Remember it so we don't do something like it again. I'm not trying to throw every mistake back in our faces but, by the same token I don't want to pretend they don't exist. I think it's important to remember our mistakes and not act like we're perfect.
Yes it is SDW ( sorry one too many rum and cokes by then ).
" I merely suggested (in what was suppsoed to be a fairly humorous way) "
You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though.
Harald i am assuming this is a 2 parter. My comment is based on his early statements of opinion, as well as the fact that i think he sees only those things that support his points, not those that oppose or even enhance them. He has repeatedly tried to use obstinance or inability as a counter to our posts and has said:
"i have made my point i put forth what i needed to and it was unbiased"
However most of his resulting fact finding and support has been either out of context, has had only one severely limited point of support (he refused to concede the ethics of not critizing the president in a time of war because the only thing that got through his haze was "don't speak freely against the president" leaving out the timing for it, the fact that it was in defense of the current leader, and it was used by the opposing political party, which he supports, to sway votes), or has been a completely biased look at the topic.
I am now asking him to flesh out a point he made earlier about conservatives not helping the needy unless the liberals force them to. I've asked that he give the good and bad of each side and them tell me why the liberals are right and the conservatives are not only wrong but also trying to take his freedoms and not help the needy.
" ..and they sucked me back in" said in a mock brooklyn accent, hair greased just so hands slowly clenching..
anyway, this following little phrase, that was so blithely thrown out, and so completely ignored, reveals the level of ignorance that we are dealing with: from SDW "...criminal liberal"
what exactly does this boy/man/whatever believe this means?!?!?
Is this phrase to be taken with his other remarks that liberals are Fascists?..
..(of course completely disregarding the reality of what distinguishes Fascism from other politics, particualarly its odd blend of corporatism with militaristic police state controls, an aesthetic based on the "beauty" of the nation-in-question's peoples, AKA: nationalist aesthetics)
or is this phrase to be taken with the broad claim that liberals are Communists?
(by the way, the two extremes lumped together are actually very mutually antagonistic political positions yet both characterized by tyrannies)
Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place. The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Lets not forget that it was under a Democratic administration that the US won WW2! against the Fascists under Roosevelt!!!
And again, against the Emperialist Japanese under Truman.
Is this the "criminal liberal" background that you are talking about.
Or is it Kennedy, who's family you all love to slander, is he the "criminal liberal" for his success against the Communist's attempts to install nuclear missiles in Cuba?!?!?
or was it monica lewinsky and Clinton's private sex life
rathr than say real criminal activities such as Guns for hostages sold to the "axis of Evil" itself, or real criminal activities like breaking and entering....water*ehem*gate . . .
or do you just buy the corporate media line that liberals are really all criminals, and femi-nazis, and communists?!?!
One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.
As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.
Ruhx. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No one listens to your bullshit. If you really have something to say, cut the **** out of it. Hiding questions wrapped in nonsense has gotten you nowhere.
There is something inherently wrong with assigning a label to "the media", i.e. newspapers, TV broadcasts, etc. The media isn't liberal by nature, or conservative by nature.
But, if being a bit liberal on this topic or that will rake in a few more ad dollars/neilsen points/subscribers, then they will certainly do it. And likewise if putting a conservative slant on a topic will do the same.
The corporations that run the media outlets are forced to have an obsession with the acquisition (and retention) of money, more nowadays than in the past. And, more often than not, that imperative conflicts with the traditional tenets of journalism.
That's why, in my experience, small, independent (and possibly non-profit; indymedia.org comes to mind) news organizations provide opportunities for the least tainted journalism available.
Using CNBC as a "corroborating source" for what CNN says isn't exactly media diversity. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Ruhx. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No one listens to your bullshit. If you really have something to say, cut the **** out of it. Hiding questions wrapped in nonsense has gotten you nowhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of you obnoxious piece garbage. Your the only one disagreeing.
Why can't you understand what i am saying? Because your opinions belong to someone else. You leached onto them and want to spout them but can not support them. No questions in this one. Your a simpleminded ignoramous who can not defend through comparison only by spouting aligned bullsh*t posted by some liberal nut who feels oppressed.
