OT: Gloomy Outlook In Iraq

[wco81]

Haliburton is not the only company which could do large civil engineering/logistics jobs. There is Bechtel and a bunch of Canadian companies. Some in Europe too. Of course for political reasons, it was going to be limited to the US.

As for Haliburton's financial performance, that has to do with the asbestos liability which Haliburton is sinking under. Cheney when he was CEO acquired some company without full due diligence and was surprised to find he got something he didn't bargain for. Sound familiar?

Without the Iraq work, Haliburton would be even more sunk.

The companies which are doing really well however are the oil companies. Exxon is now the richest company in the world and has recorded the highest profits in the history of the world for the past year to year and a half. Nothing like $40+ oil, with that price fueled by the "terror premium."

Crony capitalism at its best. Of course, if you're not a crony of the administration, the economy isn't doing so hot for you.

[GTHobbes]

gt hobbes....do you really believe the stuff you right....how old are you.

I'm 33, and yeah, I do pretty much believe the stuff that I write. I do enough writing during the day that I wouldn't waste my time posting here if I didn't believe it. Sorry if my opinions offended you though.

[Brando70]

Jared I'd like you to show me where anyone here or anywhere else tried to link Iraq to 9/11. A realtionship between Iraq and AQ? Yes. Read and comphrehend as you lefists are always saying here. Btw, "thedailyhowler.com" is your site of choice for "proof" Goldberg is a fraud? Yet the Media Research Center is too one-sided. [/i]

I never said the Daily Howler was objective -- it's not, the guy who runs it is a liberal and a former roomate of Al Gore's. However, the problem with the MRC is that it makes this blanket claim of liberal media bias, and completely ignores anything that doesn't support that claim. They also tend to shout liberal bias when a piece simply doesn't show any conservative bias. A lot of times it's just a matter of interpretation. And if you read Brent Bozell's columns over at Townhall, it's obvious what the real motivation of the MRC is.

The Howler, on the other hand, simply points out errors in media coverage and comments in general how lazy the media have gotten. His scope is much smaller so it's much easier for hm to be effective. The guy is obviously a Democrat, but his real point is how trivial our news coverage has gotten. In the case of Goldberg, he did a 4-part series on Bias showing various innaccuracies, as well as instances where Goldberg contradicts his own main thesis. (The DH also did an even better job with Arrogance). Plus, as Jared mentioned, there have been other places that have taken Goldberg to task, it's just that the Howler was probably the most thorough.

[Brando70]

I'm not defending Rather or CBS, either, because their shoddy journalism is indefensible.

But besides Brando's excellent deduction that TV journalism tends to listen to the loudest screamer, network TV news is under pressure like never before to break stories.

Think about it: Twenty-five years ago, TV news consisted of the 6 p.m. local news and the 6:30 p.m. national news with Uncle Walter, John Chancellor and Frank Reynolds/Howard K. Smith/Harry Reasoner. There was no CNN, no MSNBC, no FOX News airing stories 24/7.

So network news could be more careful in its reporting and not be afraid to lose a scoop. Plus it only had two TV competitors -- the other two networks.

Now networks face competition from all corners and at all times of the day, which puts the kind of pressure on them that will make these kinds of reporting screw-ups more commonplace.

"60 Minutes" also faces similar pressure. It had zero competition until other networks and now cable started "news magazine" shows.

Bottom line: Rather and CBS f*cked up big time and deserve to have their reputations tarnished by this. I don't trust CBS News right now, that's for sure, and I bet many others don't either.

But I expect network news operations to continue to make these mistakes as they try to beat the cable outlets on stories despite only being on the air 30 minutes per day instead of 24 hours per day.

Take care,
PK

Excellent points, PK. As for Blueduke's demand that Rather be fired, again, I'm not sure how much he was involved in the research or background of this piece. He may have just been relying on the producer or reporters -- again, I don't know. I think CBS is more guilty of being gullible than of conspiring against the president. Had these forgeries been about John Kerry, Sean Hannity would probably still be asserting their legitimacy

But as I have been reading this thread, it occurred to me that it's symbolic of everything that is wrong with this election. We started out talking about Iraq -- the most important issue of this election, IMHO, regardless of where you fall on the debate. This country is facing serious, serious issues, and this is an important election. So what happens? We end up talking about crap from 30 years ago instead of what's important today (myself included). It's not that the CBS scandal isn't serious. It's just that, instead of digging around for dirt on Bush's guard record, or whether Kerry deserved his medals, we should be talking about the best way to fight terrorism, to bring Iraq to a successful resolution, to lower the deficit, etc. I really have never had a problem with Bush's service. I don't think it's relevant, any more than I thought Clinton's was relevant. I'm not about to get hypocritical on this issue. What I want to know what these men are going to do for the next four years if they win the election.

