wait until they have 100 or so loaded on ICBM's.

And how would you go about this attack? An invasion? The world watches as US soldiers assault the beaches of North Korea - only for a mushroom cloud to erupt engulfing both the amphibious forces, many of the nearby aircraft and ships supporting the assault, and most of the inhabitants along the coast. In retaliation, Seoul, Pusan, and Taegu among other major cities of South Korea suddenly disappear off the map. Meanwhile, North Korean medium-range ballistic missiles (such as those they have already fired over Japanese territory) fitted with nuclear devices land in Japanese metropolises. Invisible clouds of radiation soon drift over and swallow the lands of East Asia, the Sea of Japan, Philippine Sea, and North Pacific. Even the few nukes they have results in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in damage. In response, US B2s carpet nuke the remainder of North Korea, turning its entirety into irradiated soot. China, dumbfounded at what has just occurred and outraged at what would inevitably be blamed on the Americans, decides that they will tolerate US policies no more, and a wonderful thermonuclear war ensures.

Well, sounds good to me!

He inherited the recession from Clinton, the economy was already declining before he even got in office...and would you rather have a few thousand dead volunteers or countless more Iraqi political dissenters and Afghan women and American citizens die?
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11, or terrorism against America? Oh that's right.....nothing.

Next

*Applauds*


And how would you go about this attack? An invasion? The world watches as US soldiers assault the beaches of North Korea - only for a mushroom cloud to erupt engulfing both the amphibious forces, many of the nearby aircraft and ships supporting the assault, and most of the inhabitants along the coast. In retaliation, Seoul, Pusan, and Taegu among other major cities of South Korea suddenly disappear off the map. Meanwhile, North Korean medium-range ballistic missiles (such as those they have already fired over Japanese territory) fitted with nuclear devices land in Japanese metropolises. Invisible clouds of radiation soon drift over and swallow the lands of East Asia, the Sea of Japan, Philippine Sea, and North Pacific. Even the few nukes they have results in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in damage. In response, US B2s carpet nuke the remainder of North Korea, turning its entirety into irradiated soot. China, dumbfounded at what has just occurred and outraged at what would inevitably be blamed on the Americans, decides that they will tolerate US policies no more, and a wonderful thermonuclear war ensures.

Well, sounds good to me!
Yeah, I used to play Risk when I was younger, too...

Yeah, I used to play Risk when I was younger, too...
Heh I love getting carried away with my little wargames.

But seriously, what kind of response do you think North Korea would give in the event of an invasion? I pretty much can't see it going any other way (and even the China part is exceedingly likely).

Insurgent: Die Ah-mare-ee-kahn pigs!!!

*insurgent blows self up in a crowd of schoolchildren*

Liberal news agencies: And in other news, American soldiers bombed a group of schoolchildren today in what witnesses called "an unprovoked display of barbarism."
Get serious, and quit making stuff up.

Get serious, and quit making stuff up.
I doubt it was meant to be taken literally, but more as a satire of US media (and how no matter how you cut it, Bush and Cheney are the incarnated Hitler and Himmler, liars and killers to the very end).

War is Hell buddy. But sometimes it is nessecary. I mean if we haven't gone to War with Germany in WW II, Hitler would've over taken the world. We went to War in Afghanistan and Iraq so that the terrorist won't come here and crash planes into buildings.
You were a tad slow in trying to stop Hitler from taking over the world, and last I heard about 9/11 involved ZERO Iraqis. However, there were 15 Saudis involved.

Don't try to re-write history, as it has been tried before and it doesn't work.

I doubt it was meant to be taken literally, but more as a satire of US media (and how no matter how you cut it, Bush and Cheney are the incarnated Hitler and Himmler, liars and killers to the very end).
Can you name any mainstream US media that has tried to tie Bush/Cheney to Hitler/Himmler?

Can you name any mainstream US media that has tried to tie Bush/Cheney to Hitler/Himmler?
Allow me to clarify - the constant slamming of Bush and Cheney that I speak of and intentionally exaggerate is of the far left that misses no opportunity to bash them for whatever slew of reasons. As for mainstream (keyword) media, they try to at least form some semblance of objectivity.

But, here is a quick list of liberal US media of varying allegiance to the left.
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
Associated Press

That covers pretty much every major newspaper and TV station short of Fox.

Allow me to clarify - the constant slamming of Bush and Cheney that I speak of and intentionally exaggerate is of the far left that misses no opportunity to bash them for whatever slew of reasons. As for mainstream (keyword) media, they try to at least form some semblance of objectivity.

