Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry, no?

Very little to do with John Kerry... ('till the end).

>If you are right that we have sufficiently disrupted the

>operations of Islamic terrorists so much that we have

>prevented them from pulling off something on the level of 9/11

>(by doing much more than merely deposing the Taliban), then

>this is an accomplishment which even Bush-haters must

>acknowledge as being a very important and impressive

>achievement by this Administration. Do you acknowledge that?

No! *Any president* would have pointed to Afghanistan on a map and said 'bomb here', and he used a military shaped by 8 years under Clinton. Quite a successful military, despite what every right-winger said about every decision Clinton made about the military. A president with balls would have also gotten serious with Saudi Arabia at the same time (15 of the 19 makes a pretty good mantra).

Finally, a truly worthy president would have gone into Afghanistan well before 9/11/01, possibly preventing it. If much of the military leadership hadn't regarded him with just about open contempt, and the entire right wing hadn't spoken in unison about him simply trying to distract people from Monica every time he did something, Clinton may have done it. Probably not though, after Somalia, but more likely then Bush to react to such atrocities even now that we've seen what they breed.

Yet those who died trying (rather ineffectively, damn bureaucracies) to bring peace, capture (far more successful there) war criminals, and prevent starvation in Somalia were an outrage. The equal number that have died this week? Nobody seems to (truly) care, and what exactly are they dieing for?

>Also, since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have engaged in multiple,

>serious, and successful terrorist attacks - they have

>orchestrated bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Bali, and very

>likely throughout Iraq. These attacks have killed hundreds

>and hundreds of people.

Hmm... there weren't multiple, serious, and successful terrorist attacks happening in Iraq 9 months ago, how did that come about I wonder? In fact much of the worst of it hasn't arising since 9/11 so much as since we acted unilaterally and against the wishes of most of the world.

>The fact that not a single attack has occurred on U.S. soil

>since 9/11 is unquestionably due, at least partially, to the

>steps taken by this Administration, led by Ashcroft's Justice

>Department, to heighten security measures and prevent such

>attacks.

How many serious attacks occurred on American soil in the two years after the World Trade Center bombing?

>One can certainly believe that Ashcroft has gone too far

>periodically by encoraching on civil liberties, and one can

>belive that Ashcroft and his political views generally are

>vile - both of which I believe - but one cannot dispute that

>this Administration has been highly successful, at least thus

>far, in preventing post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the United

>States. That is definitely a signfiicant feather in Bush's

>cap, and no matter how much one disagrees with his actions and

>beliefs, I think this has to be acknowledged.

You do nothing remotely like protecting the constitution when you disregard it, and if these reductions in our rights are indeed responsible for this success, what exactly have they prevented? Wouldn't there be trials? This administration is desperate for positive press.

>But I think this is a serious concern for anyone who wants to

>see Bush defeated. Only a small portion of the electorate

>sees things as black-and-white as you do or as the most ardent

>Bush-lover does. Most people who are concerned about Bush's

>policies don't see him as Satan, like you and highly partisian

>Democrats do.

>

>If all they hear coming from the Democrats is this

>"Bush-is-the-root-of-all-evil" rhetoric, and if they see

>Democrats trying to deny Bush credit for ANTYHING, including

>things they KNOW he deserves credit for (such as being

>aggressive against terrorism), then the real reasons why Bush

>deserves to be defeated will not be heard by those who need to

>hear it.

You have a point, but I believe anybody with an open mind who's decently informed about the things this administration has unquestionably accomplished will draw the "Bush-is-the-root-of-all-evil" conclusion for themselves. Hopefully they'll then graduate to understanding Bush is a symptom and the real root is the corporate control of our government, and they might also find out for themselves that the founding fathers, up to that asshole Jefferson, had no intention of a divisive 2-party system.

But I know I'm extremely idealistic, even if people actually cared and had news sources that didn't make a mockery of the words 'fair and balanced' (TM!). It's of course far more important who's fucking who on the latest 'reality' show!

I'm just not sure being more subtle gets the message across better, and I'm fairly convinced that half measures, such as nominating a party-line Democrat whose gotten the nomination almost entirely on special interest dollars and the influence of the powers that be "because he's electable" (WTF does that mean, who decides these things?) is not going to fundamentally improve anything. This is why I was generally for McCain, and am totally for Dean.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

you know, i'm glad you actually mentioned specific issues. i have been exceptionally disappointed in this bush administration. i've mentioned that in other threads. i've also indicated that i feel that this administration is NOT conservative, but rather reactionary and fascist.

what's silly is diminishing the power of your argument by resorting to kindergarten name-calling tactics.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>You honestly don't think this

>administration would go after any political gain it could get?

i think ANY administration would, and has.