[pk500]

>>>What I want to know what these men are going to do for the next four years if they win the election.<<<

Exactly. And neither guy has done a good job at all of laying out his plans and vision for the next four years other than throwing out bullsh*t catchphrases and empty promises without specifics.

This country's leadership and statesmanship are heading straight for the sh*tter if George W. Bush and John Kerry are the best and brighest that the two major parties in America can offer.

Quite sad, regardless on which side of the fence you sit.

Take care,
PK

[anchester]

why do you say the economy is bad. It is very good. Exxon, Shell, BP stock prices are not much higher, if any, than they were 5 years ago. 40 dollar oil is not high (adjusted for inflation). You are just spouting the media's lines. Let's stop with the war was secretly for the sole purpose to benefit big, ugly, evil, oil. That is so childish and sounds like something james carville would say.

Most of you guys love to bash bush. I don't know what makes you so liberal. I think it must be the constant liberal crap that is heard thru the media that makes people hate america, the rich, people that achieve, companies that make money.

To me, the liberal media is the root of most evil. Fortunately, although our media is liberal, it is still the most conservative in the world.

Why do you think the rest of the world hates us. B/c they have a media even more liberal than ours, that constantly rips on America, especially the conservative elements. The brainwashing is constant. Why not blame your country's problems on the US. It is a lot easier than fixing it yourself.

In fact, the worst extension of liberal media is Al Jazeera, which literally lies and puts propaganda to create an army of angry islams that want to kill us b/c we are the reason there lives are so bad (not the corrupt, evil, lawless society and rulers in there own country).

Blame, blame, blame = liberal

conservative = take responsiblity, live by the golden rule, reward hard work

[Brando70]

Anchester, I don't even know where to begin with that post. I guess I can just say that I didn't move from being a registered Republican in 1988 to a registered independent in 2004 because of the media. I did it because the words and actions of today's Republican party don't match the party I used to admire.

I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 because of the media. It was the Republican party nominating Bush over McCain. I have seen the Republican party move from a group of fiscal and international conservatives to a party of free spenders and international interventionists. I have seen them move from a party of respect for civil law to a party where Christian theology trumps everything else. Worst of all, I have seen the Republicans impugn the patriotism of anyone who dare questions President Bush.

I have my share of issues with the Democratic party, but I know that the direction the Republican party is heading is not a direction I like. The Democratic party has gotten more conservative since the 80s and I find more Dems occupying that middle ground of political centrism than Republicans these days. (BTW, I plan to vote for a Republican representative in Congress.)

[Jared]

Most of you guys love to bash bush. I don't know what makes you so liberal. I think it must be the constant liberal crap that is heard thru the media that makes people hate america, the rich, people that achieve, companies that make money.

To me, the liberal media is the root of most evil. Fortunately, although our media is liberal, it is still the most conservative in the world.

The liberal media is the root of most evil? Back it up with evidence. You've already brought up the Goldberg Bias book, which you haven't defended after we've presented evidence of dishonesty in the book. Do you have any other evidence of this liberal media bias?

Why do you think the rest of the world hates us. B/c they have a media even more liberal than ours, that constantly rips on America, especially the conservative elements. The brainwashing is constant. Why not blame your country's problems on the US. It is a lot easier than fixing it yourself.

The rest of the world hates us? Really? How much travelling have you done outside of the US? How many people have you talked to in foreign countries that hate America? The world doesn't hate us. The majority in many countries don't agree with current American policy. But hate us? Come on. Remember the worldwide outpouring of support after 9/11? That's pretty unlikely from a world that hates us. But anyways, if you've got something to back up what you're saying, then present it. Otherwise, this is just baseless bluster.

