The economic decline began in the end of 1999. The press ignored it while GDP growth, investment, productivity, and consumer confidence started to nosedive. Then after 9/11 it tanked.
Interesting how Moore refuses to explain where he got half the footage for Far. 9/11. I really like Roger and Me, and his series "The Awful Truth" on Bravo -- it was intellectually honest and entertaining. But ever since Bowling for Columbine (riddled with misrepresented footage, fake clips, and harassment) he lost his appeal. He used to be an honest liberal who cared about the masses, but now hes a self-centered propagandist -- "I should run for congress!"
He was always a liberal, and I once was too, but I lost respect for him when he lost respect for the truth, which is never left or right, but always somewhere in the middle.
Bush is a heavy spender seriously lacking financial discipline, just like Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton. But reduced taxes eventually force reduced spending and the laffer curve explains how tax cuts can increase revenue.
This is why I'm considering Badnarik over Bush and remain undecided. Socially, I'm with Badnarik. Economically, I'm with Badnarik. On defense, I'm with Bush. Kerry claims to be a champion of social causes, yet he cant decide how he feels on gay marriage. The only issue I agree with Kerry on is abortion, and even then not entirely.
I disagree with Bush's stance on the issue (and many many other issues) but at least I know what to expect -- he's not afraid to say how he feels on it. If Kerry cares so much about gay rights, he should be equally up front. If I vote for a major party, I'll choose Bush. Otherwise I'll be voting Libertarian. I remain undecided.
-Jesda
Bush or Kerry
Omar wrote:Apparently U.S. went to war to liberate. Wasnt it for WMD's?
Oh wait, we couldnt find those so now we need a new excuse.
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. Affordable Health Insurance — Special Offer UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported. "It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal." "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags. He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. Tuesday, August 26, 2003 : Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads. "It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles. "The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors." UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey. In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovi...004-4 35.pdf http://www.worldtribune.com/wo....html
-Jesda
what fake clips? If he has had fake clips then anybody who he ever made his films about they'd be all over on him with their lawyers, it's not like his targets don't have the money to battle him, it's because they don't want to get into it, they think if they'll ignore him he'll just go away. Michael Moore has never been sued over slander or anything he ever showed in his movies.
Jesda wrote:UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. Affordable Health Insurance — Special Offer UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported. "It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal." "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags. He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. Tuesday, August 26, 2003 : Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads. "It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles. "The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors." UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey. In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovi...004-4 35.pdf http://www.worldtribune.com/wo....html
-Jesda
What the UN believes holds no water at all. What took them so damn long to figure this out? Where is the physical evidence? Bottom line is we don't belong in there, we're not getting anything from this except one long *** bill that the middle and lower class will have to pay for. Oh and a thousand dead bodies.
If Kerry is elected, I shudder to think what "majority" ideas will be allowed to prosper. On the whole, the American public is stupid, and Kerry will do whatever these idiots tell him to do because he's about as poll driven as they come. On a positive note, the last Catholic elected to the Presidency was shot, so perhaps there IS hope if Kerry is elected. My biggest strike against Kerry is that he's pro-choice, which is the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard of.
f1seb wrote:what fake clips? If he has had fake clips then anybody who he ever made his films about they'd be all over on him with their lawyers, it's not like his targets don't have the money to battle him, it's because they don't want to get into it, they think if they'll ignore him he'll just go away. Michael Moore has never been sued over slander or anything he ever showed in his movies.
Why dont you do a little homework on Bowling for Columbine? It shouldn't take you long to dig up some conclusive evidence that he bull****ted half of that worthless film. Michael Moore is the biggest ****sucker this nation has seen in a long time. He's one of the few people I WILL punch in the face if I ever meet in person
Nathan wrote:Why dont you do a little homework on Bowling for Columbine? It shouldn't take you long to dig up some conclusive evidence that he bull****ted half of that worthless film. Michael Moore is the biggest ****sucker this nation has seen in a long time. He's one of the few people I WILL punch in the face if I ever meet in person
Why don't you do the homework for me then? And if you going to post that retarded website that some NRA redneck hick made up from his trailer park then don't bother I've seen it and am not impressed.
