Fair and balanced

[T_Bone]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040903/allie.gif

[KennyR]

Part of the problem is the definition. Republicans define any news service that doesn't censor news that could look bad for Bush, America, or Iraq, as liberal. Once you change that bad definition, there won't be any liberal news services left for you to moan about. :-) Certainly CNN and CBC are not liberal by any European meaning of the word.

[cecilia]

maybe you haven't noticed that they are ALL in the same room? they are all deluded.

i never get my news from any of them. i get my news from OUTSIDE the USA. it's the only objective source.

(well, that and The Daily Show, which is satire, and more likely to be truthful just because of that!)

[Fade]

Did you notice that they left out the worst offender? PBS!

But maybe they are inside the donkey suit.



@ KennyR
"Certainly CNN and CBC are not liberal by any European meaning of the word."
--------------

Apparently you haven't heard that Kerry has now hired two of the CNN staff to try to save his butt. And guess what? CNN is so liberal that they are going to let them keep their TV jobs.

Wake up Kenny!

[T_Bone]

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040826.asp

"The fair and balanced challenge"

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/surprise_fox_is.html

"Surprise! Fox News is Fair and Balanced!"

[bloodline]

Fade wrote:
Did you notice that they left out the worst offender? PBS!

But maybe they are inside the donkey suit.



@ KennyR
"Certainly CNN and CBC are not liberal by any European meaning of the word."
--------------

Apparently you haven't heard that Kerry has now hired two of the CNN staff to try to save his butt. And guess what? CNN is so liberal that they are going to let them keep their TV jobs.

Wake up Kenny!


See what you did there Fade? You used Liberal as a noun rather than an adjective :-)

[Glaucus]

Certainly CNN and CBC are not liberal by any European meaning of the word.Do you mean CBC, or CBS? CBC is the Canadian Broadcast Channel. :-)

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040826.asp

"The fair and balanced challenge"



Cough, cough.

They are a self-proclaimed conservative media watchdog group. That means that they only find things fair and balanced if they conform to the conservative ideals of the group.

For just a taste, they lament the fact that there isn't enough coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which is probably a good thing for the conservatives since SBVforT are a bunch of liars working for Bush whose current statements tend to conflict with statements they made 30 years ago and if the media spent moe time on th8is it would come out) and are upset with coverage about how Dubya was AWOL (which he was, unless "It's OK with Dad" is sufficient leave).

[KennyR]

Yeah, CBS. Typo. Although I also like WTF, ACDC, EEK, FOAD, BCAD and DEADF00D.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/surprise_fox_is.html

"Surprise! Fox News is Fair and Balanced!"

This article just says that the media (in general) os to the left of the average for the House, but then so is the average American. Fox is to the right of the House, but the House is pretty right wing (not surprising because most members are either wealthy or funded by wealthy organizations).

So, Fox is declared to be "Fair and Balanced" because it is even more right wing than a right wing government.

[FluffyMcDeath]

@ T_bone

Here's an interesting article that brings the Bush AWOL thing and the Media Research Center together ...

from the Blue Lemur (http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=291) ...

[Fade]

After getting caught last week trying to start a rumor about Republicans booing Clinton after Bush made an announcement about Clinton's near heart attack, I think their latest trick will finish the Democrats off for good.

This time they have "found" new documents that "prove" that Bush skipped out on his National Guard service.

This story was so big that the mouthpiece for the Democrats, Dan Rather of CBS brought in the ex-Lt. Governor of Texas to add fuel to the fire, saying he got Bush into the Guard. Nevermind that this guy is a Democrat, or works for Kerry as a fund raiser. The ever fair & balanced CBS thought the US voters would buy it.

The documents from 1973 are supposed to prove that one of Bush's commanders had written him up for not following an order to take a flight physical, and should have been put on active duty for not doing so. Dan Rather, in all his fairness stated that CBS had researched these documents and found them to be genuine. Even had outside experts examine them, no question about it, they are the originals, typed and signed by the now deceased commander!