Blame, blame, blame = liberal

conservative = take responsiblity, live by the golden rule, reward hard work

Earlier in this post, I presented the Democratic platform in response to you saying that all Democrats do is "criticize, criticize, and offer no solutions". Now it's "blame, blame, blame". You can look at the platform again and tell me if it's all "blame, blame, blame" or "criticize, criticize, and offer no solutions". Is it? Will you actually answer the question? Or are you gonna keep spouting the same stereotypes without defending your claims?

[pk500]

>>>Most of you guys love to bash bush. I don't know what makes you so liberal. I think it must be the constant liberal crap that is heard thru the media that makes people hate america, the rich, people that achieve, companies that make money.<<<

Hmm ... is it possible that I dislike Bush for these facts instead?

1. He started a war that has killed more than 1,000 Americans and approximately 12,000-15,000 Iraqi civilians, according to the median of most counts.

2. He has created the largest budget deficits in American history, a record $445 billion projected for 2005.

3. He is heading toward becoming the first president in 70 years who will accumulate net job losses during his term.

4. He has more than doubled the discretionary spending of his predecessor despite his status as a fiscal conservative. That discretionary spending includes defense, and it's up 31 percent since Bush's term started.

5. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 10,786.85 at the end of 2000 and has been at 10,021.5 at the end of 2001, 8341.63 at the end of 2002 and 10,453.92 at the end of 2003. In other words, the Dow has dropped overall during Bush's term. He's the first president since Carter who has seen the DJIA drop during his term.

Anchester, those are all FACTS, not "liberal media drivel." And they're the reasons why I think Bush must go.

So how has the media spun this one? And how am I liberal when two of my biggest beefs with Bush concern his excessive spending, supposedly only something liberal big government does? And how am I liberal when I'm concerned with the stagnant performance of the stock market, something that in your eyes liberals don't care about?

I'm all eyes, all ears. And like Jared, I'd like to see some specifics, some facts, in your reply instead of name-calling and deflection, blaming the media on creating us "liberals."

P.S.: I'm not voting for Kerry, either, so save the criticism of Kerry in your reply. Chances are, I'll agree with you. Badnarik, all the way!

Take care,
PK

[anchester]

i have already cited numerous examples of the media bias. We are just going round and round. Nothing I say will have any merit in your eyes. There was a scientific poll recently that rated all of the media on political leanings. A totally unbiased score was 38. Lower score = right bias, higher score = left bias. All of the majors networks scored in the 60s. Fox scored 32. The worst culprit was newsweek at 78. Only 2 major media sources, Fox and washington post scored slightly below completely unbiased. Obvious politically fronts like NPR were in the 90s and limbaugh was in the teens.

I mean loke at the damn abu ghraib scandal. Was it bad and should it have been reported. Hell yea. Did it require about 1 month straight of front page news. Hell no. This kind of crap amounted to giving comfort to the enemy and killing more americans over there.

If you believe one way, which has been proven in media registered democrats, you will see the world in your liberal colored glasses.

PK, you are spouting off the Democratic talking points. You guys say your are independant, libertarian, etc. but all yall do is spot of democratic talking points. None of the points that conservatives have ever seem to have any merit. Too me, you are leaning highly against conservatives despite how you label yourselves.

Example, PK you continue to mention 1st president to have net job losses, huge deficits, etc. First of all, the economy with 5.4% unemployment and 4% GDP is very good. Do you acknowledge there was a thing known as an internet and stock market bubble. That event was huge. The Nasdaq went from 2000-5000 in 3 years! That is a joke. Demand was artificially (and unsustainably high). It is easy to have a balanced budget when secretaries at tech companies were reporting millions in capital gains on stock options! How can you expect the stock market to be higher than a completely made up ponzi scheme market that we had in the late 90s.

Look at japan's bubble w/ real estate in the late 80s. 15 years later they still have not nearly recovered. No growth. Market at 25% of peaks, etc.

Also there was a thing known as 9-11 which hurt too. I agree all politicians are weak and do the politically correct thing which is to never cut and promise things you cant pay for. The republican expansion of socialized medicine is a travesty. Of course, Mr Kerry wants one 10x as expensive.

Do you really think john kerry will be tough on spending vs bush. cmon. Yes he will raise taxes, but he will likely spend more. And eventually raising taxes always slows an economy creating even larger deficits.

Please, lets hear more responses on how bush and repubicans suck, yet how your are totally neutral and rarely say a bad word about the other side.

