OT: Tom DeLay is an a**hole

Post by **Jared** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:30 am

blueduke wrote:Nice defense of Reid, Jared We made that stuff up too I suppose.

I'm not going to defend Reid since he might be crooked as well. Same with Jeffords (I disagree with what he said...though he has a right to say it). It's not a partisan thing with me. If Reid and/or Delay are crooked, then Reid and/or Delay should be investigated. It's that simple.

You're welcome to believe what you want to believe. But the least you can do is believe it based on some real evidence, and not the same deceptive crap that conservative media pushes.
You mean like forged National Guard documents? The above quote coming from a guy who uses Al Franken links

The National Guard documents were shown to be forgeries. CBS made a huge mistake. Obviously that's not real evidence.

But the cases I brought up re: Dean were completely different. The Newsmax and other articles that said Dean said Bush "knew" about 9/11 complete ripped the context out of what he actually said. I'll quote from the Al Franken link, which has the FULL quote of what Dean said:

Caller: Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11 and not stonewalling?

Howard Dean: Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

Diane Rehm: Why do you think he is suppressing that report?

Howard Dean: I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission.

He's obviously saying that these crazy theories will be given credence if it looks like the administration is hiding something...it's the way conspiracy theories develop.

Oh, and Dean's site has had a Kill Bush t-shirt? Really? Where's your evidence? Find it
It's been taken down. Just like it has at a few other sites. Another moveon.org disgrace (you'll find it halfway through the article).............

Well if it's been taken down, then I'm sure you'll be able to find a cached version of it. I'm sure tons of sites would have this. If Dean had a "Kill Bush" shirt on his website, I'm sure this would be big news. Unless, of course, it's completely fabricated bull.

Teal,

I'm sure the mainstream media makes mistakes and does things in a biased manner, both with a liberal and conservative bias. It often works that the media is a little biased against the incumbent/party in power. There were lies/deception printed about Clinton and Gore when they were in office/running, as I'm sure the same thing happened with Reagan and Bush I and has happened once with Bush II (Rathergate).

But it often goes that someone posts a link from Newsmax, World Net Daily, the Washington Times, etc. and the articles are either deceptive or just plain wrong. But since they push a particular agenda, the articles will always have a receptive audience, regardless of whether they're based on evidence or not.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:34 am

Jared wrote:But it often goes that someone posts a link from Newsmax, World Net Daily, the Washington Times, etc. and the articles are either deceptive or just plain wrong. But since they push a particular agenda, the articles will always have a receptive audience, regardless of whether they're based on evidence or not.

Exactly. Because if it's on the Internet, it must be true! Even better, if it's in a conservative publication online, it's doubly true!

Newsmax reported I have a 14-inch penis. Newsmax reported I have a 14-inch penis!

Take care,
PK

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:47 am

World Net Daily has run stories about the Nephilim, so you know you can trust their journalistic sensibilities:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=42637

But back to the topic at hand, maybe Harry Reid is also guilty (ironic how the very liberal LA Times reported that). Neopotism and pork in Congress date from colonial times. If he has broken ethics laws, he should be prosectuted and removed from office (the way Dem Dan Rostenkowski was).

However, there are a few things that make DeLay stand out:

1) He positions himself as a moral crusader. That just ratchets up the hypocrite factor.

2) He used very inflammatory words toward judges right after one judge and another's family were killed. I don't think he meant to imply violence, but then he refused to apologize until members of his own party called him out, including Dick Cheney. Just a good indicator of his level of stupidity.

3) After the Republican head of the Congressional ethics committee started investigations against him, DeLay worked with other Congressional Republicans to remove him and install someone more pro-DeLay.

4) Some of his own fellow Republican Congressmen have even started to back off from him.

5) His acceptance of money from foreign agents, if true, is a 100% violation of House ethics rules.

6) I believe he's had four ethics citations since 1999, which is the Golden Sombrero for Congressmen (the lastest Russian travel thing being the fourth).