Now along comes the wife of the commander and guess what. She states the commander couldn't type and wouldn't learn. Didn't speak in the manner that the letters were written and hardly ever took any hand written notes for someone to transcribe.

But here comes the kicker.







You knew there was going to be a kicker didn't you?








Someone, (don't know who, but it was probably a 10 year old typing student) looked at the letters and pointed out that the type was proportional. A very rare thing on typewriters from 1973 even if it was brand new, but almost certainly not used by the military.

Now here is the kicker. It also contained superscript. Didn't exist on typewriters in 1973.

Now we hear this from CBS's Dan Rather (http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm)


EDIT
Sorry T_Bone, I should have read your link first. :oops:

REEDIT
That was Fluffy's link, not T_Bone's. Double :oops:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Yeah, CBS. Typo. Although I also like WTF, ACDC, EEK, FOAD, BCAD and DEADF00D.:roflmao:

[Dan]

I´m more worried about what is happening to the BBC.

American media is always biased, either towards the owner or towards the one who bought most commercials, it´s only natural.

Anyway, the best news is local news.
"Cow escaped, is running on road E21"
"Eight year old won airgun competition"
"Debate about closing of the school in ..."
"Dog runaway, if you see a golden retriver with the name tag Ludde call..."
That´s the real news!

Speak to the nation, can´t believe anyone is actually watching that kind off crap!

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade


The question is, why hasn't the Bush team got around to faking documents that proove he served? Why not fill in that gap? Dubya wanted Saddam top proove that he had destroyed all his WMD. Iraq submitted hundreds of pages of documentation. All we need is for Dubya to document his service, and he cannot do it. Double standard?

Dubya got himself (or his dad got him) a cushy position that would naver take him to 'Nam (and he even checked the "Won't serve overseas" box!!!) Kerry volunteered, and even if the Swift Boat PR operations charges about Kerry were true, and even if his purple hearts were worthless, Kerry still served in combat, was shot at and did kill for his country. To criticize Kerry's mote while ignoring Bush's beam is hypocricy (and no small amount of chutzpah).


Now we hear this from CBS's Dan Rather (http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm)



Yes. Enormous pressure was also brought to bare on the BBC to get them to retract the stroy that the dossier was "sexed up". People were fired. Heads rolled. The dossier was still "sexed up" nonetheless.

[FluffyMcDeath]

And just to keep current...

WND reports (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40376)

"CBS News, however, issued a release later, which included the statement, "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned.""

[Fade]

@ KennyR
" (and he even checked the "Won't serve overseas" box!!!)"
--------------

Let me burst this bubble for you real quick Kenny.

There is NO such box!

If you were drafted, you got no choice about where you were sent or what you would be trained to do. (MOS - job classification)

If you joined the service, you got a choice. You could choose the job or you could choose location. You could not choose both. If you chose location, it was for theatre only, stateside, Europe, Asia, Canal Zone, etc. You could request a 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference of bases, and they would try to comply as long as there was a job opening for your MOS.

All "hazardous duty" MOS's (Pilots, Divers, Airborne) are 100% voluntary. Because Bush chose the job, (pilot) he did not get a choice of the location.


Kenny, I think you are making stuff up again. You would make a good Democrat. :-D

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
" (and he even checked the "Won't serve overseas" box!!!)"
--------------

Let me burst this bubble for you real quick Kenny.

Let me burst this bubble for you real quick Fade.

You're quoting ME, not KennyR.



There is NO such box!


I was paraphrasing.
Here is Bush's volunteer form.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/05_Vol_lores.jpg

Do you see the boxes for "I DO" and "I DO NOT" "VOLUNTEER FOR OVERSEAS" ?

Well, in a somewhat less redacted version of this form without all the blackout, seems the box that Dumbya picked was "I DO NOT" (which makes sense really, else why would you want to blank these out?)