>then just my

>wonderful writing ( )

a wonderful writer knows the difference between "then" and "than" dear.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>a wonderful writer knows the difference between "then" and

>"than" dear.

Hence the wink, dearest.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

You mean like when repiglicans called President Clinton "Slick Willie?"

RE: Very little to do with John Kerry... ('till the end).

>a military shaped by 8

>years under Clinton. Quite a successful military,

so, sudan was a success?

>You do nothing remotely like protecting the constitution when

>you disregard it

agreed!

>You have a point, but I believe anybody with an open mind

>who's decently informed about the things this administration

>has unquestionably accomplished will draw the

>"Bush-is-the-root-of-all-evil" conclusion for themselves.

then why aren't they?

>Hopefully they'll then graduate to understanding Bush is a

>symptom and the real root is the corporate control of our

>government

please, do hold your breath waiting for this country to suddenly and overwhelmingly embrace socialism.

>But I know I'm extremely idealistic, even if people actually

>cared

but many of us DO care. we just don't agree with you! there is a difference.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

yes, very much like that. in fact... that's precisely the same thing! i'm glad even someone of your questionable intellect could connect the two.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

So, trying to disparage me by calling my intellect into question could also be considered a kindergarten tactic, correct?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

no, but it would be stating the obvious. for that, i am truly sorry.

aren't you tired of acting like a 2nd grader yet?

and with that, i leave you to yourself.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>no, but it would be stating the obvious. for that, i am truly

>sorry.

>

>aren't you tired of acting like a 2nd grader yet?

>

>and with that, i leave you to yourself.

Just seems a little strange that you would whine above about people making fun of Shrub through his name. You wonder when repiglicans will get the opportunity to dot hat to a Democrat, and yet the repigs invented the artform with Slick Willie and ALgore. I have to wonder if its alleged intellect on your part or if you share an affliction with Ronald Reagan.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

you think this all started with clinton/gore?

good christ, you really are an imbecile!

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Just seems a little strange that you would whine above about

>people making fun of Shrub through his name. You wonder when

>repiglicans will get the opportunity to dot hat to a Democrat,

>and yet the repigs invented the artform with Slick Willie and

>ALgore. I have to wonder if its alleged intellect on your

>part or if you share an affliction with Ronald Reagan.

The people who referred to President Clinton as "Slick Willie" and talked incessantly about his "loose" mother, his dalliances with women, his draft dodging, and his 10 year-old Whitewater land deal are exactly the same people sharing exactly the same character (only with a different political ideology) as the ones today who refer to President Bush as "Shurb" and talk incessently about his relationship to his "daddy", his drinking, his military service, and his 10 year-old oil and baseball deals.

On both sides of the political spectrum, at the grotesque fringes, there is a large cluster of people who are capable of discussing political issues and candidates only by resorting to playground taunts reaching to the depths of ridiculing someone's name; wildly exaggerated, borderline paranoid screetches about motives; and a sleazy obssession with deeply personal or remote business issues which have no purpose other than to demean and degrade. Ann Coulter and her followers are twins with Al Franken and his followers.

They do not engage in these tactics because they are effective. To the contrary, most people find them repulsive. That is why the "Slick Willie" crowd did more to re-elect Bill Clinton than any other group, and it is also why the greatest threat to the defeat of George Bush is the "Shurb" crowd of adolescent mongrels -- perfectly exemplified, as always, by BoN -- who mistake insulting trite childish slogans for political persuasion.

If I were Karl Rove, I would pay lots of money to create a new television network and give prime-time shows to people like BoN and urge them to express themeselves as to why they believe Bush should be defeated. Nothing could be more effective in ensuring his re-election.

RE: Very little to do with John Kerry... ('till the end...

>so, sudan was a success?

Was referring to Afghanistan, I admitted they were not that successful under Clinton... was that 100% his fault?

>>You do nothing remotely like protecting the constitution

>>when you disregard it

>

>agreed!

>>You have a point, but I believe anybody with an open mind

>>who's decently informed about the things this administration

>>has unquestionably accomplished will draw the

>>"Bush-is-the-root-of-all-evil" conclusion for themselves.

>

>then why aren't they?

That is the question... Fearmongering?

>>Hopefully they'll then graduate to understanding Bush is a

>>symptom and the real root is the corporate control of our

>>government

>

>please, do hold your breath waiting for this country to

>suddenly and overwhelmingly embrace socialism.

