I'm asking whether "tax cuts" and "limited government" (although Bush seems hardly a fan of the latter) are actually *policies*. Is there a difference between "tax cuts" as an economic policy and "no child left behind" as ðfØ_duca-vonal policy? I don't think so. Neither really connects to anything else. Neither is part of some set of positions working in concert to bring about a targeted policial outcome. Neither, in other words, is a policy in and of itself.
You playing a game with semantics, now. You are trying to define the word "policy". There is no reason to break it down on that level....it's a pointless academic exercise. When I say "policy" I mean specific actions and positions the President has taken and holds. There is no reason to make this into a semantical argument.
In addition, I asked the question about Clinton only as a point of reference....that is, if it is to be said that the Administration has no "policies", then it can be said that no other adminstration had them either.
You playing a game with semantics, now. You are trying to define the word "policy". There is no reason to break it down on that level....it's a pointless academic exercise. When I say "policy" I mean specific actions and positions the President has taken and holds. There is no reason to make this into a semantical argument.
In addition, I asked the question about Clinton only as a point of reference....that is, if it is to be said that the Administration has no "policies", then it can be said that no other adminstration had them either.
1) Don't assume that because I'm a lefty that I liked Clinton. I didn't. He gave a bad name to liberalism and did tremendous violence to US labor. There's also an argument to be made (I made it during his presidency, but am beginning to rethink it) that he was stunningly ineffective as a president.
2) I'm not playing with semantics. And it's not a pointless academic exercise. I'm honestly trying to figure out a) what, precisely, policy IS at the national level, and b) if the Bush admin HAS any.
3) You never answered my question. Does the Bush admin actually have any policies? Domestic? Education? Environment? Economy? National security? I'd say there's a pretty clear (more or less) on about NS and the middle east. Elsewhere I don't know so much. But as for the others? What's the Bush policy on education? No child left behind? On economics? tax cuts? is that a policy? The environment? Drilling in ANWAR?
I'm deadly serious here, and I'm not playing any games with you. Other than national security (which as I said I believe there's a policy covering), does this administration have any policy governing its decisions?
If you are asking my opinion, then yes, I think they do.
Quote:
3) You never answered my question. Does the Bush admin actually have any policies? Domestic? Education? Environment? Economy? National security? I'd say there's a pret
) Don't assume that because I'm a lefty that I liked Clinton. I didn't. He gave a bad name to liberalism and did tremendous violence to US labor. There's also an argument to be made (I made it during his presidency,Hò am ×ginning to rethink it) that he was stunningly ineffective as a president.
I don't necessarily think that. I was just pointing out that if one says Bush has no "policies", one is essentially saying that NO administration had policies. It's semantics as I said. It all depends on the definition of "policy". Why do we need to waste energy on that argument?
As far as Clinton, I agree that he VERY ineffective. I cannot think of a single thing he did as President that I considered good. Really.
you poor misguided fools... heh Me coming from texas, I can't stand what the democrats did. The law says they are to be arrested for holding government hostage... and at which case they did. Nothing got done, they claimed this to be about redistricting but on that same day for the legislature was for funding for public schools, and many more important items on the agenda. The democrats are just making fools of themselves, sure take up their shield and staff and think them to be some sort of rogue hereos, but remember what could have been gained. As for all of you thinking Bush lied to start a war... sure whatever, what answer do you have for the 5,000 mass graves being unearthed, so that the families can finally be happy again. Regardless of how/what happens over there, even if hardline muslims rule, as long as all the people are happy, and an evil tyrant doesn't rule there again, we've made immense progress.
As for the Dems yes they are in denial, like I've said before the party is full of yes sayers who don't have any ideals, and want to get ahead individually but not for the sake of their party.
yes texas is a wierd state politically, we're a bunch of republican thinking democrats...
me i'm a fencewalker... I voted for gore, but it would have been the same scenario today whether it was bush or gore, what happened with the war, 911, and everything. They're doing the best they can, and you can't blame todays events to their political backings.
Remember that political parties are just an ideal on how to deal with an issues, its their inflection upon the whole process that results in what happens. ie a democratic version of war, or a republican version of war... you choose regardless there'd be a war.
Wow. What a total dodging of an argument. I simply don't remember your question, jimmac....that's all. As I told you, if you would kindly repeat it I will be happy to answer it. That argument was months ago, if not longer....and I am supposed to remember a specific question?