In short, he is not your average pork barrel pol. He is in deep s***, not because of the media or liberals or judges, but because he has continued to thumb his nose at the rules. He's becoming a political albatross for his own party, and you can bet he's going to get the heave ho before he can become a lightning rod for the 2006 elections.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:20 pm

pk500 wrote:This complaint of "liberal media" really gets old after a while. It's a convenient crutch for conservatives who are upset that they don't have total control yet over every aspect of American life. "We have the White House. We have the Congress. We'll get the Supreme Court. We have the churches. Damn it, we just need the media, and we'll hit the quinella!"

If you don't believe that there's a liberal media, then there's not much point in debating the issue. It's hard to convince someone of the white elephant in the room when he refuses to acknowledge its presence...

pk500 wrote:It's funny: FOX News is the most partisan of the "major" cable networks, by far, yet legions of conservatives buy its "fair and balanced" label solely because FOX is a big-time right-wing propaganda vehicle. It's sort of hypocritical to rip the "liberal media" for bias when the electronic home for conservatives is much more biased toward its chosen side than CNN or MSNBC.

FOX News is kicking the living crap out of all comers, so what does that say? Either the numbers are wrong, or there are a heck of a lot more conservative type people who know about the liberal bias on other networks and cable shows who tune into Fox for a break from that baloney. And how can you call the likes of Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and company "right wing propagandists"?

Showing both sides of an issue probably looks like right wing bias to some people, because we hardly ever see it outside of Fox..."How DARE they tell the whole story!!!"

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:22 pm

I... I can't take it.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:35 pm

tealboy03 wrote:If you don't believe that there's a liberal media, then there's not much point in debating the issue. It's hard to convince someone of the white elephant in the room when he refuses to acknowledge its presence...

FOX News is kicking the living crap out of all comers, so what does that say? Either the numbers are wrong, or there are a heck of a lot more conservative type people who know about the liberal bias on other networks and cable shows who tune into Fox for a break from that baloney. And how can you call the likes of Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and company "right wing propagandists"?

Showing both sides of an issue probably looks like right wing bias to some people, because we hardly ever see it outside of Fox..."How DARE they tell the whole story!!!"

Alan f***in Colmes? Come on teal, that show should be called "Hannity and Apologizing Liberal Speedbump." And yes, I've actually watched a lot of episodes because for a while I found it the most entertaining of the shout shows.

I have no problem with Fox presenting a conservative viewpoint, or with it being the leading cable news network. This is a conservative country right now, and I accept that. But the fair and balanced s*** is just not true.

The other issue I have is the perception of some vast liberal news conspiracy. The mainstream media is certainly urban in its bias, because (duh) the big media outlets are in cities. That makes them more biased toward certain issues, such as homosexual marriage. But on other issues, especially economics or anything involving math, they are at best, lazy. They gave Bush a free pass over his laughable economic plans (especially regarding the deficit warning signs that all came true) so that they could talk about what color suits Al Gore was wearing.

The other funny thing about DeLay's bleating about judges: here you have a party that controls the White House, both Houses of Congress, and has marginal control over the Supreme Court. Yet the Republicans keep complaining they can't get anything done unless they remove all dissenting judges and strip away fillibuster rights from Democrats. How f***in inefficient and ineffective does your party have to be to have TOTAL control over the American government, yet says it can't get anything done?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:43 pm

tealboy03 wrote:If you don't believe that there's a liberal media, then there's not much point in debating the issue. It's hard to convince someone of the white elephant in the room when he refuses to acknowledge its presence...

What about the gray elephant known as the conservative media? I just love the characterization that all of the U.S. mainstream media is "liberal." What about FOX News? What about nearly all of talk radio? What about papers like the Washington Times? All liberals, right?

tealboy03 wrote:FOX News is kicking the living crap out of all comers, so what does that say?

It tells me that America is a conservative nation, so it watches the conservative, Republican-leaning cable news network. Just because the ratings are high doesn't mean it's quality or unbiased. It means it's popular for pandering to the masses for ratings. Mariah Carey just debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard chart. Does that make her the greatest singer and performer of our time?

tealboy03 wrote:Either the numbers are wrong, or there are a heck of a lot more conservative type people who know about the liberal bias on other networks and cable shows who tune into Fox for a break from that baloney. And how can you call the likes of Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and company "right wing propagandists"?