I believe that the government has an inherent interest in regulating vital industries and services, yes. Has deregulation ever improved anything (other then some greedy bastard's bottom line?)? Energy... quite the opposite. Airlines, nope... Here's one, California's workman's comp insurance! Nope, now the worst system in the nation, credited with driving countless jobs out of CA, major campaign issue, so who do we put in to fix it? Pete Wilson, the man who broke it (along with the states energy system), oh and his actor front man...

Even if you believe in Ayn Rand 100% you'd have major problems with this administration, for keeping the 'invisible hand' from doing its work by bailing out the airlines (and as part of the same odious bill, requiring a less effective screening system built in a politically influential state be purchased in the same numbers as the more effective, far preferred system, BTW) and no-compete bids to Halliburton and the like.

>>But I know I'm extremely idealistic, even if people actually

>>cared

>

>but many of us DO care. we just don't agree with you! there is

>a difference.

I wasn't referring to people reading all this, they obviously care a great deal or are very bored... ;o), and are of course welcome to have different opinions. That's what these exchanges are about, learning, debating, discussing.

My point was that this should go on in the public media, but instead you have one side screaming "Shut Up!" (does he have that trade marked too?) and "God is on our side!". While the other side cowers behind a couple comedians, the only ones with the balls to stand up to the O'Rileys, Coulters, Faux News Channel, etc, etc... and these couple dissenters are kept as far in the margin as possible, their only outlets being Comedy Central or HBO. Except for book sales, interestingly, so some people are starting to show some interest.

There do seem to be a growing number of people, moderates and even some conservatives, ready to sign on for 'anybody but Bush'. With so much money (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org) and such little compulsion towards truthfulness (http://www.bushlies.com) it's going to be a very hard battle though.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>The people who referred to President Clinton as "Slick Willie"

>and talked incessantly about his "loose" mother, his

>dalliances with women, his draft dodging, and his 10 year-old

>Whitewater land deal are exactly the same people sharing

>exactly the same character (only with a different political

>ideology) as the ones today who refer to President Bush as

>"Shurb" and talk incessently about his relationship to his

>"daddy", his drinking, his military service, and his 10

>year-old oil and baseball deals.

The difference is, Clinton didn't tout his character as a major reason to elect him. Bush was to "bring integrity back to the Oval Office" after all, and constantly plays up his military service (hello, FLIGHT SUIT!) even though it was quite pathetic. There's an easy two-facedness with Bush about damn near everything that Clinton only had about his sexual relations.

>Ann Coulter and her followers are twins with Al Franken and his followers.

I'm not sure I'd say twins, even at our most shrill, us bed-wetting liberals still resort to reason (with some humor thrown in) instead of throwing about words like slander and treason. Or screaming "cut his mike" when the other side makes a good point or two.

>They do not engage in these tactics because they are

>effective. To the contrary, most people find them repulsive.

>That is why the "Slick Willie" crowd did more to re-elect Bill

>Clinton than any other group, and it is also why the greatest

>threat to the defeat of George Bush is the "Shurb" crowd of

>adolescent mongrels -- perfectly exemplified, as always, by

>BoN -- who mistake insulting trite childish slogans for

>political persuasion.

I do agree that you can go too far and hurt your message, such as Michael Moore did during and especially right after the Oscars, but you bring up a very important fact. We have one far-right propaganda network (excuse me, a 'fair and balanced' news channel), and two or three others that are right leaning. It sure would be nice to have a network the exact opposite of Fox News (I guess that would mean watchable...). We have to go to the damn radio (NPR) for what used to be the basic standards of journalism and fairness, and to a comedy network for anything resembling the mythical liberal media.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>The difference is, Clinton didn't tout his character as a

>major reason to elect him. Bush was to "bring integrity back

>to the Oval Office" after all, and constantly plays up his

>military service (hello, FLIGHT SUIT!) even though it was

>quite pathetic.

I have never heard Bush talk about his military service except when asked about it. I have never heard Bush talk about his prior business deals with baseball and oil except when asked. I certainly have never heard him talk about his drinking history.

These things are brought up by his political opponents for the same reason Clinton's enemies brought up his draft dodging, womanizing and land deals: to embarrass him and attempt to destroy him personally. Or, as Clinton so eloquently and self-servingly put it, to engage in the "politics of personal destruction."

>I'm not sure I'd say twins, even at our most shrill, us

>bed-wetting liberals still resort to reason (with some humor

>thrown in) instead of throwing about words like slander and

>treason. Or screaming "cut his mike" when the other side

>makes a good point or two.

The criticims I hear from the most ardent Democrats are NOT based upon the premise that Bush is well-intentioned and trying to do what is best for his country, but is simply wrong about what policies he believes in.