I don't dodge questions. That's one of your common tactics....you see that I haven't quoted one portion of your post and assume that I am so dumfounded by your wisdom that I am speechless. Please. Just ask me....unless you feel your position is so weak that it can't withstand my answer.
Speaking of dodging a question, you still have haven't answered mine. I'll just keep asking until you do:
What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with?
If the media is controlled by liberals ( as you maintained ) Then why was there such a media feeding frenzy over the Clinton sex scandal? For months we heard nothing but that. It was driving opinion for the next election in the wrong direction. If the media was truly controlled by liberals how could this happen?
I maintained that media is controlled by themselves and their only driving force is to sell copy ( not a good thing ether they should just report the truth but it's the way it is ).
" What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with? "
About this well let's just pick one ( there are so many ) how about starting a unnecessary war that costs a lot of money ( billions ) in a time of economic hardship?
But you won't agree that it was unecessary or that we are in real economic hardship so what's the point?
unnecessary war? more people have died from terrorist attacks, than a low economy. And the market is still stifled from the onset that we could be attacked at any time from a bunch of idiots. The best defense is a good offense. So much is at stake not too take an initiative. Bush's policy is outlined and much of is about national security, childrens education policy, and now anti-discrimination. We havn't had this of a hardline president since LBJ... are you blind or something?
Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
I am not saying that they should only think of making profit, but they should have to account for things. Raising taxes and increasing gov spending does not pay off a budget for example.
gov should be run like a biz with long term goals.
and dollars in the bank is not the only goal taught in biz ed. a profitable business has a focus that few other enterprises do. I would love to see this kind of biz practice placed on increasing student grade pont average or reading competancy for example.
unnecessary war? more people have died from terrorist attacks, than a low economy. And the market is still stifled from the onset that we could be attacked at any time from a bunch of idiots. The best defense is a good offense. So much is at stake not too take an initiative. Bush's policy is outlined and much of is about national security, childrens education policy, and now anti-discrimination. We havn't had this of a hardline president since LBJ... are you blind or something?
I think Jimmac was referring to the war in Iraq. You know the war of the previous two that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in US.
As i was referring to the war in iraq as well. I just can't see how you can blindly call it unnecessary.
also I too think the government should run like a business, with accountability, where everything must be justified, heck I'd buy stock in that heh. Then they should only have one catch and that is the profit made should go into extra gratituous spending on the (insert your democratic program of choice).
If the media is controlled by liberals ( as you maintained ) Then why was there such a media feeding frenzy over the Clinton sex scandal? For months we heard nothing but that. It was driving opinion for the next election in the wrong direction. If the media was truly controlled by liberals how could this happen?
I maintained that media is controlled by themselves and their only driving force is to sell copy ( not a good thing ether they should just report the truth but it's the way it is ).
Well?
Right...now I remember.
First, you are assuming your premise is true. That is, if the media jumped on the Lewinsky story, then they must not be biased. I disagree with that for several reasons...
Biased or not, the media has to report the news. For example, if Fox News, NBC and CBS all report something....and CBS doesn't due to political reasons, CBS looks disingenuous. So, the media can't simply ignore a story as big as the Lewinsky scandal. They still had to report it. The President lied to the American people (excuse that or not, it happened) and came very, very close to lying under oath (though technically, I suppose he didn't). This HAD to be reported. Ironically enough, one network went on for weeks without mentioning anything about Lewinsky while the rest of the media began it's buildup. The tool of the bias in this case was omission.
Secondly, there are many different ways news can be reported. Everthing from the media's debate of whether or not lying about sex mattered, to its villification of Kenneth Star (an ongoing process even today)....even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter can be, and were used.
Finally, the most common and subtle tactic: The failure to label liberal views as just that....liberal. Studies have proven that the label "conservative" is used more often. Liberal views are often presented as mainstream, while conservative views are not. This point is, of course, more about bias in general than it is about Clinton in particular.
To sum up my answer: Your premise is that if the media, on the whole, is liberal, than they would have ignored the story. I think that's a real leap. The story was too big even for the more Left leaning organizations to ignore....though as I said one of them DID try for awhile. You also assume that their coverage was impartial...or even slanted against Clinton, which I also disagree with. The House managers were often villified, along with the Special Prosecutor.
Jimmac, my Criminal Liberal Media comment was directed at the media as a total sum. There are many exceptions as I noted. I do agree with you on one thing: The truth should be reported without slanting either way. Since you disagree that the media on the whole is biased though, I must assume you feel it is conservative?