They're tokens, much like Bob Novak on "Crossfire." Americans also are gullible and lazy when it comes to learning about world and national events, and Fox has done a great job of advertising itself as "fair and balanced" simply because it panders to the right-wing majority in this country. That does not make it balanced. It makes it popular.

tealboy03 wrote:Showing both sides of an issue probably looks like right wing bias to some people, because we hardly ever see it outside of Fox..."How DARE they tell the whole story!!!"

Fox hardly ever shows both sides of the story. It shows the right-wing side. It's the right-wing portion of the balkanization of American media.

Just look at the depiction of world news on the FOXnews.com site right now. We have the shot of smoldering wreckage of the downed chopper in Iraq -- that will whip up the anti-furriner sentiment of the right wing -- complete with a tease that asks if a terrorist shot it down; we have a rah-rah tease saying Bush urges confirmation of John Bolton instead of the true story that many lawmakers have misgivings about this guy; Brit Hume's special report tonight is about whether Putin has ditched democracy, with Bush mouthpiece Condi Rice as the talking head; gotta like how fair and balanced it is for the Web site to run editorials from the Heritage Foundation, etc., etc.

Fox knows its audience -- conservative Americans. And it panders and slants its coverage to placate and grow that audience, just like any other sitcom or drama on TV.

To suggest it's fair and balanced is just as ludicrous as suggesting that CNN and MSNBC also are fair and balanced. None of them are. But just because Fox leans right, it's more fair and balanced than those outlets that lean left?

I'm not that gullible, sorry.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:16 pm

Slumberland wrote:I... I can't take it.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:22 pm

Teal, I know that our politics are aligned on some issues (not all, not even many, but some), and I firmly believe that I know bias when I see it. Fox is even more biased than CNN, bro. They both stopped pretending that they didn't have an agenda the minute Fox News went on the air. I don't particularly rue the death of "objective" television news, as I don't think it ever really existed. But both sides are clearly partisan at this point.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:49 pm

There's no question in my mind that the most "honest" of the mainstream American media outlets these days is NPR. It is outwardly left wing, doing much more in-depth reporting on environmental, women's, arts and social issues than pretty much all other networks combined.

NPR doesn't come out and call itself "the liberal network," but it also doesn't try to depict itself as centrist under some horsesh*t "fair and balanced" slogan.

I like NPR solely because it does cover issues that other networks and mainstream, non-niche media outlets don't, and it usually does it with depth, intelligence and perspective. As long as you accept that it's going to focus its coverage on issues that matter more to liberals and provide commentary from bleeding hearts like Daniel Schoor, it can be a valuable learning and information resource.

I prefer to gather my news from a variety of sources, including those that lean left and right and from what in my opinion is the most neutral nationwide media outlet, the Christian Science Monitor. I always look to the Monitor Online for pretty neutral coverage and perspective on big issues when I'm sick and tired of sifting through the left- and right-wing flavor injected into coverage at other American mainstream media outlets.

Take care,
PK

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:06 pm

So what's up with the broadcast news bigwigs saying that they need to make news more opinionated to compete with the Internet and cable?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:09 pm

FatPitcher wrote:So what's up with the broadcast news bigwigs saying that they need to make news more opinionated to compete with the Internet and cable?

The chase for almighty ratings and advertising dollars, brother. The day of infotainment replacing news in America is almost here.

Take care,
PK

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:17 pm

It's just a shame that our means for getting information and truth to the people is now just another commodity that must be maximized for profit. There was a time when it was a given that the news division was going to be a financial loss for a network, and that was okay.

How do I know this? Because I am a soul-eating vampire from the dark ages, and I had an internship at CBS in 1964.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:46 pm

Slumberland wrote:It's just a shame that our means for getting information and truth to the people is now just another commodity that must be maximized for profit. There was a time when it was a given that the news division was going to be a financial loss for a network, and that was okay.

How do I know this? Because I am a soul-eating vampire from the dark ages, and I had an internship at CBS in 1964.

Newspapers have known for centuries that it's a commodity. The ideal of opinion-neutral TV networks was a Potemkin village all along. Networks used them as loss-leaders to garner respect as something more than glorified electronic toothpaste sellers.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:26 pm

'I'll rip the American media for a lot of things -- superficiality, shoddy reporting, etc. But this complaint of "liberal" and "conservative" media is really shallow, especially if you compare the political leanings of American media to those in other countries, which are overtly more political and partisan.