-
GirlRacerS14
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:48 pm
- Car: Cars and motorcycles and racing both of them hard and fast
f1seb wrote:what fake clips? If he has had fake clips then anybody who he ever made his films about they'd be all over on him with their lawyers, it's not like his targets don't have the money to battle him, it's because they don't want to get into it, they think if they'll ignore him he'll just go away. Michael Moore has never been sued over slander or anything he ever showed in his movies.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Quote »To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidential race took advantage of the veto.
The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."
Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.
Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."
Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).[/quote]Why hasnt there been a lawsuit? First, Moore uses footage to make deep implications, riding the legal line between slander and opinion. Second, the legal expenses on top giving free publicity to Moore make a slander suit pragmatically wasteful. Moore rides the line and therefore knows it would be impractical for his opposition to sue.
Here's more about his claims regarding Lockheed-Martin:
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com...n.htm
I really miss the old days of Roger and Me -- when his documentaries were honest observations that showed the plight of regular Americans. It wasnt about politics, it wasnt about him, it was about the people of Flint, Michigan. A shame to see a very good filmmaker waste his talents on deception and propaganda.
-Jesda
f1seb wrote:Why don't you do the homework for me then? And if you going to post that retarded website that some NRA redneck hick made up from his trailer park then don't bother I've seen it and am not impressed.
LOL, more fun stereotypes about NRA members. I've been a member for four years. I oppose a lot of their non-second-amendment views but support what they do otherwise.I'm asian. I dont hunt. I dont drive a lifted Ford pickup. I live in the suburbs. I'm a business student, and I love my Q45.
-Jesda
f1seb wrote:What the UN believes holds no water at all. What took them so damn long to figure this out? Where is the physical evidence? Bottom line is we don't belong in there, we're not getting anything from this except one long *** bill that the middle and lower class will have to pay for. Oh and a thousand dead bodies.
And at the same time, the Left (I'm not lumping you into that group, my friend, I'm just making an observation) was complaining about how we never got UN authorization for the war. Do we love the UN or hate the UN? Oh hell, both sides only seem to like the UN when its convenient.
New information on WMD, however, from Kofi Annan's own organization, contradicts his own initial claims.
George Tenet, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George Bush, and many other members of congress from BOTH major parties had been harping all through the 90s about Iraq's weapons programs, genocide, and blatant disregard for UN inspectors. Yet all of a sudden when Bush is leading the war and enforcing the UN's own resolutions, its a big evil plot for oil. BOTH parties, including Clinton and Kerry, supported the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act -- it has ALWAYS been in part about liberating the people of Iraq.
I really hate conspiracy theories. Its as bad as the right-wing buttheads who claimed Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed.
-Jesda
One of the more "fun" anti-moore sites: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/It backs up a lot of what Jesda's site says as well. The truth of the matter is that there is damning evidence that shows Michael Moore intentionally twisted the facts. He didn't even do a good job of hiding what he did! Now, this a$$ has made a "documentary" (read: bull**** propoganda to support his left wing liberal opinions) about 9/11 that will sway numerous impressionable idiots just like f1seb who dont look at the facts for themselves and make an opinion based on intelligent reasoning, instead of being spoon fed an opinion by some fat **** with an agenda a mile long who'd love nothing more than to be rich as hell.
Nathan wrote:One of the more "fun" anti-moore sites: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/It backs up a lot of what Jesda's site says as well. The truth of the matter is that there is damning evidence that shows Michael Moore intentionally twisted the facts. He didn't even do a good job of hiding what he did! Now, this a$$ has made a "documentary" (read: bull**** propoganda to support his left wing liberal opinions) about 9/11 that will sway numerous impressionable idiots just like f1seb who dont look at the facts for themselves and make an opinion based on intelligent reasoning, instead of being spoon fed an opinion by some fat **** with an agenda a mile long who'd love nothing more than to be rich as hell.