[pk500]

God, this is so easy it's almost a good, old-fashioned turkey shoot:

>>>i have already cited numerous examples of the media bias. We are just going round and round. Nothing I say will have any merit in your eyes. There was a scientific poll recently that rated all of the media on political leanings. A totally unbiased score was 38. Lower score = right bias, higher score = left bias. All of the majors networks scored in the 60s. Fox scored 32. The worst culprit was newsweek at 78. Only 2 major media sources, Fox and washington post scored slightly below completely unbiased. Obvious politically fronts like NPR were in the 90s and limbaugh was in the teens.<<<

And what does this have to do with the FACTS I outlined other than further deflection tactics by you? Nada.

>>>If you believe one way, which has been proven in media registered democrats, you will see the world in your liberal colored glasses.<<<

Again, deflection. Let's deal in facts.

>>>PK, you are spouting off the Democratic talking points. You guys say your are independant, libertarian, etc. but all yall do is spot of democratic talking points. None of the points that conservatives have ever seem to have any merit.<<<

What are those conservative points, other than the liberal media is biased? That's your balsa-wood argument for anyone who dislikes Bush. It's all the media's fault.

Did you say the same thing when the Swift Boat Veterans story against Kerry was carried for nearly as long as Abu Ghraib? Did you say the same thing when the media was in Clinton's jock for nearly two years over the Lewinsky and grand jury perjury scandals? Was the media too liberal then?

>>>Example, PK you continue to mention 1st president to have net job losses, huge deficits, etc. First of all, the economy with 5.4% unemployment and 4% GDP is very good. Do you acknowledge there was a thing known as an internet and stock market bubble. That event was huge. The Nasdaq went from 2000-5000 in 3 years! That is a joke. Demand was artificially (and unsustainably high). It is easy to have a balanced budget when secretaries at tech companies were reporting millions in capital gains on stock options! How can you expect the stock market to be higher than a completely made up ponzi scheme market that we had in the late 90s.<<<

OK, then how do you explain the growth of the Dow under Reagan and Bush the Elder when there was no Internet boom and ensuing stock-market bubble from 1980-92?

>>>Look at japan's bubble w/ real estate in the late 80s. 15 years later they still have not nearly recovered. No growth. Market at 25% of peaks, etc.<<<

Nice try, but we're talking the stock market, not the real estate market.

>>>Also there was a thing known as 9-11 which hurt too. I agree all politicians are weak and do the politically correct thing which is to never cut and promise things you cant pay for. The republican expansion of socialized medicine is a travesty. Of course, Mr Kerry wants one 10x as expensive.<<<

Agreed. And I'm not surprised that you resorted to bringing up Kerry even though I said I'm not voting for him, either. Because when Republicans run out of facts to support Bush, they resort simply, "Well, uh ... Kerry will be worse -- count on it!" To be fair, Kerry's entire platform can be described as, "Vote for me because I'm not Bush!"

>>>Do you really think john kerry will be tough on spending vs bush. cmon. Yes he will raise taxes, but he will likely spend more. And eventually raising taxes always slows an economy creating even larger deficits.<<<

True. But why do you continue to duck the FACT that Bush has created record deficits? How do you justify it? By bashing Kerry, of course.

>>>Please, lets hear more responses on how bush and repubicans suck, yet how your are totally neutral and rarely say a bad word about the other side.<<<

Better yet, let's hear some facts from you to counter the facts I outlined in my previous post. You continue to sink in the quicksand of partisan rhetoric while the facts hang in the ether, just above your reach or comprehension.

I'm all ears, all eyes.

If the Democrats win in November, which isn't going to happen, by the way, then I'm sure I'll find many things I don't like about them, too. But a Republican is running the show now and running it poorly, so he's the target of my scorn.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

i have already cited numerous examples of the media bias. We are just going round and round. Nothing I say will have any merit in your eyes.

And we've addressed those examples and provided evidence that they're dishonest. Are you gonna defend them? Can you defend them?

This isn't going round and round. You make a claim. We debunk it. You then don't try to defend it, but bring up something else. Are you gonna back up your claims? Maybe it's that you can't....

There was a scientific poll recently that rated all of the media on political leanings. A totally unbiased score was 38. Lower score = right bias, higher score = left bias. All of the majors networks scored in the 60s. Fox scored 32. The worst culprit was newsweek at 78. Only 2 major media sources, Fox and washington post scored slightly below completely unbiased. Obvious politically fronts like NPR were in the 90s and limbaugh was in the teens.