To the contrary, the criticsms accuse him of criminal and treasonous behavior - that he is purposely bankrupting the government in order to steal money for his cronies (i.e., rejecting the view that he genuinenly but erroneously beleives tax cuts are good for the economy); that he lied us into a war in order to help the oil industry (rejecting the view that he genuinely but erroneously believed that U.S. security mandated a war to end the Iraqi threat); that he is trying to establish a tryanny and destroy the Constitution (rejecting the view that he genuinely believes that heightened security is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks).

All of these criticisms amount to a claim that he is a criminal, liar, theif and traitor; that he wants to destroy the U.S.; that he is nothing but a malicious Satan who is intentionally doing evil. If you see anything that distinguishes these criticisms from those made by Coulter et al., I don't think you're being objective. They are, in every respect, indistinguishable.

>We have to

>go to the damn radio (NPR) for what used to be the basic

>standards of journalism and fairness, and to a comedy network

>for anything resembling the mythical liberal media.

I find this complaint literally astounding. What people think is "biased" is all dependent upon one's ideology.

Liberals think that the New York Times, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and CNN are neutral and objective - and that Fox News is an outhouse of lying propaganda. Conservatives think exactly the opposite.

The major news organizations in this country are the network news broadcasts and the largest daily newspapers - almost all of which are filled with left-leaning people living in large cities. Because we have a free market, both conservative and liberal ideas are easily found and easily heard. The complaint by other side that their views have no outlet is nothing more than self-pitying whining.

I think liberals are angry that they haven't found anyone entertaining enough to attract the mass audiences that Bill O'Reilly (who is hardly a dogmatic conservative) attracts. But they have had numerous tries, and they have failed.

But the fact is, liberals fill most of the major news organizations in the country, and not even they deny that.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry?

>I have never heard Bush talk about his military service except

>when asked about it.

But you saw him remind people of his military service when he flew to an aircraft carrier aboard a fighter jet in a military uniform rather than taking one of the presidential helicopters. If he is going to bring it up for his own political advantage, I see no reason why others should not discuss it.

>I have never heard Bush talk about his

>prior business deals with baseball and oil except when asked.

Bush has seldom if ever made specific accusations against Clinton or other political opponents that are based on their personal lives or business dealings. But many of his cheerleaders in the right-wing media do so constantly, and I notice that Bush does nothing to restrain them. If he had a problem with the demonizing of political opponents by professional hatemongers like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh he could at least try to call them to heel by speaking out against their behavior publicly. So far as I know, he never has. He simply sits quietly and accepts the political benefit that he gets from what they do.

From the case of Ambassador Wilson, among others, we know that there are Bush appointees on the public payroll who spend their time planting or encouraging damaging stories about people who question Bush's decisions. We know that Bush was aware of the Wilson case at least as early as July and did absolutely nothing about it until it became a major story three months later. His behavior is certainly not consistent with a disapproval of such tactics. He could stop them. He does not. So . . . ?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>you think this all started with clinton/gore?

>good christ, you really are an imbecile!

Seems odd for a good little Jewish boy to invoke the name of Christ. I am well aware that this did not begin with Clinton/Gore, but the current climate of political name calling was raised to an artform by the repigs, particularly by the EIB network's resident drug addict. Once again, you raised the question of when do the repigs get to start making fun of Democrats with their names. My question is when do they ever stop?

RE: Very little to do with John Kerry... ('till the end...

>Has

>deregulation ever improved anything (other then some greedy

>bastard's bottom line?)?

ever use a phone?

>There do seem to be a growing number of people, moderates and

>even some conservatives, ready to sign on for 'anybody but

>Bush'.

and many conservatives like myself who would like an alternative to bush, but son't settle for just "anyone" and who can't ignore the current crop of candidate's positions on a variety of issues in order to support them.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

So if Bush genuinely believes these things, you feel that absolves him of the absolute tupidity of these decisions?

Bush started out with what promised to be a mediocre Presidency at best and more than likely a single term like his father. September 11th changed all that. In the days after September 11th, Bush followed the correct course of action. The invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent actions there were absolutely the right thing to do. After that, encouraged by the success of what happened in Afghanistan, the neocons, led by CheneyRove, convinced the president to sign on to their agenda.