Do you know me? Have you ever met me? NO! So where do you go off calling me an idiot? Jesda managed to respond to me without calling me one single childish name like you did. Did I personally offend you? Anyways thruth of the matter is if you live in this country you never get to see the whole turth, all the major networks on TV are owned by large corporations that would only like you to see the news or programming that they think is "good" for you, FOX is extremely pro republican. But let me ask you this if you are calling me naive and and idiot because I choose to belive in some things that Moore says(I don't agree with him on everything he says), do you belive all the things that Bush has said in the past and will in the future? Tell me what has Bush done in the last 4 years for this country that would earn him the right to be the US president for another term.
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
f1seb wrote:1)all the major networks on TV are owned by large corporations that would only like you to see the news or programming that they think is "good" for you, FOX is extremely pro republican.
2) Tell me what has Bush done in the last 4 years for this country that would earn him the right to be the US president for another term.
1)I'll utter one word: WRONG. And I'll elaborate as follows: The press is NOTORIOUSLY left-leaning. Spend some time in graduate-level Journalism courses and you'll see.
2) How about standing up to a bunch of misguided lunatics who want to take over the world through jihad?
How about calling a spade a spade, saying, "We're not gonna sit back and let you oppress the innocent any longer!"
How about entering a powderkeg with a lit fuse in order to stabilize a region that is DANGEROUSLY close to the initiation of a third (and final) world war?
I ask you all (once again) - What happens when the Islamic militants topple Saudi? What happens when Musharref is assassinated like Sadat was (read your history books, kids)? What happens to all the nukes in Pakistan (that are currently being held for DEFENSIVE purposes)? Answer the question! If you cannot answer this question, no further discussion is necessary!
Do YOU want to live in a world where al Quada (and their kin) has nuclear capabilities?
Not me, baby. Give me a rifle, I'll go play in the sandbox to make sure MY kids (and your kids) don't have to fear some laundry-headed loon with a cracked agenda.
I don't agree with everything Dubya says or does. I don't think he's a GREAT leader. But I DO NOT want a pacifist pantywaist in the White House.
The men and women who gave life and limb, fighting for freedom in the Middle East (and other places throughout the globe) shouldn't have to have bled in vain.
"All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
You get ONE SHOT to defeat the enemy. The time is now.
-
JESTER
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:08 am
- Car: 2004 Chevy Colorado Bright a** Red 3.5 five cylinder
Okay, I wont stay out of it after all.
My answers:
If they toppled Saudi, They would have a sevre upper hand on the world. Think of the oil they would control. Think of the riches they would have. The money to do anything. ANYTHING.
Pakistan: As AZ said, they would then posses nuclear weapons. And would then systematicly start using them against us and our intrest world wide. Then we would have to use them on them. That means the end of life as we know it. And that is bad for all of us.
I think most people dont really see what is at stake here. We now have an extremly dedicated enemy. They hate us more than probally any enemy we have ever faced. They fear freedom. With out freedom in this region, they are very powerfull. They see their power fadding. A scared person is by far one of the most dangerous. That is why we are in this dark time. They are doing everything they can to keep freedom from spreading.
If we do as some have suggested and just step out of the gulf, these evil people like Osama will then gain ultimate power in the region. Dont think they are barbarins just because they live in caves. They brought down the World Trade Center. The last time something like that happened to the US was the attack at Pearl Harbor. A terrorlst network did as much damage to our country (financal and number of lives) as the powerful Japanese Empiral Navy.
People need to wake up and see the big picture. Stop thinking about politics. And think about what is going on.
Like Ollie North said during the Iran Contra hearing. They asked him why teh government paid 60 thousand dollars for a security system in his house. He said Osama Bin Laden. They asked him, if he thought this man was worth a 60 thousand dollar security system. He said yeah, that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous man on earth.