You agree so they are right. what an idiot. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Case in point. If you want to personally attack me, please do so through private messages. Your comments really don't belong in this thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok you have done nothing but personally attack my posts. Why? Simply because you can not defend your views, and you can have the last word here. I accept that the world is worse for having you in it and i am moving on.
Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. And I have nothing but respect for Truman.
[quote]<strong>... The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But let us also not forget that post-Vietnam most of the Democratic party had forsaken containment. Henry (Scoop) Jackson was reliable on the issue but he was the exception, not the rule. This was one of the reasons Reagan was so successful at winning Democratic (especially trade union) votes. People like George Meany and Lane Kirkland were fierce anti-communists too. But by the '70s the McGovernite wing had seized power and blue collar types started to feel increasingly uncomfortable within the Democratic party. That's what Reagan Democrats were - disaffected, ethnic (Catholic), blue collar types. (They also had problems with where the party was headed on social issues, like abortion.)
Your sources are bunk. Each and every one of them. I had just spent some time reply-quoting to each article, with specific examples, then a browser error caused me to lose my writing. So, without going back and redoing it all, I'll post the most ridiculous parts of each one.
1. Weekly Trade News Digest: "US President rolls back more of Clinton's key environmental actions".
Truly amusing. As if Clinton was the environmental equivalent of Jesus Christ. Never mind many of his "protections" were of questionable value and harmed US and world businesses tremendously.
and then there is:
[quote]"The EU and other countries have strongly criticised the US President George W. Bush's recent turnaround in his stance on the Kyoto Protocol climate change negotiations. Bush's lack of commitment to curbing greenhouse gas emissions marks a significant setback after promising signs at the G8 meeting earlier this month that the US and EU might be coming closer to an agreement on climate change (see BRIDGES Weekly, 6 March 2001).
The EU criticism came in response to a letter from President Bush to Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska last week in which Bush reverted a campaign pledge by saying that he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide (CO2) at US power plants as caps on CO2 would force a shift from coal to natural gas which he claims would lead to higher electricity prices. He also reasserted his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent by 2012. "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy," he wrote. Bush furthermore referred to "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global warming". <hr></blockquote>
A. Bush is right...it would exempt 80 percent of the world.
B. It would increase electricity prices.
C. Where is the documentation on the campaign promise? Shoud I take the writer's word?
2. Christian Science Monitor:
[quote]"In one of its first major internal clashes over policy, the Bush administration has sided with energy interests over the environment - exposing tensions within the cabinet and undercutting bipartisanship on Capitol Hill."<hr></blockquote>
Opinion and interpretation.
and
[quote]By deciding not to regulate power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the president this week sided with some of his most ardent backers in the business community and reversed a campaign pledge.
<hr></blockquote>
Opinion.
and
[quote]Others in the administration with backgrounds in oil production, automobile manufacturing, and mining - including Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Interior Department Assistant Secretary J. Steven Griles - have been more inclined to question the science of global warming while resisting stiff measures to limit greenhouse gases.
<hr></blockquote>
Slander.
[quote] Up until now, many activists had been pleasantly surprised at the administration's early attitude toward the environment. <hr></blockquote>
Hilarious. We all know how reasonable those activists are.
There is more on that one, but I have to stop now. I'm laughing too hard.
3. Yucca: Bush never promised to oppose dumping in Yucca. I'm not even going to bother with the article, which at one point actually mocks a White House Official. Worthless.
4. National Review: Bush does not promise to veto or sign either bill. You just took the writer's word that Bush was reversing himself because he expressed concerns. Interpretation and opinion
5. Council for a Livable World:
First sentence of article: "In another clear reversal of a campaign promise, President Bush reportedly plans to slash fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy funding for nonproliferation programs with Russia. "
I think that pretty much sums up what is to follow. Not to mention that the article is quoting fiscal PROJECTIONS, not actual allocations. The article even slams Bush for INCREASING funding to a particular program, because he didn't double it, "as expected". Expected by whom?
The last one may be the most biased of all. It uses terms like "slashed the budget" and "cutbacks" and other colorful terms to paint Bush as nuke lovin' hick.
BLATANT BIAS is the term I'm looking for.
[quote]Anyway, I thoroughly refuted your point. Concede. <hr></blockquote>
No. You didn't. The numbers CAN BE SPUN, and when they can't, the data can be "interpreted". It is also the way the data is PRESENTED. See above.