It's funny: FOX News is the most partisan of the "major" cable networks, by far, yet legions of conservatives buy its "fair and balanced" label solely because FOX is a big-time right-wing propaganda vehicle.

Would the second quote be pk "being shallow"?

I'm not going to defend Reid since he might be crooked as well. Same with Jeffords (I disagree with what he said...though he has a right to say it)

"Might" be crooked? But Delay IS crooked. right (Isay they both are and they both should be kicked out of office. But then again who's going to do that? Others just as crooked as they are?)?

If Reid and/or Delay are crooked, then Reid and/or Delay should be investigated. It's that simple.

Freakin' A

I'll quote from the Al Franken link, which has the FULL quote of what Dean said:

Al Franken has the real scoop but Newsmax, Fox, et al are partisan jokes? Come on man

Fact: Delay is being ripped up pretty good (and he deserves it) by the media but they completely ignore others. Reid especially which is odd considering he's one of the main ones leading the charge to dump Delay. Boxer gets a pass. So does Schumer. This isn't partisan, it's just being outright dishonest.

Re: Media ripping Clinton...........400 freakin' FBI files being found in the White House and tell me how much time they spent on it? They accepted the "explaination" by the Clintons (who blamed it on an ex-bar bouncer) with no follow up investigation. Now how much time did they spend on forged Guard docs? They ripped Clinton for the thing that would hurt him the least and gave scant attention to illegal campaign contribs from China, FBI files (a Nixon aide went to prison for reading one. Not to mention China acquiring our nuclear secrets. They took it easy on Clinton if you asked me. The only one's that got mad about the bj was conservative talking heads, GOP congressional members, and feminists (and they took it easy on him too).

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:29 pm

pk500 wrote:Blue and Teal: You don't find it a bit peculiar that DeLay has launched this attack while he's under scrutiny over purported ethics violations?

PK - it's the same attention diverting strategy Bush used when he couldn't find Bin Laden....let's invade Iraq! That'l take the focus off Bin Laden and
it's something I know I can sell to the American people! The sad thing is that anyone who speaks out against DeLay gets ousted. Didn't he fire a bunch of people in the very ethics committee that was investigating him?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:49 pm

JackB1 wrote:
pk500 wrote:Blue and Teal: You don't find it a bit peculiar that DeLay has launched this attack while he's under scrutiny over purported ethics violations?
PK - it's the same attention diverting strategy Bush used when he couldn't find Bin Laden....let's invade Iraq! That'l take the focus off Bin Laden and
it's something I know I can sell to the American people! The sad thing is that anyone who speaks out against DeLay gets ousted. Didn't he fire a bunch of people in the very ethics committee that was investigating him?

Boy, talk about wild eyed extremism...what dead horse's ass did you pull that one out of? Air America? Al Franken knows as much about politics as he does comedy...

That's right Jack...everybody's covering up some big conspiracy. Check that, only conservatives apparently do that.

Look out...I think I heard something about black helicopters swooping in and hauling off anyone who figures the conspiracy out...

Post by **Jared** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:59 pm

blueduke wrote:
I'm not going to defend Reid since he might be crooked as well. Same with Jeffords (I disagree with what he said...though he has a right to say it)
"Might" be crooked? But Delay IS crooked. right (Isay they both are and they both should be kicked out of office. But then again who's going to do that? Others just as crooked as they are?)?

It looks likely...but he needs to be investigated to see if the claims of crooked-ness hold up. Both of them should be investigated if there's legitimacy to these claims, plain and simple.

Al Franken has the real scoop but Newsmax, Fox, et al are partisan jokes? Come on man

Translation: I can't criticize what's actually in the Al Franken post, so I'll just attack the source.

I linked to the Franken post not because it was Al Franken, but because it had a full quote of what Dean said in the context of the situation. If you can't comment on the actual content of the post, then just say so or don't say anything...just impugning the source because it's from Al Franken is just lazy.

And by the way, where is that source about Dean's site selling "Kill Bush" t-shirts? So far you're 0 for 2 on Dean attacks.