Colin Powell stated in February, before the invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein posed very little threat to anyone outside of iraq, especially to the US. The neocons couldn't have that, so they carefully had Bush build up the hysteria over Iraq. Saddam was tied to 9/11 at every opportunity without anyone actually coming out and saying it. They knew that Saddam had disarmed, but they also knew that Saddam at one point had had WMD, because we sold some of them to him. Thus came the spurious claims of WMD. These also had the added value of taking public focus off the failure to find Osama bin Laden. Those in the neocon lobby also saw this as an opportunity to repay their big business constituents. No one has benefitted more from this war, outside of Iraq, than the Halliburton Corp, formerly led by neocon VP Cheney. Every claim of found WMD after the war by the Bush Administration has proven to be false. Even the botulism found was left over and forgotten in a scientist's refrigerator from the first Gulf War.

The so-called Patriot Act is just another Orwellian policy devised by the Bush administration to undermine the US Constitution and help cement the GOP in power. The "Clear Skies" initiative will allow more pollution into the air. The healthy Forests initiative will allow for the wholesale destruction of forests. Bush is now proposing to allow the hunting of endangered species. Where does the stupidity end? With John Ashcroft at the Ministry of Justice? With Donald Rumsfeld at the Ministry of peace? Or with Rupert Murdoch at the Ministry of Truth (aka Fox News)?

cognition = challenge?

>Seems odd for a good little Jewish boy to invoke the name of

>Christ.

i'm not particularly worried with what seems odd to you. but since i'm a helpful guy, i'll try to clear it up for you. here's a hint: there are these things called "figures of speech". my use of "good christ" should disturb you no more than an atheist exclaiming "goddamnit!"

now, go back to nursing on your own hardon of irrationality.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>I'm not sure I'd say twins, even at our most shrill, us

>bed-wetting liberals still resort to reason (with some humor

>thrown in)

OHHH! now i get it! "shrub" is reasonable and humourous!

could you answer what the various word plays on his last name have to do with any of his actions or policies, though?

>two or three others that are right leaning.

WHAT are these other right-leaning networks? is the Communist News Network among them?

>It sure would be nice to have a network the exact opposite of

>Fox News

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC... take your pic.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>OHHH! now i get it! "shrub" is reasonable and humourous!

>could you answer what the various word plays on his last name

>have to do with any of his actions or policies, though?

Yes, I can. "Shrub" reminds people of the very real contrast between the way W. conducts foreign policy and the way his father did it. George H.W. was liked and respected by foreign leaders. George W. seems to have a real problem with many of the same people. His mother's new book mentions that she and Poppy have long had and still have a close relationship with Chirac, for example. Why can't W. get along with him?

>>It sure would be nice to have a network the exact opposite

>of

>>Fox News

>

>CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC... take your pic.

Nonsense. As Paul Krugman has accurately pointed out, the major news networks have a policy of being evenhanded -- meaning that they present the points of views of both sides on an issue even when one of them obviously has no merit. Fox doesn't even pretend to do that, much less actually do it.

I saw a report on Fox last night about Bush's visit to Australia. Van Susteren asked the Fox correspondent on the scene about demonstrations during Bush's trip. The correspondent said that there have been demonstrations at every stop but that the demonstrators represent only a tiny portion of the country's population in each case. About Australia he said that the vast majority of the people there are very supportive of Bush's Iraq policy. Is that the truth? Not according to polls I've seen. And he didn't mention the fact that during Bush's visit there were thousands of demonstrators outside the Parliament building beating drums and yelling anti-Bush slogans. Or that inside the building 41 members of the opposition party presented Bush with a letter stating that the war had been fought under false pretenses. Why were these facts omitted? Well?

>

>

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Yes, I can. "Shrub" reminds people of the very real contrast

>between the way W. conducts foreign policy and the way his

>father did it. George H.W. was liked and respected by foreign

>leaders. George W. seems to have a real problem with many of

>the same people.

The notion that the term "Shrub" is based upon Bush's foreign policy failures is rather silly given that he was being called this while he was still the Governor of Texas, i.e., before he even had a foreign policy.

Your attempt to justify the use of this playground eptithet is thus as logically flawed as your attempt to justify discussion of Bush's military record based upon that inane aircraft carrier landing - people like BoN were talking about Bush's military status way before then.

If you like the use of term "Shrub," do you think that the term "Slick Willie" was also an example of high political dialogue, given its reference to Clinton's ability to talk his way out of any problem and his ability to take very position simultaneously?

>His mother's new book mentions that she and

>Poppy have long had and still have a close relationship with

>Chirac, for example. Why can't W. get along with him?

Chriac actively opposed and sought to block a military campaign which President Bush believed was essential to the national security of the United States. This wasn't the case with his father. Why would you have a hard time understanding that this conflict would arise now.

In any event, the question itself is preposterious - Do you like every person your father likes?

>>>It sure would be nice to have a network the exact opposite

>>of

>>>Fox News

>>

>>CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC... take your pic.