[quote]Oh, and a common debating tactic is to label anything an opinion. You must have learned from watching Bill O'Reilly. <hr></blockquote>
That's because there is so much OPINION out there. If Bush made a clear, strong campaign statment like "I will not support any dumping in Yucca mountain", then issued a statment later that said he would, that would be another thing. These articles don't even come close to that level. They are all conclusions drawn by the writer, with interpreted quotes.
[quote] Right. You lost the argument so it doesn't really matter. You're about as transparent as a Powerbook screen turned all the way up. <hr></blockquote>
OH MY GOD! :eek: Why DOES it matter? As I already said, we are ALL expressing opinions. So, once AGAIN, just so I'm CLEAR:
ACCORDING TO INFORMATION I HAVE AT THIS PRESENT TIME, AND AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND DELIBERATION, I DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH'S FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
What else do you want? Technically that is an opinion. So is "Roe V. Wade", actually. Now, can me move on please?
[quote]There is no liberal bias in the media. That is a fallacy in the guise of FOX NEWS' conservative fare <hr></blockquote>
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE? And I firmly disagree with your assertion that Fox is biased, despite your ridiculous links you posted. Once again, THEY ARE EDITORIALS!!!!!! But, let us assume they ARE biased, for a moment. Even if they WERE, how how horrible it would be to have a conservative News Channel in the midst of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather's liberal propoganda!!!!
I love this, too:
"FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation."
Oh, OK.
I will give you O'Reilly: He is a bit over the top, but entertaining, no? I don't consider him news. Just like I don't consider Chris Mathews "news" either. Though, your source is still funny. "FAIR Activists".......ha.
Basically, I think your sources on Bush's reversals are truly ludicrous. I think that Fox News isn't biased when it comes to its reporting, and that MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS are. NBC walks the line, but does often have a slight liberal slant. Meet the Press is a good example, not in the number of conservative and liberal guests, but in the content of the questions. I do agree the O'Reilly is a little extreme.
"Criminal Liberal" doesn't have to do with the Democratic party per se. It is the overwhelming bias that exists in media. It is when "news" is created instead of reported (such as when Dan Rather "reports" that "many" have "grave concerns" over Bush's decision to_________). It is when certain liberals revise history by making it seem as if the Reagan years were a decade of economic decline. That is "criminally liberal"---the gross distortion of facts in the name of the "news".
I do not have a probem with all democrats. I should have clarified. I do have a problem with traditionally liberal stances on most issues. I am also willing to defend my points of view, because I assure you that they are well thought out, despite the fact that many disagree with them.
One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.
As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.
I never said they were evil. I said, in several ways, that I strongly, vehmently disgaree with the liberal agenda, much of which I believe is impractical and based on raw emotion.
I also agree the media is biased, but I am willing to concede that some newscorp. heads are conservatives.
Then there is Ted Turner, though......
Your point about the general tabloid content of the media is well taken.
[quote]You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though. <hr></blockquote>
If you can't see that the general tone, at least by the end, of the original statement was intentionally "cavalier" (i.e. "How about trying things our way?), then that's too bad. I think I have a valid point when I suggest that failing nations try democracy instead of total oppression.
Does anyone want to take me on with my assertion? Does anyone here ACTUALLY DISAGREE with the notion that Iraq and North Korea would be better off with a freely elected government? Do you disagree that Saddam wants to acquire nukes? Do you think we SHOULDN'T stop him? Does anyone disagree that Iraq and North Korea are in economic turmoil? Does anyone challenge that this is at least in part due to their oppresive regime governments?
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Not at all. It's undisputable that liberal and conservative bias exist in pockets of the media. But, I believe you spoke out against a general liberal bias in the media. I, through FAIR's findings, refute any possibility of that. More than anything, the media currently favors conservatives as that party occupies the White House. No amount of "Dan Rather's a democrat" finger-pointing can dispel that fact. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>^ Ruhx, get a clue.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've got one and it is waiting for you when you want it.
Tell me about conservative welfare reform. If helping the needy is to broad for you.
" What do you want to do about this "?