My answers:
If they toppled Saudi, They would have a sevre upper hand on the world. Think of the oil they would control. Think of the riches they would have. The money to do anything. ANYTHING.
Pakistan: As AZ said, they would then posses nuclear weapons. And would then systematicly start using them against us and our intrest world wide. Then we would have to use them on them. That means the end of life as we know it. And that is bad for all of us.
I think most people dont really see what is at stake here. We now have an extremly dedicated enemy. They hate us more than probally any enemy we have ever faced. They fear freedom. With out freedom in this region, they are very powerfull. They see their power fadding. A scared person is by far one of the most dangerous. That is why we are in this dark time. They are doing everything they can to keep freedom from spreading.
If we do as some have suggested and just step out of the gulf, these evil people like Osama will then gain ultimate power in the region. Dont think they are barbarins just because they live in caves. They brought down the World Trade Center. The last time something like that happened to the US was the attack at Pearl Harbor. A terrorlst network did as much damage to our country (financal and number of lives) as the powerful Japanese Empiral Navy.
People need to wake up and see the big picture. Stop thinking about politics. And think about what is going on.
Like Ollie North said during the Iran Contra hearing. They asked him why teh government paid 60 thousand dollars for a security system in his house. He said Osama Bin Laden. They asked him, if he thought this man was worth a 60 thousand dollar security system. He said yeah, that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous man on earth.
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
JESTER wrote:The last time something like that happened to the US was the attack at Pearl Harbor. A terrorlst network did as much damage to our country (financal and number of lives) as the powerful Japanese Empiral Navy.
This begs an interesting question:
Why was it OK to annihilate two population centers (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to end WWII, but it's "abhorrent" for us to send in ground troops into several countries today?
And before you say, "It wasn't OK, it was a terrible decision", remember that smarter folks than us have analyzed this, debated it, and agreed it was a necessary and wise choice.
p.s. Well-stated, Mr. J.
I spend 50% of my free time scoping the media -- online, in print, and on TV. (I spend the other 50% scoping NICO). I used to co-host and produce a radio show broadcast on a couple stations. I got a chance to meet and talk to a lot of interesting people including Ellen Ratner, Ann Coulter, and that crazy guy from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Most of Fox's personalities (Chetry, Huddy, S. Smith, Hume, Snow) lean to the right, while CNN's (Cooper, Dobbs, King, Zahn) lean to the left. Fox's hourly reports are centrist, while CNN's are slightly left leaning (just slightly). MSNBC is so confused and misdirected as an organization that no one cares anymore.
Additionally, all my favorite people at MSNBC (Soledad OBrian, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson, Oliver North, Paul Begala) all moved to CNN and Fox. And Fox picked up one of my favorite legal analysts at CNN, Greta Van Susteren. I still think shes a shady scientologist, however. Her husband John Coale, a trial lawyer who loves to sue tobacco and gun companies, is a staunch Democrat.
Overall, televised news media does a decent job of staying balanced. Its the newspapers that go far right or far left -- LA Times, Seattle Times, and NY Times for example.
And before there were sites like Moveon.org, conservatives once fully dominated online media with WorldNetDaily, The Drudge Report, Lucianne.com, and FreeRepublic.
Here's poll data from the Pew Research Center:Quote »At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. ----While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.
The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way.[/quote]http://www.editorandpublisher....17184
-Jesda
Most of Fox's personalities (Chetry, Huddy, S. Smith, Hume, Snow) lean to the right, while CNN's (Cooper, Dobbs, King, Zahn) lean to the left. Fox's hourly reports are centrist, while CNN's are slightly left leaning (just slightly). MSNBC is so confused and misdirected as an organization that no one cares anymore.
Additionally, all my favorite people at MSNBC (Soledad OBrian, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson, Oliver North, Paul Begala) all moved to CNN and Fox. And Fox picked up one of my favorite legal analysts at CNN, Greta Van Susteren. I still think shes a shady scientologist, however. Her husband John Coale, a trial lawyer who loves to sue tobacco and gun companies, is a staunch Democrat.