Fact: Delay is being ripped up pretty good (and he deserves it) by the media but they completely ignore others. Reid especially which is odd considering he's one of the main ones leading the charge to dump Delay. Boxer gets a pass. So does Schumer. This isn't partisan, it's just being outright dishonest.

The media always likes to take down a bigwig, Democrat or Republican. Obviously the "liberal media" is looking at Reid, since the LA Times has published articles on him. If the accusations stick, you'll see more stuff on him.

Re: Media ripping Clinton...........400 freakin' FBI files being found in the White House and tell me how much time they spent on it? They accepted the "explaination" by the Clintons (who blamed it on an ex-bar bouncer) with no follow up investigation. Now how much time did they spend on forged Guard docs? They ripped Clinton for the thing that would hurt him the least and gave scant attention to illegal campaign contribs from China, FBI files (a Nixon aide went to prison for reading one. Not to mention China acquiring our nuclear secrets. They took it easy on Clinton if you asked me. The only one's that got mad about the bj was conservative talking heads, GOP congressional members, and feminists (and they took it easy on him too).

Umm...the file stuff was reported heavily in the "liberal media". Just look at this collection of stuff on Whitewater and the files by the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... tories.htm

Or is it because of the Cox report that showed that China had been stealing secrets from the US since the late-70s? I know people want to blame Clinton for everything...but this is getting kind of silly. Here's the actual report, if you want to inform yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resource ... ox.report/

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:06 pm

Al Franken knows as much about politics as he does comedy...

Then he must be a political guru. To attack Franken as a comedian simply shows your inability to set your politics aside. His work as a writer for SNL alone should get him a little credit. Especially during the glory years.

Post by **Jared** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:09 pm

tealboy03 wrote: If you don't believe that there's a liberal media, then there's not much point in debating the issue. It's hard to convince someone of the white elephant in the room when he refuses to acknowledge its presence...

That doesn't make any sense. If you don't agree with me, then there's no point in debating against a position I hold. Huh?

PK (and I) don't believe in the liberal media canard. The mainstream media shows bias in both directions. Only difference is that Republicans whine and cry "liberal media" whenever it happens to them, like they're some sort of persecuted minority.

FOX News is kicking the living crap out of all comers, so what does that say? Either the numbers are wrong, or there are a heck of a lot more conservative type people who know about the liberal bias on other networks and cable shows who tune into Fox for a break from that baloney. And how can you call the likes of Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and company "right wing propagandists"?

So your argument is that Fox News is the fairest, most balanced of the news stations because it gets the best ratings? I'm sure Naked News would get amazing ratings if it were on TV...doesn't mean that their journalism is any better than the rest.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:01 pm

I linked to the Franken post not because it was Al Franken, but because it had a full quote of what Dean said in the context of the situation

I'm sure Moveon.org would have it, right? Or even CBS, NBC, ABC. We all know they would gleefully point out Fox News being wrong. I'm sure you'll find it from a more reputable left wing site. You know you roundly criticize and dismiss any link from a website on the right but when someone questions yours you don't take it very well. Ever notice this? I could have gotten the Reid story at several places, btw. Stack Delays crimes up against Reid. And look who wants to oust who and surely you can see the hypocrisy.

Translation: I can't criticize what's actually in the Al Franken post, so I'll just attack the source.

Translation...........Jared can't take what he dishes out. He can howl about right wing links, Newsmax, etc but don't you dare bring up his. What would Jared say if the Reid link came from say....Limbaugh? I think we already know the answer to that. But don't diss Franken. He's a true statesman

And by the way, where is that source about Dean's site selling "Kill Bush" t-shirts? So far you're 0 for 2 on Dean attacks.

Translation: Let's stick to this since it looks foolish attacking Delay after Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, Schumer's, and Boxer's blatant hypocrisy was pointed out. I'm as accurate on Dean as you were Jeffords.