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath

And just to keep current...

WND reports
-------------

I see CBS is digging themselves an even deeper hole.

This from ABC news:

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

** The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
** The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
** The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
** The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas - the bible of fonts - does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
** The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
" (and he even checked the "Won't serve overseas" box!!!)"
--------------


Let me burst this bubble for you real quick Kenny.

There is NO such box!
KennyR didn't wrote that :roll:

[that_punk_guy]

You keep mixing members up. Perhaps you need to lie down for a while.

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade

Did Kerry volunteer to serve in 'Nam, or did George W. Bush volunteer to serve in 'Nam?

All else is just distraction.

Which one volunteered to serve? Which one has experience combat?

Forget about typewriters and swift boaters. All this is details and arguing about who said what under what fire or in whose files. Above all the noise, one thing stands out.

One of those men fought, one of them didn't.

[Fade]

My bubble has now burst!
But I swear Fluffy, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between your posts and KennyR's. :lol:

[Fade]

It now seems that more of Dan Rather's proof is going south again.
The ex-Lt. Governor of Texas that said he got Bush into the Guard has his own problems.

His own daughter (http://www.wbap.com/listingsentryheadline.asp?ID=239369&PT=wbaptopstories) says he is lying.

[cecilia]

on another site there are these pdf's:

A document from Texas the white house release earlier this year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf

The memo where Bush is ordered to report for a physical which he refused:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf



http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade,

Looking around the net I found several proportional typefaces that were used on electric typewriters in the early seventies, including the incredibly popular Selectric from IBM. Also, superscripting was available.

This article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents/) seems to imply that one of the examiners who raised doubts now has less doubts. It also says, importantly, "The controversy over the authenticity of the documents has all but blocked out discussion of their content." which is the whole point of the "hoax" smear campaign. Talk about the typeface, not the words.

From the article regarding the typewriter that was likely used...

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.


So, if somebody told you that there were no typewriters back then that did proportional font, if somebody told you that typewriters in the seventies couldn't superscript, well if somebody told you all that, then somebody lied.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Here is a PDF (http://www.nobeliefs.com/BushRecord.pdf) of the documents.

Note the varying letter positions on the line. They are not perfectly aligned and have varying horizontal positions. This is an attribute of mechanical typewriters and word cannot reproduce this.

[Elektro]

open office? :-P

[Fade]

Sept 8, 2004 CBS News
Why CBS says Col. Killian wrote the memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml)
In a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Col. Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush. Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not do an interview for this broadcast.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."
====================================

Sept 11, 2004 The Dallas Morning News
Only one problem with that. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html)
AUSTIN, Texas - The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of the future president's service was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade

Stuck in the details again. So, I forget what your previous answer was to the question "Which one volunteered for 'Nam?"

Who fought, Fade?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
My bubble has now burst!

as usual :roll:

But I swear Fluffy, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between your posts and KennyR's. :lol:Don't be proud of your ignorance.

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"Stuck in the details again."
------------------

Yeah, but it is one of those elephant in the corner details.
Kind of took all the fun out of it for you didn't it?
And the thread is about Fair & Balanced reporting.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"Stuck in the details again."
------------------

Yeah, but it is one of those elephant in the corner details.


Not really. If the docs aren;t real, at least they fit in well with what we already know... George has failed to prove that he completed his service.

Still, I ask you, which of the two candidates volunteered for, and fought in Vietnam, and which didn't? Simple question. You just can't speak the answer, can you.

[QuikSanz]

And Clinton was a draft dodger, who cares?

Chris

[QuikSanz]

Oops double post

[bloodline]

QuikSanz wrote:
And Clinton was a draft dodger, who cares?

Chris

Clinton didn't declare war upon Iraq.

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:

QuikSanz wrote:
And Clinton was a draft dodger, who cares?

Chris

Clinton didn't declare war upon Iraq.