Do you have any links to this "scientific poll"? If it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure it's been debunked for biased methodology. But before ripping into that one, I want to make sure it's the one you're referring to. So provide a link to the study, and we'll see if it holds up.

[Brando70]

i have already cited numerous examples of the media bias. We are just going round and round. Nothing I say will have any merit in your eyes. There was a scientific poll recently that rated all of the media on political leanings. A totally unbiased score was 38. Lower score = right bias, higher score = left bias. All of the majors networks scored in the 60s. Fox scored 32. The worst culprit was newsweek at 78. Only 2 major media sources, Fox and washington post scored slightly below completely unbiased. Obvious politically fronts like NPR were in the 90s and limbaugh was in the teens.

I must have missed this in this thread (not surprising, considering the size) so while I ate my lunch I did some Google searching and found the study I think you're referring to, the study by the guy from UCLA and that was cited by Drudge. There's a link here: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tC ... iaBias.doc

First of all, this study attempted to quantify "bias" by looking at how many times Congressional members cite various think tanks, which created what they called an ADA score of 0-100. The higher the number, the more liberal. 38 was the mean, but that doesn't mean unbiased. That's just the mean between the average Repub score of around 13 and the average Dem score in the mid 70s. At the extremes, Bill Frist was a 4 and Ted Kennedy in the mid-80s.

The study then used the same method in talking about how many times a number of media orgs cited these think tanks in their stories. Now, this is interesting, but let's face it, hardly a broad indictment of all news coverage and the methodology is a bit suspect. But I'll assume there's something of substance here that can be applied more broadly.

Second, every single news organization I saw listed in the report (Fox Special Report, Drudge, ABC/NBC/CBS Nightly News, USA Today, NY Times and LA Times) were MORE conservative than the average score for Congressional Democrats. Furthermore, ABC and NBC, which are often cited by guys like Brent Bozell as screamingly liberal, scored in the high 50s, below moderate pols like Constance Morella (Repub) and well below Joe Lieberman (Dem). Even the conservative nemesis the New York Times was nearly even with Lieberman's score.

So, at best -- if this is the study you're talking about -- the bias exhibited by the media shades toward the moderate Republican/conservative Democrat area. Hardly the America hating doppleganger you're trying to make it out to be.

[anchester]

pk...interesting points about media harping on swift boats and lewinsky. However, i don't think there harping was to say clinton or kerry were bad...moreso look how stupid the conservatives are for harping on this little sex issue. PLus, sex sells. I do think that that sex issue was overblown by conservatives. Who cares. The important issues are always subverted for some interesting scandal. Who cares what happened 30 yrs ago in vietnam. We know kerry served. We know he is a jane fonda type after the war and now. I almost think the swift boat crap was run to show how mean the conservatives are by attacking a guy who fought in military when bush did not.

PK, japan had a stock market bubble to go along with real estate.

I don't wanna go back and read the whole thread to see your discredits of goldberg. There are 2 sides to every story. I sure some wasn't true. But he seems like a non cheese type that is pretty believable on the whole. I like the quote, when after pressing rather about the bias, and finally gettin an answer "Of course the media is liberal you idiot, it always was and always will be, no get the hell out of my office".

Also, i was unable to see the democratic platform link you posted.

Can you imagine if we had the media coverage like we do know during WW2. Quagmire in the Far east. 15,000 die on Omaha. Little johnie gets killed for no reason. Is there an end in sight. Eurepeans question why we are there, blah blah. Obvious retort is WW2 and IRaq are miles away in comparison and they are, but you get the idea that we could not hold morale for any extended war no matter what the justification in this day and age.

[blueduke]

"Al Queda did indeed have a collaborative realtionship with Iraq. Read the 9/11 report." I then provided a link that showed that the 9/11 report said the exact opposite. Is this what you're talking about?

Yeah that's it. The link you supplied said there was no collaborative realtionship regarding the 9/11 attacks.. Something nobody ever suggested here or anywhere else

Blue. We've provided evidence that Goldberg has been dishonest. And you haven't addressed it. Instead, you make some comment about the site as if it were untrustworthy. Why don't you address the claims made in the links? Or the claims in these posts? Instead of doing that, you keep throwing out grade-school level debate attacks. Are you going to address what we've presented?