" What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with? "
About this well let's just pick one ( there are so many ) how about starting a unnecessary war that costs a lot of money ( billions ) in a time of economic hardship?
But you won't agree that it was unecessary or that we are in real economic hardship so what's the point?
You are right, I disagree it was unecessary. That's another issue though.
In addition, the numbers don't point to "real economic hardship" on a national level. If they did, then I be saying it. For example, if we had 9% unemployment, four quarters of growth at -5%, and the DOW at new lows...I'd agree. We don't have that, though.
On your first point: At least we are getting somewhere now. You're making an attempt....
Though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related.
First, you are assuming your premise is true. That is, if the media jumped on the Lewinsky story, then they must not be biased. I disagree with that for several reasons...
Biased or not, the media has to report the news. For example, if Fox News, NBC and CBS all report something....and CBS doesn't due to political reasons, CBS looks disingenuous. So, the media can't simply ignore a story as big as the Lewinsky scandal. They still had to report it. The President lied to the American people (excuse that or not, it happened) and came very, very close to lying under oath (though technically, I suppose he didn't). This HAD to be reported. Ironically enough, one network went on for weeks without mentioning anything about Lewinsky while the rest of the media began it's buildup. The tool of the bias in this case was omission.
Secondly, there are many different ways news can be reported. Everthing from the media's debate of whether or not lying about sex mattered, to its villification of Kenneth Star (an ongoing process even today)....even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter can be, and were used.
Finally, the most common and subtle tactic: The failure to label liberal views as just that....liberal. Studies have proven that the label "conservative" is used more often. Liberal views are often presented as mainstream, while conservative views are not. This point is, of course, more about bias in general than it is about Clinton in particular.
To sum up my answer: Your premise is that if the media, on the whole, is liberal, than they would have ignored the story. I think that's a real leap. The story was too big even for the more Left leaning organizations to ignore....though as I said one of them DID try for awhile. You also assume that their coverage was impartial...or even slanted against Clinton, which I also disagree with. The House managers were often villified, along with the Special Prosecutor.
Jimmac, my Criminal Liberal Media comment was directed at the media as a total sum. There are many exceptions as I noted. I do agree with you on one thing: The truth should be reported without slanting either way. Since you disagree that the media on the whole is biased though, I must assume you feel it is conservative?
You assume wrong! They're out for themselves! Weren't you listening? They're only motivation is to sell the news. It means ratings and money for them. Period. They roasted Clinton alive with their coverage.
" though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related. "
This is true, but I believe it's illegal for a gov to make a profit. I learned that long ago, but don't know if it's really true or not anymore.
Hmmmm, since we are in debt the government has to make a profit in order to get out.
I think that the government is just not allowed to store profits. they can not put over a certain amount of money in the bank. they have to put it back into the system so that the tax payers (thats us) reap the benifits.
ou assume wrong! They're out for themselves! Weren't you listening? They're only motivation is to sell the news. It means ratings and money for them. Period. They roasted Clinton alive with their coverage.
Still in check.
Ummmm...OK, jimmac. Relax there...big guy. I agree they are out for themselves in terms of money. I still contend though, that bias exists. I will say this: The media as a whole has been far less biased since 9/11. There is also Fox News, which balances out some of it. In addition, it seems there may be a shifting taking place. This is supported by the departure of liberal hosts on major networks in recent weeks. This would support your "it's all for the ratings" comments. Though, I would argue it's taken them a hell of a long time to figure it out. And, I don't think they would have figured it out at all had Fox News not been kicking their asses all around the airwaves. MSNBC and CNN are getting their heads handed to them in prime time. That will force change every time.
This isn't the point fo the thread anyway. I asnwered your question, whether you like my answer or not. I won't respond to your ridiculous "aren't you listening" comment any further. This entire line of debate is totally off topic, and nothing more than attempt by you to paint my views as extreme on this issue, in the hope that it destroys my credibility in THIS thread.
The point is the Democratic leadership is in denial as to their recent defeats. They cling to failed tactic which are both shameless and ineffective.
" though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related. "
Comments
I'm asking whether "tax cuts" and "limited government" (although Bush seems hardly a fan of the latter) are actually *policies*. Is there a difference between "tax cuts" as an economic policy and "no child left behind" as ðfØ_duca-vonal policy? I don't think so. Neither really connects to anything else. Neither is part of some set of positions working in concert to bring about a targeted policial outcome. Neither, in other words, is a policy in and of itself.