But, here is a quick list of liberal US media of varying allegiance to the left.
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
Associated Press

That covers pretty much every major newspaper and TV station short of Fox.

So..if nearly every major news corporation besides Fox has ill things to say regarding Bush, isnt it possible that Fox is the only one who is wrong?

It's ridiculous to suggest that the media operates with a set left-wing bias. From personal experiences, I can count on my hand the number of times I've seen Republicans blatantly attacked for their beliefs in anything but editorials and legitimate commentary. I could fill an entire truck up with the number of times I've seen Democrats attacked for the same.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5

Read this. See who's really biased. Want a sample? CNN anchors inserted their opinion of the Iraq War during 2% of their broadcasts. Fox News anchors inserted their opinion of the Iraq War into 73% of their broadcasts. That must have been a really opinionated 2% in order to grab your attention.

Take a note from Ann Coulter, who just last month said (to right-wing approval) "we have the media now." It's a much more verifiably true statement, and no amount of calling others biased makes it otherwise.

So..if nearly every major news corporation besides Fox has ill things to say regarding Bush, isnt it possible that Fox is the only one who is wrong?



They have a biased slant, not objective reporting. They tend to focus on the bad and ignore the good.

They have a biased slant, not objective reporting. They tend to focus on the bad and ignore the good.
That's the point of the media. It's not to whitewash the President (as long as he's Republican) and make him look like Jesus, but to investigate and uncover the truth, which is more often than not, "the bad" rather than "the good."

It's ridiculous to suggest that the media operates with a set left-wing bias. From personal experiences, I can count on my hand the number of times I've seen Republicans blatantly attacked for their beliefs in anything but editorials and legitimate commentary. I could fill an entire truck up with the number of times I've seen Democrats attacked for the same.
I can't think of one instance where FOX criticized Bush without turning it around and criticizing the Democrats.

They have a biased slant, not objective reporting. They tend to focus on the bad and ignore the good.

Darling, that's what journalists are trianed to do. Tragedy, pain and destruction sell more papers. It has nothing to do with left/right. It has everything to do with making a buck.

Now, the problem I see is that I've only seen "Liberals" make this assuredly fact-based argument. Conservatives see any and all bias as "liberal" whereas liberals see many many flavors of bias out there, many of which have nothing to do with politics.

They have a biased slant, not objective reporting. They tend to focus on the bad and ignore the good.
CNN, Fox News and MSNBC were also monitored on this throughout their coverage on the Iraq War. Certainly there are more news outlets than these, but as CNN is regularly called the "Communist News Network" in some circles, I figured this was relevant.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5
Again, search for "Tone of Iraq War Coverage on Cable News"

You will, again, see that while CNN and MSNBC were balanced (20% vs. 23% for CNN, 16% vs. 17% for MSNBC), Fox News, the one consistently pointed to as having the least bias, had numbers of 38% (positive) vs. 14% (negative) on the subject. Which one is balancing out the good and bad bias in their reporting?

So..if nearly every major news corporation besides Fox has ill things to say regarding Bush, isnt it possible that Fox is the only one who is wrong?
Either that, or the simply fact that all the major networks and newspapers are based in predominantly liberal cities and regions (New England and California).

In my opinion, neither are objective, regardless of who is attacking who. And objctivity is all that matters (or that should matter) in the reporting of news.

Either that, or the simply fact that all the major networks and newspapers are based in predominantly liberal cities and regions (New England and California).

In my opinion, neither are objective, regardless of who is attacking who. And objctivity is all that matters (or that should matter) in the reporting of news.


I think objectivity is unattainable these days :D

Darling, that's what journalists are trianed to do. Tragedy, pain and destruction sell more papers. It has nothing to do with left/right. It has everything to do with making a buck.

Now, the problem I see is that I've only seen "Liberals" make this assuredly fact-based argument. Conservatives see any and all bias as "liberal" whereas liberals see many many flavors of bias out there, many of which have nothing to do with politics.


Exactly. Everyone has bias - good luck finding a truely objective report on anything... even documentaries on deep sea mamals are biased - but news stories are there to make money and will only be aired if they think it's soemthing the viewers want to hear about. Facts are presented in a way to make the story seem the most compelling.

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one.

on the subject of Media sensationalism for profit - anyone seen the movie network? very ahead of its time.