You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war. :-P
(it kept everyones mind off of his extramarital activities)

[that_punk_guy]

QuikSanz wrote:
And Clinton was a draft dodger, who cares?


I guess you do, you brought it up. ;-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war.
That'd make one think, methinks

[redrumloa]

Stuck in the details again.

Everything is about details, it's where fantasy ends.

What do they liberals have to hang their hat on? What is their party platfom?

1) Bush is a meanie
2) Michael Moore propoganda
3) Forged documents
4) See #1
5) Wash, rinse, repeat

Kerry stands for nothing. The only things he has claimed to want to do, is what he has always done the opposite on. Kerry has no direction whatsoever, he is being marketed as someone different than Bush. Bush is evil, blah blah blah.

Guess what? It's not gonna work. No way in hell will Kerry win this election. Frothing at the mouth, rabid liberals clinging to obvious forgeries and propoganda will probably implode when they see Bush relected. It should be interesting.

[cecilia]

A mind is like a parachute.
It doesn't work if it's not open.
- Frank Zappa -

[KennyR]

Kerry stands for "not Bush". Most non-Americans don't care if it was Ronald McDonald or Jerry Springer running America, they have a better chance of success than Bush. None of us feel safe with your far right idiot-cowboy creature rampaging all over the planet with his empire.

http://immolation.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/choosebush.gif


I think it says it all that Osama bin Laden is more popular worldwide than Bush is. If you vote him again, you'll be doing more for their cause (and the liberal cause) than you know. You'll be presiding over the collapse of moderate American conservatism.

[Glaucus]

redrumloa wrote:

Kerry stands for nothing.And if he were elected president and did absolutely nothing for 4 years, it would still be a far cry better then what that idiot of a president Bush has done.

The only things he has claimed to want to do, is what he has always done the opposite on. Kerry has no direction whatsoever, he is being marketed as someone different than Bush.Just about all the anti-Kerry arguments are full of irnoy. 1) Kerry is weak on defense. 2) Kerry is a flip flopper. Personally, I think these are both problems with Bush, not Kerry. Bush has flip flopped on just about ever issue. Aside from the entire war on terror being nothing more then a costly flop, his reasonings and targets have flip flopped across the globe. You guys started off with an invasion of Afghanistan which made sense, but then Iraq, and you're now talking tough with Syria. We've seen a complete reversal in N. Korea. His economic reforms flip-flopped over the pension program, and his tax breaks for the wealthy were just another big flop - the economy is NOT any stronger and his "elite" friends ARE richer, but no real shocker there, after all he does call them "his base". But you still buy the "stay the course" line even though the course you're going down has changed several times since your date of departure. :roll:

Bush is evil, blah blah blah.Nah, he's too dumb to be evil. Cheney is the evil one.

Guess what? It's not gonna work. No way in hell will Kerry win this election. Frothing at the mouth, rabid liberals clinging to obvious forgeries and propoganda will probably implode when they see Bush relected. It should be interesting.Yeah, I expect Bush to be re-elected. The thing about democracy is that it ultimately places responsibility onto the people. Right now we can blame Bush for the lies and attrocities of the Iraq invasion. If Americans re-elect him, then this means that they condone his actions and thus they will all share the blame. This is how it is, and how it will be seen. Sympathy for Americans in the next big terror attack will not be so generous as it was on 911.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war. :-P
(it kept everyones mind off of his extramarital activities)Yes, and the sad thing is it worked. What does it say about Americans?

- Mike

[QuikSanz]

@ Glaucus,

"Yes, and the sad thing is it worked. What does it say about Americans?"

To bad no military targets were hit. I thought you were against kiliing civilians.

Chris

[Glaucus]

QuikSanz wrote:
@ Glaucus,

"Yes, and the sad thing is it worked. What does it say about Americans?"