>

>Nonsense. As Paul Krugman has accurately pointed out, the

>major news networks have a policy of being evenhanded --

>meaning that they present the points of views of both sides on

>an issue even when one of them obviously has no merit. Fox

>doesn't even pretend to do that, much less actually do it.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 3 major networks have their news broadcasts shaped and determined by 3 of the most liberal journalists on the planet. Surveyes have shown that well over 80% of journalists at the largest mass media organizations voted for Clinton when he was re-elected. A similiar percentage voted for Gore. The editorial page of virtually every major newspapers practically mirrors the position papers of the DNC (except when they go further to the left).

Liberals are constantly on Fox News. Bill O'Reilly has multiple positions squarely at odds with conservative ideology, and frequently has liberal guests. The show after that, Hannity & Colmes, is hosted by one conservaitve and one liberal who are given equal time. The guests are of similar ideological diversity. The last time I watched that show, about a month ago, the featured guest was the head of the group Win Without War, who was there to discuss his group's call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. What are you talking about?

>I saw a report on Fox last night about Bush's visit to

>Australia. Van Susteren asked the Fox correspondent on the

>scene about demonstrations during Bush's trip. . . . Why were these facts omitted? Well?

I didn't see the report you were talking about, but I certainly have seen numerous television broadcasts and newspapers articles which omitted facts or slanted them in order to promote the Democratic point of view. Many such organizations have had to apologize for doing so or issue corrections for doing so.

Do you doubt that the New York Times has published articles which omitted crucial facts or which slanted facts in order to create a picture more in line with those advanced by Democracvic politicians. If you do doubt this, then you defend the NYT even beyond what they do in defense of themselves.

Did you read the Maureen Dowd column where she lied and claimed that Bush said that Al-Qaeda was no longer a problem - something she was able to do only by using ellipses to completely change what he said. The NYT never apologized or retracted that unethical practice. Why does the NYT do this? Well?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>>Yes, I can. "Shrub" reminds people of the very real

>contrast

>>between the way W. conducts foreign policy and the way his

>>father did it.

>The notion that the term "Shrub" is based upon Bush's foreign

>policy failures is rather silly

I don't know who you're responding to, but it clearly isn't me. I never said that is how the term came to be. I commented on how it is relevant to policy NOW. What it has ALWAYS meant, however, is that W. is a small replica of a rather larger Bush.

>Your attempt to justify the use of this playground eptithet is

>thus as logically flawed

It only seems that way because you have trouble distinguishing between the past tense and the present tense in English verbs. There is nothing in my post to suggest that the origin of the term has to do with foreign policy.

>of Bush's military record based upon that inane aircraft

>carrier landing - people like BoN were talking about Bush's

>military status way before then.

So what? I take no responsibility for what others say or do. I pointed out something that is undeniably true -- W. put his own military service in issue by appearing at a public event in a military uniform similar to the one he wore when he served.

>If you like the use of term "Shrub," do you think that the

>term "Slick Willie" was also an example of high political

>dialogue,

No, I don't think that. That's why I have never said any such thing.

>Chriac actively opposed and sought to block a military

>campaign which President Bush believed was essential to the

>national security of the United States. This wasn't the case

>with his father.

Right. The question is, why did Chirac do what he did? Why was Bush not able to resolve any differences with our Atlantic allies behind closed doors and avoid those unseemly public squabbles in the Security Council? During the campaign we were told that his lack of foreign policy experience would not be a problem because he was surrounded by a team of brilliant diplomatists and experts. So what happened? Why couldn't this brilliant team get the job done?

>Why would you have a hard time understanding

>that this conflict would arise now.

If you could translate the above sentence into English, that would be helpful.

>In any event, the question itself is preposterious - Do you

>like every person your father likes?

Once again, you seem to be talking to someone else, I don't know who. I didn't say Bush has to like foreign leaders. But if he doesn't get along with them, is unable to establish a relationship of trust and confidence, serious problems can result. As we have seen.

>>>>It sure would be nice to have a network the exact opposite

>>>of

>>>>Fox News

>>>

>>>CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC... take your pic.

>>Nonsense. As Paul Krugman has accurately pointed out, the

>>major news networks have a policy of being evenhanded --

>>meaning that they present the points of views of both sides

>on

>>an issue even when one of them obviously has no merit. Fox

>>doesn't even pretend to do that, much less actually do it.

>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>The 3 major networks have their news broadcasts shaped and

>determined by 3 of the most liberal journalists on the planet.

> Surveyes have shown that well over 80% of journalists at the

>largest mass media organizations voted for Clinton when he was

>re-elected. A similiar percentage voted for Gore.