You showed Goldberg didn't research bugs very well.. So freakin' what? This was the big counter to Dan Rather's disgusting antics. Then you pull links from the howling owl out your behind using it as the ultimate truth (like who was going to bat for Glodberg anyway????) but everytime somone posts a link to a site you don't like it's dismissed. Nice having it both ways, huh? Your like every other liberal I know. Everytime someone disagrees the next thing to follow is some smartass veiled reference to a person's intellect. This coming from a person who thinks what Clinton did wasn't all that bad and some other great link from IBM 'proved' the phoney document story to be a sham. You want to proclaim Goldberg a phoney scream it loud and long. like anyone cares. He's not the one sitting at the anchor desk every night though. Why aren't you screaming for Rather's head? He's more than dishonest he downright despicable

For those lookinfg for media bias one would have to look no further than Dan Rather and CBS but here's some..................

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realityche ... 040909.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realityche ... 040903.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realityche ... 040831.asp

[anchester]

jared...i think that was the study. Although it was kinda hard to read for me b/c some of the characters were screwed up. I just read the summary. I didn't see the point that showed newsweek to be the worst major media leaner.

Seemed like it supported what i said, all the major media had significantly more quotes for liberal think tanks vs conservative and were scored significantly higher than the median 38 score. Sure there are a couple of sane democrats like leiberman and other moderates.

You guys are the ones saying there is no bias at all.

[XXXIV]

Rather isnt running for president.....

Bush vs Kerry = s*** vs Crap
Im staying home......I DONT LIKE EITHER ONE OF THESE SCUMBUCKETS.....

I know voting is a privelage...I also know I cannot vote for either of these turds......

[wco81]

If Kerry won, he'd be more likely to do something Bush hasn't done so far: veto an appropriations bill.

By the same token, the GOP-controlled Congress will fight tooth and nail against any significant programs Kerry is proposing.

Some people in the business community, who are nominally Republican and fiscal conservatives, wouldn't mind a return to gridlock.

[Brando70]

jared...i think that was the study. Although it was kinda hard to read for me b/c some of the characters were screwed up. I just read the summary. I didn't see the point that showed newsweek to be the worst major media leaner.

Seemed like it supported what i said, all the major media had significantly more quotes for liberal think tanks vs conservative and were scored significantly higher than the median 38 score. Sure there are a couple of sane democrats like leiberman and other moderates.

You guys are the ones saying there is no bias at all.

Except, anchester, the media you're saying is so very liberal had scores that aligned them with "sane" Democrats like Lieberman. The very report you're citing is saying that, using this think tank measure, some of the major media organizations are about in the same political range as Joe Lieberman, if not more conservative than he is. They may be above the 38 median score, but in terms of real-life counterparts on the scale, the media is hardly pimping Ted Kennedy's point of view.

I'm not saying there is no liberal bias in the media at times. I'm simply saying that the idea that the media is left-wing is misguided. I don't know if this study is really valid or not, I'm just working with the thing you're citing.

As for blueduke, I don't think anyone was saying Goldberg was dishonest (at least I wasn't). It's that he made a lot of broad assertations about the media without conducting any real research to back that up. When you say "the media constantly bashes men" and cite, as EVIDENCE, an article that's about INSECTS, you look like a goddamned fool. Doesn't mean you're dishonest, just misguided. And that is just one of the more egregious examples from Goldberg's book. All his writing does is prove that Bernie Goldberg thinks there is liberal bias at CBS and in the media, and that he thinks Dan Rather's an asshole.

Furthermore, I know I didn't equate the gravity of what CBS did with what Goldberg's done. CBS committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics and they are going to probably suffer a lot for that. However, both of these cases are emblematic of the shoddy research being done all over the media -- on TV, on the Web, in the papers, and in books.

[blueduke]

Some people in the business community, who are nominally Republican and fiscal conservatives, wouldn't mind a return to gridlock.

Neither would I. Bush hass indeed spent like a drunken sailor. Alot of conservatives have grumbled about this me being one. His handling of illegal immigration has been mindboggling. One of these days this is going to happen as well ................

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeff ... 0920.shtml

if something isn't done soon.

The drift toward Third World-caliber elections in the most advanced democracy the world has ever known is scandalous. Then again, if Americans can't be bothered to scrub the voting rolls, or to make sure that voters are properly ID'd, maybe they've got the election system they deserve.