To bad no military targets were hit. I thought you were against kiliing civilians.I think you misunderstood what I was getting at, or perhaps I just wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that Clinton's use of deadly force in Iraq was succesful at distracting the American public from his domestic problems. I wasn't implying that I supported the air strikes or that they achieved anything - they certainly didn't. And like you said, civilians were killed. So my point was, what does it say about Americans who were up in arms over a president who told a fib about an extra-marital affair but then got over it and accepted him once he ordered air strikes that ended up killing nothing but innocent civilians?

- Mike

[cecilia]

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/frizC6/Mo-ron.jpg

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war. :-P
(it kept everyones mind off of his extramarital activities)

It also helps distract from recessions, joblessness, and when your buddies are getting investigated for stuff. Remember ENRON? No? Exactly!

War's a racket, but the world is full of suckers.

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:
Stuck in the details again.

Everything is about details, it's where fantasy ends.

Hey, why weren't you so concerned about details when the faked Nigerian Uranium documents were being used to justify a war, or the fake WMD reports from Chalabi. What about the lie that Osama and Hussain were working together (which is still repeated to this day by Dick Cheney even though it's been shown to be patently untrue). How about them details. How about the little details like Bush saying he supports the troops then cutting veterans benefits and soldiers' pay and extending their deployment then instigating "stop-loss" to prevent them from leaving the army when their service is up?


Kerry stands for nothing. The only things he has claimed to want to do, is what he has always done the opposite on. Kerry has no direction whatsoever, he is being marketed as someone different than Bush. Bush is evil, blah blah blah.


Kerry has direction and consistancy. The "Flip-flop" label is one that the Rove team have painted him with. It's just more of the same stuff they did when they had you and a large number of other people believing that Al Gore had said that he invented the internet. The weapon's systems that Kerry "voted against" wetre included in omnibus bills that he voted against. Voting against an omnibus doesn't mean that you voted against everything in it. It means you voted against the bill. Cheney also tried to kill or cut the budget for many of the same systems so putting this on Kerry is hypocritical.

What Rove is doing is identifying Bush's weaknesses and putting them on Kerry.

Bush flip-flops, so paint Kerry as a flip-flopper.

Bush is soft on terrorism (doesn't persue Osama, doesn't persue terrorist organizations as he'd rather fight Iraq, aids nations like Saudi Arabia, when he gets a breif entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" he goes on a fishing holiday!! Could you imagine Gore doing that?) so paint Kerry as soft on terrorism.

Bush's military record is laughable, so tear down Kerry's service.

Now these things can't be criticized in Bush without it sounding like "Yeah, well you too!" It's pretty clever stuff really; Rove is a ruthless man who is good at this kind of stuff. Trouble is, it is utterly unethical and untruthfull. Bush endorses it (he doesn't speak against it, does he?) and that speaks volumes to his character.

Guess what? It's not gonna work. No way in hell will Kerry win this election.[...]
You may be right about Bush winning, but it isn't because he is a better candidate, it's because you can fool some of the people all of the time and you only need to fool just over half.

By the way, how long before your kids are eligible for the draft. It's gonna take a few more soldiers to complete the neo-cons plans. They certainly can't start anything before the election, but expect lots of fun stuff in 2005.

[whabang]

Dan wrote:
I´m more worried about what is happening to the BBC.

American media is always biased, either towards the owner or towards the one who bought most commercials, it´s only natural.

Anyway, the best news is local news.
"Cow escaped, is running on road E21"
"Eight year old won airgun competition"
"Debate about closing of the school in ..."
"Dog runaway, if you see a golden retriver with the name tag Ludde call..."
That´s the real news!

Speak to the nation, can´t believe anyone is actually watching that kind off crap!

http://www.thelocal.se

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war. :-P
(it kept everyones mind off of his extramarital activities)Yes, and the sad thing is it worked. What does it say about Americans?

- Mike

:-?

Are you saying that Americans should have ignored the bombing and instead, paid more attention to what Monica did with his cigar? :lol:

[iamaboringperson]

By the way, how long before your kids are eligible for the draft. It's gonna take a few more soldiers to complete the neo-cons plans. They certainly can't start anything before the election, but expect lots of fun stuff in 2005.
:lol:

Who do you think red is?