So what? As Alterman has pointed out (and proven with the data recounted in detail in his book "What Liberal Media?"), the personal political choices of journalists at the major networks and newspapers seem to have little or no impact on their news coverage, which was lopsidedly in favor of Bush during the 2000 campaign.

>The

>editorial page of virtually every major newspapers practically

>mirrors the position papers of the DNC (except when they go

>further to the left).

Every major newspaper? Like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the New York Daily News? Like those?

>Liberals are constantly on Fox News.

They are? Constantly? Could you give us a list of the liberals who host their own programs on Fox?

> Bill O'Reilly has

>multiple positions squarely at odds with conservative

>ideology, and frequently has liberal guests.

Liberal guests whom he, almost without exception, bullies and humiliates. There is a new book out on O'Reilly -- not the one by Franken -- that collects a large number of quotes from his program bashing liberals. I'll be happy to get you the title if you like. As Franken's book points out, O'Reilly was caught lying when he denied being a registered Republican; I believe the book actually contains a copy of his voter registration form.

>The show after

>that, Hannity & Colmes, is hosted by one conservaitve and one

>liberal who are given equal time.

Except that Hannity dominates every show -- you left that part out. Hannity was chosen for the show due to his years of experience hosting a right-wing radio talk show. Colmes was a comedian.

> The guests are of similar

>ideological diversity. The last time I watched that show,

>about a month ago, the featured guest was the head of the

>group Win Without War, who was there to discuss his group's

>call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. What are you talking

>about?

About the fact that the show is set up to allow Hannity to bully and humiliate liberal guests while Colmes offers a weak rebuttal -- if any rebuttal at all. Franken's book discusses this at length. And gives specific examples.

>>I saw a report on Fox last night about Bush's visit to

>>Australia. Van Susteren asked the Fox correspondent on the

>>scene about demonstrations during Bush's trip. . . . Why

>were these facts omitted? Well?

>I didn't see the report you were talking about,

So you know nothing about it.

>but I

>certainly have seen numerous television broadcasts and

>newspapers articles which omitted facts or slanted them in

>order to promote the Democratic point of view. Many such

>organizations have had to apologize for doing so or issue

>corrections for doing so.

Once again, Alterman's book contains detailed and specific data refuting any charge that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

For example, of all the shows on business and the economy presented by all of the broadcast and cable news networks, how many are hosted by people whose background is in organized labor, or are presented from the point of view of labor rather than capital? Stumped? The correct answer is: None. Not one. Zero.

>Do you doubt that the New York Times has published articles

>which omitted crucial facts or which slanted facts in order to

>create a picture more in line with those advanced by

>Democracvic politicians. If you do doubt this, then you

>defend the NYT even beyond what they do in defense of

>themselves.

You're saying The Times actually stated that they slant news articles to favor Democrats? Let us have a specific reference, please.

Is that what The Times did when they broke the Los Alamos espionage scandal during the Clinton administration? They did that to FAVOR a Democratic politician? Which one would that be?

>Did you read the Maureen Dowd column where she lied and

>claimed that Bush said that Al-Qaeda was no longer a problem -

>something she was able to do only by using ellipses to

>completely change what he said. The NYT never apologized or

>retracted that unethical practice. Why does the NYT do this?

>Well?

Has anyone ever explained to you the difference between an Op-Ed columnist like Dowd and a news correspondent like the one who delivered the slanted report on Fox I just described?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>I don't know who you're responding to, but it clearly isn't

>me. I never said that is how the term came to be. I

>commented on how it is relevant to policy NOW. What it has

>ALWAYS meant, however, is that W. is a small replica of a

>rather larger Bush.

Oh, ok - so you think that Bush's foreign policy is a failure and that he's not as good a President as his father, and your way of expressing that is by calling him "Shrub." That's brilliant. Keep it up. I'm sure you and your Paul Krugman-worshipping liberal friends will make great headway in convincing people not to vote for him using that form of "argument."

>So what? I take no responsibility for what others say or do.

>I pointed out something that is undeniably true -- W. put his

>own military service in issue by appearing at a public event

>in a military uniform similar to the one he wore when he

>served.

You say he tried to "remind" people of his military service by doing this. How do you know that? Did he talk about his military service?

If Bush's inadequate military service is fair game, then is Clinton's complete absence of service, under highly questionably circumstances, also fair game?

>>If you like the use of term "Shrub," do you think that the

>>term "Slick Willie" was also an example of high political

>>dialogue,

>

>No, I don't think that. That's why I have never said any such

>thing.