Remember it so we don't do something like it again. I'm not trying to throw every mistake back in our faces but, by the same token I don't want to pretend they don't exist. I think it's important to remember our mistakes and not act like we're perfect.
Yes it is SDW ( sorry one too many rum and cokes by then ).
" I merely suggested (in what was suppsoed to be a fairly humorous way) "
You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>^ Enlighten me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Harald i am assuming this is a 2 parter. My comment is based on his early statements of opinion, as well as the fact that i think he sees only those things that support his points, not those that oppose or even enhance them. He has repeatedly tried to use obstinance or inability as a counter to our posts and has said:
"i have made my point i put forth what i needed to and it was unbiased"
However most of his resulting fact finding and support has been either out of context, has had only one severely limited point of support (he refused to concede the ethics of not critizing the president in a time of war because the only thing that got through his haze was "don't speak freely against the president" leaving out the timing for it, the fact that it was in defense of the current leader, and it was used by the opposing political party, which he supports, to sway votes), or has been a completely biased look at the topic.
I am now asking him to flesh out a point he made earlier about conservatives not helping the needy unless the liberals force them to. I've asked that he give the good and bad of each side and them tell me why the liberals are right and the conservatives are not only wrong but also trying to take his freedoms and not help the needy.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
anyway, this following little phrase, that was so blithely thrown out, and so completely ignored, reveals the level of ignorance that we are dealing with: from SDW "...criminal liberal"
what exactly does this boy/man/whatever believe this means?!?!?
Is this phrase to be taken with his other remarks that liberals are Fascists?..
..(of course completely disregarding the reality of what distinguishes Fascism from other politics, particualarly its odd blend of corporatism with militaristic police state controls, an aesthetic based on the "beauty" of the nation-in-question's peoples, AKA: nationalist aesthetics)
or is this phrase to be taken with the broad claim that liberals are Communists?
(by the way, the two extremes lumped together are actually very mutually antagonistic political positions yet both characterized by tyrannies)
Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place. The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Lets not forget that it was under a Democratic administration that the US won WW2! against the Fascists under Roosevelt!!!
And again, against the Emperialist Japanese under Truman.
Is this the "criminal liberal" background that you are talking about.
Or is it Kennedy, who's family you all love to slander, is he the "criminal liberal" for his success against the Communist's attempts to install nuclear missiles in Cuba?!?!?
or was it monica lewinsky and Clinton's private sex life
rathr than say real criminal activities such as Guns for hostages sold to the "axis of Evil" itself, or real criminal activities like breaking and entering....water*ehem*gate . . .
or do you just buy the corporate media line that liberals are really all criminals, and femi-nazis, and communists?!?!
One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.
As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
But, if being a bit liberal on this topic or that will rake in a few more ad dollars/neilsen points/subscribers, then they will certainly do it. And likewise if putting a conservative slant on a topic will do the same.
The corporations that run the media outlets are forced to have an obsession with the acquisition (and retention) of money, more nowadays than in the past. And, more often than not, that imperative conflicts with the traditional tenets of journalism.
That's why, in my experience, small, independent (and possibly non-profit; indymedia.org comes to mind) news organizations provide opportunities for the least tainted journalism available.
Using CNBC as a "corroborating source" for what CNN says isn't exactly media diversity. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Ruhx. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No one listens to your bullshit. If you really have something to say, cut the **** out of it. Hiding questions wrapped in nonsense has gotten you nowhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of you obnoxious piece garbage. Your the only one disagreeing.
Why can't you understand what i am saying? Because your opinions belong to someone else. You leached onto them and want to spout them but can not support them. No questions in this one. Your a simpleminded ignoramous who can not defend through comparison only by spouting aligned bullsh*t posted by some liberal nut who feels oppressed.
You agree so they are right. what an idiot. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Case in point. If you want to personally attack me, please do so through private messages. Your comments really don't belong in this thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok you have done nothing but personally attack my posts. Why? Simply because you can not defend your views, and you can have the last word here. I accept that the world is worse for having you in it and i am moving on.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>
Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. And I have nothing but respect for Truman.