Obviously the "liberal media" is looking at Reid, since the LA Times has published articles on him

Check the date of that article. Where has CBS been? Looks like they'd ask Harry why he's trying to sink Delay when his family took in much more over a longer period of time. Are left wing reporters that bad? Have they EVER questioned Reid about it until now? Even now, do they bring it up? Looks like it would be relevant wouldn't it? no it's attack Delay all day everyday. Hands off Reid, Boxer, etc

Dollars to doughnuts Reid doesn't get investigated

Umm...the file stuff was reported heavily in the "liberal media". Just look at this collection of stuff on Whitewater and the files by the Washington Post:

Who cares about Whitewater?????? We're talking about files on former and current GOP members and other prominent conservatives at the time. 400 FBI files didn't walk to the White House. I'm sure they didn't read them though

Wonder how much dirt they found? Everybody-dems included have skeletons. If a man knew something on someone that person wanted kept secret........

Or is it because of the Cox report that showed that China had been stealing secrets from the US since the late-70s? I know people want to blame Clinton for everything...but this is getting kind of silly.

When you get illegal campaign contributions from a China and then China winds up with your most sophisticated stuff..........you look silly trying to defend it. And a link from cnn! (Pot-kettle)

Carefree press was selling it too

So your argument is that Fox News is the fairest, most balanced of the news stations because it gets the best ratings?

Maybe people are sick and tired of the bilge from the other side.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:24 pm

Sigh ... I remember the days in the early 70s when Americans were grateful that the media uncovered Nixon's crimes and scandals while in office, forcing him to resign.

If Bush committed similar crimes today and the media reported on it, conservative Americans would label it as a "liberal media" smear while liberal Americans would cheer gleefully like it was a high-school pep rally. The media is really in an impossible position today, and it's why so little quality reporting is being done. Any time quality reporting is done, it's labeled either "liberal" or "conservative" within minutes of it hitting the airwaves, Internet or print.

Is there any chance it might be the truth? No -- that can't be possible in these partisan times where every media member is on the take from a national political party slush fund.

That's why I admire guys like Seymour Hersh who continue the investigative spirit of Woodward and Bernstein. And I also admire the hell out of Bob Woodward. He could have retired to the lecture circuit after his Watergate reporting for the Post, some of the most monumental journalism of the 20th century. Instead, he continues to report for the Washington Post and write very interesting, balanced books filled with in-depth reporting.

While the Internet is a great tool and entertainment device, it has been one of the biggest threats ever to quality reporting and journalism. Now anyone can throw stuff on a blog or on "The Drudge Report," with no editorial checks and balances to determine its truth.

And cable news is great for basic information, but it's awful for journalism of any depth. The biggest goal in TV news now is the race to get the story first and to get ratings instead of getting the story right. I firmly believe that was the reason why Rather and CBS f*cked up so badly on the National Guard story.

I don't believe for a minute that Rather -- one of the most distinguished American broadcast journalists ever and a very decent man -- was "out to get" Bush. I believe he was hoodwinked by a bad source, and both he and CBS were so stoked to actually get a chance to scoop the 24-hour cable news networks and Internet sites that they raced to run the story without thorough background checks and reporting. Of course, conservatives feel differently, which is to be expected in these times of media bias whining by both "sides."

Sadly, we're not a country of Americans anymore. We're a balkanized nation of conservatives and liberals, religious and non-believers, who unite as one entity only when our national sporting teams participate at international events such as the Olympics, the Ryder Cup or the World Cup. If politics has even the slightest bit to do with an event or issue, we're really not Americans anymore. We're partisan pricks.

Take care,
PK

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:29 pm

Sadly, we're not a country of Americans anymore. We're a balkanized nation of conservatives and liberals, religious and non-believers, who unite as one entity only when our national sporting teams participate at international events such as the Olympics, the Ryder Cup or the World Cup. If politics has even the slightest bit to do with an event or issue, we're really not Americans anymore. We're partisan pricks.

Agreed

Post by **Jared** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:34 pm

Blue,

This still holds.

Translation: I can't criticize what's actually in the Al Franken post, so I'll just attack the source.

If you don't have the cojones to actually defend your claims on Dean, and need to resort to ad hominem attacks against Franken in a pathetic attempt to make your point, then there's no need to discuss this further.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:46 pm

Jared my main focus has been Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer trying to take out Delay for doing the same thing they did. And THAT is the truth that still stands. Finding wacky Dean quotes doesn't take "cojones", btw.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515/

What do you know? Another left wing site making my argument. Tell Franken he sucks for me will you?

Bringing up the left's answer to Limbaugh. I think it is wise to not discuss this further. Glass houses, friend