Overall, televised news media does a decent job of staying balanced. Its the newspapers that go far right or far left -- LA Times, Seattle Times, and NY Times for example.
And before there were sites like Moveon.org, conservatives once fully dominated online media with WorldNetDaily, The Drudge Report, Lucianne.com, and FreeRepublic.
Here's poll data from the Pew Research Center:Quote »At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. ----While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.
The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way.[/quote]http://www.editorandpublisher....17184
-Jesda
f1seb wrote:If most of the stuff he says is stupid and you think it's stupid but you are still going to vote him in? What does that make you then?
It's really not what he says; it's how capable he is as a leader. (The Congress has more power anyway.) Who wants an indecisive president? Being indecisive is being insecure. A leader to me is someone who is confident and shows confidence for the whole country, so we all can feel just as confident; confidence is a key essence in leadership.
I'll post later, gotta go to work.
-
Bubba1
- Moderator
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS
Hitman, gotta disagree with 'ya. Huge differences between dropping the Abombs in Japan and our invasion of Iraq.
1. We had tons of international support in WW2. In Iraq, We had very little international support, especially among Arab countries. "Pre-emptive" wars without international support is very risky. And to expect that the world is going to be thrilled you went ahead anyway and did it and gladly offer to financial help to clean up the mess we created is short-sighted.
2. The Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor killing thousands if Americans. Pretty good reason to fight back. Hussein didn't attack the US, he was killing his own people to stay in power. There are also countries that do the same like China and North Korea, but we don't invade them. Why? Because they have nukes. Hussein didn't.
The last time we attacked Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait. George Sr. responded appropriately by driving them out and he had full Arab support. This time around Dubya/Cheney were pushing that there was a direct link between Iraq and al Queda. Well, it's coming out that there wasn't a direct link. It's also coming out that the administration ingored a lot of intelligence that showed them that, but were determined to invade anyway. I support our troops, and believe Hussein was a bad guy, but the decision to invade Iraq was wrong
This is one of the many problems I have with Dubya. Not the war on terrorism, but Iraq war was wrong. I also think he's way off base with stem cell research, blurring the separation church and state, abortion rights, attacking the 1st amendment (via the FCC), the gay marriage issue, exploding the deficit, increasing the size of government, I could go on and on.
1. We had tons of international support in WW2. In Iraq, We had very little international support, especially among Arab countries. "Pre-emptive" wars without international support is very risky. And to expect that the world is going to be thrilled you went ahead anyway and did it and gladly offer to financial help to clean up the mess we created is short-sighted.
2. The Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor killing thousands if Americans. Pretty good reason to fight back. Hussein didn't attack the US, he was killing his own people to stay in power. There are also countries that do the same like China and North Korea, but we don't invade them. Why? Because they have nukes. Hussein didn't.
The last time we attacked Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait. George Sr. responded appropriately by driving them out and he had full Arab support. This time around Dubya/Cheney were pushing that there was a direct link between Iraq and al Queda. Well, it's coming out that there wasn't a direct link. It's also coming out that the administration ingored a lot of intelligence that showed them that, but were determined to invade anyway. I support our troops, and believe Hussein was a bad guy, but the decision to invade Iraq was wrong
This is one of the many problems I have with Dubya. Not the war on terrorism, but Iraq war was wrong. I also think he's way off base with stem cell research, blurring the separation church and state, abortion rights, attacking the 1st amendment (via the FCC), the gay marriage issue, exploding the deficit, increasing the size of government, I could go on and on.
Russian intelligence tells us that Saddam planned attacks on the US. Take that for what its worth. Vladmir Putin ackwowledges this while remaining in opposition to the war, I believe because Iraq owes billions of dollars to Russia, which itself is struggling economically and financially. And the US has proposed forgiving most of Iraq's international debt. It is clearly in Russia's best interest to oppose this war, and Putin is doing what is best for Russia, at least financially.