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:

Who do you think red is?

I think he's Jim Farley and he lives in SE Fl (Fort Lauderdale?).
I think he's in his late thirties, or there abouts and has a couple of kids (maybe three). I think the eldest is a boy and I'm guessing he's around about 12 by now.

Why? Who do you think he is?

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:
Stuck in the details again.

Everything is about details, it's where fantasy ends.

What do they liberals have to hang their hat on? What is their party platfom?

1) Bush is a meanie
2) Michael Moore propoganda
3) Forged documents
4) See #1
5) Wash, rinse, repeat

Kerry stands for nothing. The only things he has claimed to want to do, is what he has always done the opposite on. Kerry has no direction whatsoever, he is being marketed as someone different than Bush. Bush is evil, blah blah blah.

Guess what? It's not gonna work. No way in hell will Kerry win this election. Frothing at the mouth, rabid liberals clinging to obvious forgeries and propoganda will probably implode when they see Bush relected. It should be interesting.

For those who like details, here are some more. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm)

For the big picture people ...

Kerry volunteered to go fight in Vietnam.
Bush volunteered to serve in a unit that would never see overseas combat.

Now, why all this chatter over a 30 year old war? What about talking about the wars being fought right now?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Kerry volunteered to go fight in Vietnam.
Bush volunteered to serve in a unit that would never see overseas combat.
So Kerry murdered back then and Bush didn't until now. What a shame he wasted his innocence.

[Fade]

As CBS has just proved their political bias in broadcast news, I found this on print media.



Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453) in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported.

Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans.

When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference.

Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans.

Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration.

We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

[iamaboringperson]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:

Who do you think red is?

I think he's Jim Farley and he lives in SE Fl (Fort Lauderdale?).
I think he's in his late thirties, or there abouts and has a couple of kids (maybe three). I think the eldest is a boy and I'm guessing he's around about 12 by now.

Why? Who do you think he is?Fool! I actually expeced an anwser like that...

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

Glaucus wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

You're right, he bombed the $#!+ out of them without declaring war. :-P
(it kept everyones mind off of his extramarital activities)Yes, and the sad thing is it worked. What does it say about Americans?

- Mike

:-?

Are you saying that Americans should have ignored the bombing and instead, paid more attention to what Monica did with his cigar? :lol:I'm saying the American people were outraged at the wrong thing. I'm saying if he lost popularity with the Monica thing, he regained it with the bombings. I think that's kinda backwards.

- Mike

[redrumloa]

I think he's Jim Farley and he lives in SE Fl (Fort Lauderdale?).

Yup. Mailing address is Ft lauderdale, though the actual city is Dania Beach.

I think he's in his late thirties or there abouts

Trying to put my in my grave early eh? :whack: I'm 32.

and has a couple of kids (maybe three)

Four.

I think the eldest is a boy and I'm guessing he's around about 12 by now.

Ding ding ding. I'f have to give you an B+. You have quite a memory;-)

[whabang]

redrumloa wrote:
Trying to put my in my grave early eh? :whack: I'm 32.

LOL! Struck on a nerve, eh? :lol:

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:

I think he's in his late thirties or there abouts

Trying to put my in my grave early eh? :whack: I'm 32.


cough-cough.:nervous: Oh, did I say thirties?:idea: I meant late twenties, that's it. Late twenties, early thirties.

and has a couple of kids (maybe three)

Four.



Congrats. But expensive, aren't they. And tiring. But there's just something about them that makes it almost impossible to sell them to strangers. :-D (Except on those occassions when giving them away seems like a good idea!!)

Anyway, even though I think you are completely wrong about most everything almost all of the time, I'm glad you and your family haven't blown away in this years storm season. :-)

[that_punk_guy]

That's beautiful! :lol: :-)