War is Hell buddy. But sometimes it is nessecary. I mean if we haven't gone to War with Germany in WW II, Hitler would've over taken the world. We went to War in Afghanistan and Iraq so that the terrorist won't come here and crash planes into buildings.


OOPS. too late.

why couldnt they explain why they didnt act on the memo about AL QAIDA SEEKS TO USE PLANES AS WEAPONS?

Seems to me, less intelligence manipulation, and more investigating the Saudis (*gasp, NO!*) might have worked to keep planes crashing into buildings more than bombing civilians after the fact.

And talk to the Spanish and the English who had their transportation bombed BECAUSE of the war in Iraq?

Have we not created more terrorists by brutalizing their countries with war?

I think objectivity is unattainable these days :D
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree. Obviously every individual will have their opinions and biases. But I just don't think it is right for a station or paper to pass itself off as informing the people when, even in subtle manners, it is presenting a biased editorial or is comprised of half-truths.

Exactly. Everyone has bias - good luck finding a truely objective report on anything... even documentaries on deep sea mamals are biased - but news stories are there to make money and will only be aired if they think it's soemthing the viewers want to hear about. Facts are presented in a way to make the story seem the most compelling.
*nods* It shouldn't be that way with mainstream media, but they exist to make money for their parent corporations, and that always ends up being the superior preference to reporting the news.

And creating individuals like Howard Dean who destroy their own party :D
Bush is Howard Dean's dad?

Either that, or the simply fact that all the major networks and newspapers are based in predominantly liberal cities and regions (New England and California).
FOX is also based in a liberal city.

Ahh, Howard Dean. Complain about political correctness for decades and then when you finally have an opponent who forgoes it, complain about that too. :)

Ahh, Howard Dean. Complain about political correctness for decades and then when you finally have an opponent who forgoes it, complain about that too. :)



Eh, we don't mind. He gives us more votes :D

Howard Dean?

*is british, so dosn't know half your politicans, if I started talking about David Blunket you'd most likely feel the same way*

Neo Rogolia, Birmingham?...we got one of those too

Eh, we don't mind. He gives us more votes :D
That may be true... his crazy-man image is blown way out of proportion, in my opinion. At some point when listening to his comments, ones such as the Republican party being "pretty much a white Christian party", when are we going to start looking at the country we're actually in? We're 83% percent Christian and (though dwindling) still a predominately white country. Plus the Repubs only have, what, one major African-American political figure at the moment? We complain of being PC yet look at every bit of news through the PC-tinted glasses.

One way or the other, though, he has come off as being the most personally honest figure in modern American politics (which tends to polarize people).

But still manages to mess it up.

Bush signed his new energy policy into law today, and one aspect of it is to give tax credit--up to $3,000--on any hybrid car bought after Jan 1, 2006 when the law begins. But here's the catch, every automaker can only sell 60,000 cars with this credit. That's total, not just per year, as Toyota expects to sell about twice that many Priuses in 2005 alone.

Indeed, it is better than no incentive at all, so I thank you Mr. Bush. You did two good things as President, your "do-not-call list", and now the tax credit for purchasing hybrids.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Saveonacar/P125244.asp?GT1=6822

If he really wanted to help the environment, he'd of signed the Kyoto accord. This is still good, but it looks to me as a simple attempt to make people think he actually cares about the environment. :rolleyes:

But thanks Mr. Bush, anyways.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5


From that link:
The consequence is a notably limited breadth of reporting. In all, the three cable programs we followed over twenty days tended to cover a narrower range of topics even than network evening newscasts -- and far less than online or print. Cable news spends a smaller percentage of its time than does network evening news covering government and, perhaps even more notably, roughly half as much time covering the broad range of domestic issues, from the environment, to transportation, health care, social security, welfare, education, economics, technology, science and more.

In contrast, lifestyle, entertainment and celebrity -- topics virtually nonexistent on nightly newscasts or the front pages of newspapers -- are the largest topic group on cable news. And that holds true even though the amounts vary across the range of program types. For instance, collectively, science, technology, and business made up just 2% of the time studied over twenty days, and the range of domestic issues, from education to the environment to health care, made up 11%. Celebrity, lifestyle and entertainment made up nearly a quarter of the time (23%).


Damn, that's kinda sad.

FOX is also based in a liberal city.
Which makes it the odd station out, as everyone already knows. But just because it is doesn't mean it is always wrong as opposed to any other station. To think so would be a clear indication of bias on your part.

Note: I'm not an advocate of any news station. I primarily watch/read CNN out of habit, but that doesn't mean I am a proponent.