Additionally, Saddam has shown what he is capable of doing through his actions against Kuwait. The man is a sociopath whose lust for power is so strong, he couldnt see his own demise. (Hey kids! Remember Adolf?)
And international support, while very helpful, does not determine right or wrong. Its principle and results that count. In fairness to the administration, the coalition in favor of removing Saddam consists of over two dozen nations, including major economic powers like Australia, Japan, and Britain. Even France and Germany are pitching in to help in Afghanistan. But honestly I could care less what the world thinks when it comes to MY safety, MY security, and MY right to exist.
I also agree with Bubba's complaints regarding limitations on stem cell research (but I disagree with federal funding of ALL RESEARCH), bans on gay marriage, the growing deficit, growth of government, and much more.
As far as church-state issues, I think faith-based programs are harmless in practice but still legally questionable (if not entirely illegal). And the ACLU on the other side goes to its own extremes -- as far as removing historical DORMANT AND HARMLESS symbols of religion and religious institutions. We cant have the federal government funneling money through churches, and we cant have otherwise decent organizations like the ACLU destroying and rewriting history.
In all, I'm not exactly George Bush's biggest fan. There's a laundry list of important issues I disagree with him on. But 9/11 was a wakeup call to myself and most others (especially those on the right who thought China was our greatest enemy). John Kerry is the wrong man for the times.
As a pro-war libertarian, I'm politically kind of lonely -- I've gotten used to it now. I guess libertarian radio personality Neal Boortz is on my side.
And while I agree with Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party nominee) on 90% of the issues, that remaining 10% I disagree with him on (war and defense) may be so important, that I might vote for Bush.
My life and security come first, PERIOD.
Making that ***-clown Jacques Chirac happier with America stays close to the bottom of my political agenda.
-Jesda
Additionally, Saddam has shown what he is capable of doing through his actions against Kuwait. The man is a sociopath whose lust for power is so strong, he couldnt see his own demise. (Hey kids! Remember Adolf?)
And international support, while very helpful, does not determine right or wrong. Its principle and results that count. In fairness to the administration, the coalition in favor of removing Saddam consists of over two dozen nations, including major economic powers like Australia, Japan, and Britain. Even France and Germany are pitching in to help in Afghanistan. But honestly I could care less what the world thinks when it comes to MY safety, MY security, and MY right to exist.
I also agree with Bubba's complaints regarding limitations on stem cell research (but I disagree with federal funding of ALL RESEARCH), bans on gay marriage, the growing deficit, growth of government, and much more.
As far as church-state issues, I think faith-based programs are harmless in practice but still legally questionable (if not entirely illegal). And the ACLU on the other side goes to its own extremes -- as far as removing historical DORMANT AND HARMLESS symbols of religion and religious institutions. We cant have the federal government funneling money through churches, and we cant have otherwise decent organizations like the ACLU destroying and rewriting history.
In all, I'm not exactly George Bush's biggest fan. There's a laundry list of important issues I disagree with him on. But 9/11 was a wakeup call to myself and most others (especially those on the right who thought China was our greatest enemy). John Kerry is the wrong man for the times.
As a pro-war libertarian, I'm politically kind of lonely -- I've gotten used to it now. I guess libertarian radio personality Neal Boortz is on my side.
And while I agree with Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party nominee) on 90% of the issues, that remaining 10% I disagree with him on (war and defense) may be so important, that I might vote for Bush.
My life and security come first, PERIOD.
Making that ***-clown Jacques Chirac happier with America stays close to the bottom of my political agenda.