[blueduke]

Except, anchester, the media you're saying is so very liberal had scores that aligned them with "sane" Democrats like Lieberman. The very report you're citing is saying that, using this think tank measure, some of the major media organizations are about in the same political range as Joe Lieberman, if not more conservative than he is. They may be above the 38 median score, but in terms of real-life counterparts on the scale, the media is hardly pimping Ted Kennedy's point of view.

I'm not saying there is no liberal bias in the media at times. I'm simply saying that the idea that the media is left-wing is misguided. I don't know if this study is really valid or not, I'm just working with the thing you're citing.

As for blueduke, I don't think anyone was saying Goldberg was dishonest (at least I wasn't). It's that he made a lot of broad assertations about the media without conducting any real research to back that up. When you say "the media constantly bashes men" and cite, as EVIDENCE, an article that's about INSECTS, you look like a goddamned fool. Doesn't mean you're dishonest, just misguided. And that is just one of the more egregious examples from Goldberg's book. All his writing does is prove that Bernie Goldberg thinks there is liberal bias at CBS and in the media, and that he thinks Dan Rather's an asshole.

Furthermore, I know I didn't equate the gravity of what CBS did with what Goldberg's done. CBS committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics and they are going to probably suffer a lot for that. However, both of these cases are emblematic of the shoddy research being done all over the media -- on TV, on the Web, in the papers, and in books

Brando you are an honest and fair person. I wholly commend you for that. Though we may disagree about things I truly respect you and your opinions. Btw you are not the only one wishing for a return to what the GOP used to be.. Now (imo anyway) we are forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils in national elections. Local elections are another matter however

[pk500]

>>>I almost think the swift boat crap was run to show how mean the conservatives are by attacking a guy who fought in military when bush did not.<<<

You have to be kidding me. You're saying that the media is biased toward Bush, yet that same media runs a story for nearly a month that was VERY distracting and certainly damaging to the Kerry campaign to show how mean the conservatives are?

That's Delusion 101 if you really believe that.

>>>PK, japan had a stock market bubble to go along with real estate.<<<

And the relevance of that to the failure of the stock market to make an overall gain during Bush's term, making him the first president since Carter to achieve that dubious distinction?

>>>Can you imagine if we had the media coverage like we do know during WW2. Quagmire in the Far east. 15,000 die on Omaha. Little johnie gets killed for no reason. Is there an end in sight. Eurepeans question why we are there, blah blah. Obvious retort is WW2 and IRaq are miles away in comparison and they are, but you get the idea that we could not hold morale for any extended war no matter what the justification in this day and age.<<<

You've absolutely lost it if you're drawing an analogy between World War II and the Iraq War. WWII was a justifiable conflict. Japan had attacked our territory in Hawaii, and we retaliated. Just like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Germany was sweeping through Europe with aggressive military action, something Iraq did not do and something it didn't have the capability to do militarily in 2003.

If you're comparing a justifiable conflict that had worldwide support both militarily and politically among the U.S. and its Allies to a conflict that enjoys lukewarm support only in the U.S., then you're nuts.

There is a past American conflict that you can compare the Iraq War -- Vietnam. I'd agree with that analogy 100 percent.

Let's see the common threads: Unjustified invasion by the U.S. Fighting guerrillas in unfamiliar terrain. Inept planning by the politicians back in the U.S. Troops unable to fight with full force due to political restraints. Eroding support for the conflict at home. Fighting an abstract principle -- Communism (Vietnam) and terror (Iraq) -- instead of a nation or government. U.S. politicians attempting to justify the conflict on the premise of bringing freedom to the area. Flag-draped caskets returning to the U.S. weekly.

There are a hell of a lot of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, more every month as this thing drags on.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

>>>Now (imo anyway) we are forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils in national elections. Local elections are another matter however<<<

Duke:

If I can butt in, I agree with you 100 percent on this assessment.

Take care,
PK

[blueduke]

There are a hell of a lot of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, more every month as this thing drags on.

Now this I gotta agree with. This better end sooner than later. But like I said earlier however for people to campaign about being "lied and misled" and referring to Bush as another Hitler only gives the enemy "if we can just hang on a little longer............they'll lose their stomach for this and victory will be ours". My last post on the subject