Right - exactly - you think it's fine to call Bush "Shrub" but not fine to call Clinton "Slick Willie." That's exactly why blindly ideological liberals like you are George Bush's best friends - you're so intellectually dishonest and inconsistent, so drowning in double standards, that nothing you say is taken seriously, even when you accidentally stubmle into a legitimate criticism and manage to express it above the level of a 10 year-old.

>Right. The question is, why did Chirac do what he did? Why

>was Bush not able to resolve any differences with our Atlantic

>allies behind closed doors and avoid those unseemly public

>squabbles in the Security Council? During the campaign we

>were told that his lack of foreign policy experience would not

>be a problem because he was surrounded by a team of brilliant

>diplomatists and experts. So what happened? Why couldn't

>this brilliant team get the job done?

Because Chirac made clear that under no circumstances would France ever allow a UN-sanctioned war against Iraq. I don't think that exactly leaves a lot of room for negotiation.

I know - it's a great foreign policy failure to make the French angry. If only we pleased the French more, things would be better. That's also a great argument for defeating Bush - he made Chirac angry. Keep it up. Is Karl Rove writing your posts for you? Sure seems that way.

>Once again, you seem to be talking to someone else, I don't

>know who. I didn't say Bush has to like foreign leaders. But

>if he doesn't get along with them, is unable to establish a

>relationship of trust and confidence, serious problems can

>result. As we have seen.

Sometimes, when two people fail to get along, it can be one of their fault, or both of their fault. Why do you assume that their failure to get along is Bush's fault?

>So what? As Alterman has pointed out (and proven with the

>data recounted in detail in his book "What Liberal Media?"),

>the personal political choices of journalists at the major

>networks and newspapers seem to have little or no impact on

>their news coverage, which was lopsidedly in favor of Bush

>during the 2000 campaign.

Oh, FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Liberals are so wonderful, so committed to jorunalistic principles, that they can set aside their strident lbieral views and report the news fairly and without basis. And the fact that the media is filled with liberals overwhelming doesn't affect news coverage at all. Do you actually believe that????

Read Bernard Goldberg's book. He worked at CBS News for years and details with ample evidence how Dan Rather's liberalism and those of the reporters and producers slanted virtually every political story broadcast.

>>Liberals are constantly on Fox News.

>

>They are? Constantly? Could you give us a list of the

>liberals who host their own programs on Fox?

There are, as far as I know, only 3 programs with hosts who express their views - the 3 prime-time programs. Bill O'Reilly is hardly a conservaitve. Alan Colmes is a liberal. Sean Hannity is a conservative. I don't know what Greta Van Sustern is, because she barely talks about politics from what I have seen.

Who are the conservatives who host their own programs on CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN? WELL????????

>Liberal guests whom he, almost without exception, bullies and

>humiliates.

If liberals can't hold their own in debates, that's their fault, not O'Reilly's. Now he's supposed to not only have them on and let them voice their views, but also make sure they win.

>Except that Hannity dominates every show -- you left that part

>out. Hannity was chosen for the show due to his years of

>experience hosting a right-wing radio talk show. Colmes was a

>comedian.

They have equal time. Colmes is never interrupted by Hannity. If Hannity dominates the show, it's only becasue he arguments are more compelling. In what other sense does he "dominate"?

You're just whining and crying that your side loses. Nobody wants to watch people with your political views. Fox trounces CNN and other liberal media outlets in the ratings. Why is that?

>For example, of all the shows on business and the economy

>presented by all of the broadcast and cable news networks, how

>many are hosted by people whose background is in organized

>labor, or are presented from the point of view of labor rather

>than capital? Stumped? The correct answer is: None. Not

>one. Zero.

Jesse Jackson had his own talk show on cable. Phil Donahue had his. Nobody wants to watch them, so they got cancelled. Liberals just bore people to death, which is why their ratings suck.

Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are all liberals who shape their broadcasts every night. The liberal view is everywhere.

That's always been the case - still is. The only thing that has changed is that now conservative views are also heard. And lots of people listen. And that's really what you can't stand.

>You're saying The Times actually stated that they slant news

>articles to favor Democrats? Let us have a specific

>reference, please.

They've issued multiple corrections of stories where they omitted or slanted facts which made the story more consistent with the liberal view - just as I said.

>>Did you read the Maureen Dowd column where she lied and

>>claimed that Bush said that Al-Qaeda was no longer a problem

>-

>>something she was able to do only by using ellipses to

>>completely change what he said. The NYT never apologized or

>>retracted that unethical practice. Why does the NYT do this?

Oh, so it's okay to engage in deceptive and dishonest practices in a newspaper in order to lie to readers, as long as you do it on the Op-Ed page. That's an interesting new journalistic principle.