-Jesda
-
Bubba1
- Moderator
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS
Hmmm. I don't recall hearing Kerry saying anything about scaling back national security. Perhaps you can share where he said that. I watched Kerry on a recent interview and heard him say that he would not immediately pull troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan due to the unsettled situations. He also one of his priorities was to mend international relationships that suffered under Bush's leadership so that we can get our troops out of Iraq sooner than later. I'm not sure I'd call that scaling back our national security efforts. It sounds more like common sense to me. While I don't yet know Kerry's position on gay marriage, I do know that Bush's stance on it is totally wrong. I have yet to hear Bush explain exactly what great harm would come from gay unions, other than that he disagrees with it from a personal religous standpoint. Sorry, but last time I looked, the US was a free nation, not a church.
I'm not a huge Kerry supporter, but I think he has more on the ball than Bush. I think we could better understand what Kerry has to offer if we watch him on unbiased show like Meet the Press or Face the Nation, instead of those stupid attack ads that the Bush campaign people are running constantly.
I'm not a huge Kerry supporter, but I think he has more on the ball than Bush. I think we could better understand what Kerry has to offer if we watch him on unbiased show like Meet the Press or Face the Nation, instead of those stupid attack ads that the Bush campaign people are running constantly.
Please quote me accurately. I said "John Kerry supports pulling back our national security efforts" -- Not "John Kerry said he wants to pull back national security efforts."
And he supports this not through a central pullback policy, but through a variety of subpolicies that result in a pullback of national security efforts.
How do you mend international relationships? You yield to their demands. Their demands include leaving Iraq alone, along with other questionable nations that pose a threat to our security. Some advocate compromise, but I refuse to compromise on something so critical.
Second, Kerry has taken TWO positions on gay marriage. He said he supported civil unions, not gay marriage. Then he signed a letter offering his full support for gay marriage.
Quote »WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts Legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials. ------Kerry has left open the possibility he could support a Massachusetts ban on gay marriage if it recognized civil unions and other protections. But in 2002, he joined his congressional colleagues in opposing Massachusetts' last effort to outlaw gay marriage, saying they feared it could prevent communities "from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same-sex relationships." ------"It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry told NPR on Monday. [/quote]http://seattletimes.nwsource.c....html
http://www.massequality.org/ma.html
I want John Kerry to come out and say he supports gay "marriage." I support it, legally, while morally I do not -- perhaps he could say that. What is he afraid of? Well, perhaps he's afraid of the 60-68% of Americans who oppose gay marriage. If he's afraid to confront an issue like gay marriage, then imagine how he'd confront something more significant?
And as a libertarian, I'd ideally prefer having marriage and law separated entirely, so people and religious institutions can sort this out without involving the voting public.
-Jesda
I said "John Kerry supports pulling back our national security efforts" -- Not "John Kerry said he wants to pull back national security efforts."And he supports this not through a central pullback policy, but through a variety of subpolicies that result in a pullback of national security efforts.
How do you mend international relationships? You yield to their demands. Their demands include leaving Iraq alone, along with other questionable nations that pose a threat to our security. Some advocate compromise, but I refuse to compromise on something so critical.
Second, Kerry has taken TWO positions on gay marriage. He said he supported civil unions, not gay marriage. Then he signed a letter offering his full support for gay marriage.
Quote »WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts Legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials. ------Kerry has left open the possibility he could support a Massachusetts ban on gay marriage if it recognized civil unions and other protections. But in 2002, he joined his congressional colleagues in opposing Massachusetts' last effort to outlaw gay marriage, saying they feared it could prevent communities "from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same-sex relationships." ------"It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry told NPR on Monday. [/quote]http://seattletimes.nwsource.c....html
http://www.massequality.org/ma.html
I want John Kerry to come out and say he supports gay "marriage." I support it, legally, while morally I do not -- perhaps he could say that. What is he afraid of? Well, perhaps he's afraid of the 60-68% of Americans who oppose gay marriage. If he's afraid to confront an issue like gay marriage, then imagine how he'd confront something more significant?
And as a libertarian, I'd ideally prefer having marriage and law separated entirely, so people and religious institutions can sort this out without involving the voting public.
-Jesda