[quote]<strong>... The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But let us also not forget that post-Vietnam most of the Democratic party had forsaken containment. Henry (Scoop) Jackson was reliable on the issue but he was the exception, not the rule. This was one of the reasons Reagan was so successful at winning Democratic (especially trade union) votes. People like George Meany and Lane Kirkland were fierce anti-communists too. But by the '70s the McGovernite wing had seized power and blue collar types started to feel increasingly uncomfortable within the Democratic party. That's what Reagan Democrats were - disaffected, ethnic (Catholic), blue collar types. (They also had problems with where the party was headed on social issues, like abortion.)
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Your sources are bunk. Each and every one of them. I had just spent some time reply-quoting to each article, with specific examples, then a browser error caused me to lose my writing. So, without going back and redoing it all, I'll post the most ridiculous parts of each one.
1. Weekly Trade News Digest: "US President rolls back more of Clinton's key environmental actions".
Truly amusing. As if Clinton was the environmental equivalent of Jesus Christ. Never mind many of his "protections" were of questionable value and harmed US and world businesses tremendously.
and then there is:
[quote]"The EU and other countries have strongly criticised the US President George W. Bush's recent turnaround in his stance on the Kyoto Protocol climate change negotiations. Bush's lack of commitment to curbing greenhouse gas emissions marks a significant setback after promising signs at the G8 meeting earlier this month that the US and EU might be coming closer to an agreement on climate change (see BRIDGES Weekly, 6 March 2001).
The EU criticism came in response to a letter from President Bush to Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska last week in which Bush reverted a campaign pledge by saying that he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide (CO2) at US power plants as caps on CO2 would force a shift from coal to natural gas which he claims would lead to higher electricity prices. He also reasserted his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent by 2012. "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy," he wrote. Bush furthermore referred to "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global warming". <hr></blockquote>
A. Bush is right...it would exempt 80 percent of the world.
B. It would increase electricity prices.
C. Where is the documentation on the campaign promise? Shoud I take the writer's word?
2. Christian Science Monitor:
[quote]"In one of its first major internal clashes over policy, the Bush administration has sided with energy interests over the environment - exposing tensions within the cabinet and undercutting bipartisanship on Capitol Hill."<hr></blockquote>
Opinion and interpretation.
and
[quote]By deciding not to regulate power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the president this week sided with some of his most ardent backers in the business community and reversed a campaign pledge.
<hr></blockquote>
Opinion.
and
[quote]Others in the administration with backgrounds in oil production, automobile manufacturing, and mining - including Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Interior Department Assistant Secretary J. Steven Griles - have been more inclined to question the science of global warming while resisting stiff measures to limit greenhouse gases.
<hr></blockquote>
Slander.
[quote] Up until now, many activists had been pleasantly surprised at the administration's early attitude toward the environment. <hr></blockquote>
Hilarious. We all know how reasonable those activists are.
There is more on that one, but I have to stop now. I'm laughing too hard.
3. Yucca: Bush never promised to oppose dumping in Yucca. I'm not even going to bother with the article, which at one point actually mocks a White House Official. Worthless.
4. National Review: Bush does not promise to veto or sign either bill. You just took the writer's word that Bush was reversing himself because he expressed concerns. Interpretation and opinion
5. Council for a Livable World:
First sentence of article: "In another clear reversal of a campaign promise, President Bush reportedly plans to slash fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy funding for nonproliferation programs with Russia. "
I think that pretty much sums up what is to follow. Not to mention that the article is quoting fiscal PROJECTIONS, not actual allocations. The article even slams Bush for INCREASING funding to a particular program, because he didn't double it, "as expected". Expected by whom?
The last one may be the most biased of all. It uses terms like "slashed the budget" and "cutbacks" and other colorful terms to paint Bush as nuke lovin' hick.
BLATANT BIAS is the term I'm looking for.
[quote]Anyway, I thoroughly refuted your point. Concede. <hr></blockquote>
No. You didn't. The numbers CAN BE SPUN, and when they can't, the data can be "interpreted". It is also the way the data is PRESENTED. See above.
[quote]Oh, and a common debating tactic is to label anything an opinion. You must have learned from watching Bill O'Reilly. <hr></blockquote>
That's because there is so much OPINION out there. If Bush made a clear, strong campaign statment like "I will not support any dumping in Yucca mountain", then issued a statment later that said he would, that would be another thing. These articles don't even come close to that level. They are all conclusions drawn by the writer, with interpreted quotes.
[quote] Right. You lost the argument so it doesn't really matter. You're about as transparent as a Powerbook screen turned all the way up. <hr></blockquote>
OH MY GOD! :eek: Why DOES it matter? As I already said, we are ALL expressing opinions. So, once AGAIN, just so I'm CLEAR:
ACCORDING TO INFORMATION I HAVE AT THIS PRESENT TIME, AND AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND DELIBERATION, I DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH'S FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
What else do you want? Technically that is an opinion. So is "Roe V. Wade", actually. Now, can me move on please?
[quote]There is no liberal bias in the media. That is a fallacy in the guise of FOX NEWS' conservative fare <hr></blockquote>
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE? And I firmly disagree with your assertion that Fox is biased, despite your ridiculous links you posted. Once again, THEY ARE EDITORIALS!!!!!! But, let us assume they ARE biased, for a moment. Even if they WERE, how how horrible it would be to have a conservative News Channel in the midst of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather's liberal propoganda!!!!
I love this, too:
"FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation."
Oh, OK.
I will give you O'Reilly: He is a bit over the top, but entertaining, no? I don't consider him news. Just like I don't consider Chris Mathews "news" either. Though, your source is still funny. "FAIR Activists".......ha.
Basically, I think your sources on Bush's reversals are truly ludicrous. I think that Fox News isn't biased when it comes to its reporting, and that MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS are. NBC walks the line, but does often have a slight liberal slant. Meet the Press is a good example, not in the number of conservative and liberal guests, but in the content of the questions. I do agree the O'Reilly is a little extreme.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
pfllam:
"Criminal Liberal" doesn't have to do with the Democratic party per se. It is the overwhelming bias that exists in media. It is when "news" is created instead of reported (such as when Dan Rather "reports" that "many" have "grave concerns" over Bush's decision to_________). It is when certain liberals revise history by making it seem as if the Reagan years were a decade of economic decline. That is "criminally liberal"---the gross distortion of facts in the name of the "news".
I do not have a probem with all democrats. I should have clarified. I do have a problem with traditionally liberal stances on most issues. I am also willing to defend my points of view, because I assure you that they are well thought out, despite the fact that many disagree with them.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>SDW,
One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.
As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said they were evil. I said, in several ways, that I strongly, vehmently disgaree with the liberal agenda, much of which I believe is impractical and based on raw emotion.
I also agree the media is biased, but I am willing to concede that some newscorp. heads are conservatives.
Then there is Ted Turner, though......
Your point about the general tabloid content of the media is well taken.
[quote]You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though. <hr></blockquote>
If you can't see that the general tone, at least by the end, of the original statement was intentionally "cavalier" (i.e. "How about trying things our way?), then that's too bad. I think I have a valid point when I suggest that failing nations try democracy instead of total oppression.
Does anyone want to take me on with my assertion? Does anyone here ACTUALLY DISAGREE with the notion that Iraq and North Korea would be better off with a freely elected government? Do you disagree that Saddam wants to acquire nukes? Do you think we SHOULDN'T stop him? Does anyone disagree that Iraq and North Korea are in economic turmoil? Does anyone challenge that this is at least in part due to their oppresive regime governments?
THAT was the point.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I will concede the other articles because they are not worth it. However, articles from many different sources exist concerning Bush's CO2 emissions reduction reversal. The fact that he reneged on his campaign promised to reduce CO2 emissions remains indisputable regardless of whatever spin or reason you want to justify it with. I believe you challenged me to find one instance where Bush broke a campaign promise, and I have. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/14/bush.carbon.dioxide/index.html"; target="_blank">CNN</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45542,00.html"; target="_blank">FOX News</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1219000/1219237.stm"; target="_blank">BBC News</a>, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/bushenv_3-29.html"; target="_blank">NewsHour with Jim Lehrer</a> provide coverage.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>jimmac:
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Not at all. It's undisputable that liberal and conservative bias exist in pockets of the media. But, I believe you spoke out against a general liberal bias in the media. I, through FAIR's findings, refute any possibility of that. More than anything, the media currently favors conservatives as that party occupies the White House. No amount of "Dan Rather's a democrat" finger-pointing can dispel that fact. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>