You playing a game with semantics, now. You are trying to define the word "policy". There is no reason to break it down on that level....it's a pointless academic exercise. When I say "policy" I mean specific actions and positions the President has taken and holds. There is no reason to make this into a semantical argument.
In addition, I asked the question about Clinton only as a point of reference....that is, if it is to be said that the Administration has no "policies", then it can be said that no other adminstration had them either.
Originally posted by SDW2001
midwinter:
You playing a game with semantics, now. You are trying to define the word "policy". There is no reason to break it down on that level....it's a pointless academic exercise. When I say "policy" I mean specific actions and positions the President has taken and holds. There is no reason to make this into a semantical argument.
In addition, I asked the question about Clinton only as a point of reference....that is, if it is to be said that the Administration has no "policies", then it can be said that no other adminstration had them either.
1) Don't assume that because I'm a lefty that I liked Clinton. I didn't. He gave a bad name to liberalism and did tremendous violence to US labor. There's also an argument to be made (I made it during his presidency, but am beginning to rethink it) that he was stunningly ineffective as a president.
2) I'm not playing with semantics. And it's not a pointless academic exercise. I'm honestly trying to figure out a) what, precisely, policy IS at the national level, and b) if the Bush admin HAS any.
3) You never answered my question. Does the Bush admin actually have any policies? Domestic? Education? Environment? Economy? National security? I'd say there's a pretty clear (more or less) on about NS and the middle east. Elsewhere I don't know so much. But as for the others? What's the Bush policy on education? No child left behind? On economics? tax cuts? is that a policy? The environment? Drilling in ANWAR?
I'm deadly serious here, and I'm not playing any games with you. Other than national security (which as I said I believe there's a policy covering), does this administration have any policy governing its decisions?
3) You never answered my question. Does the Bush admin actually have any policies? Domestic? Education? Environment? Economy? National security? I'd say there's a pret
) Don't assume that because I'm a lefty that I liked Clinton. I didn't. He gave a bad name to liberalism and did tremendous violence to US labor. There's also an argument to be made (I made it during his presidency,Hò am ×ginning to rethink it) that he was stunningly ineffective as a president.
I don't necessarily think that. I was just pointing out that if one says Bush has no "policies", one is essentially saying that NO administration had policies. It's semantics as I said. It all depends on the definition of "policy". Why do we need to waste energy on that argument?
As far as Clinton, I agree that he VERY ineffective. I cannot think of a single thing he did as President that I considered good. Really.
As for the Dems yes they are in denial, like I've said before the party is full of yes sayers who don't have any ideals, and want to get ahead individually but not for the sake of their party.
yes texas is a wierd state politically, we're a bunch of republican thinking democrats...
me i'm a fencewalker... I voted for gore, but it would have been the same scenario today whether it was bush or gore, what happened with the war, 911, and everything. They're doing the best they can, and you can't blame todays events to their political backings.
Remember that political parties are just an ideal on how to deal with an issues, its their inflection upon the whole process that results in what happens. ie a democratic version of war, or a republican version of war... you choose regardless there'd be a war.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. What a total dodging of an argument. I simply don't remember your question, jimmac....that's all. As I told you, if you would kindly repeat it I will be happy to answer it. That argument was months ago, if not longer....and I am supposed to remember a specific question?
I don't dodge questions. That's one of your common tactics....you see that I haven't quoted one portion of your post and assume that I am so dumfounded by your wisdom that I am speechless. Please. Just ask me....unless you feel your position is so weak that it can't withstand my answer.
Speaking of dodging a question, you still have haven't answered mine. I'll just keep asking until you do:
What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with?
If the media is controlled by liberals ( as you maintained ) Then why was there such a media feeding frenzy over the Clinton sex scandal? For months we heard nothing but that. It was driving opinion for the next election in the wrong direction. If the media was truly controlled by liberals how could this happen?
I maintained that media is controlled by themselves and their only driving force is to sell copy ( not a good thing ether they should just report the truth but it's the way it is ).
Well?
About this well let's just pick one ( there are so many ) how about starting a unnecessary war that costs a lot of money ( billions ) in a time of economic hardship?
But you won't agree that it was unecessary or that we are in real economic hardship so what's the point?
Originally posted by bunge
Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
I am not saying that they should only think of making profit, but they should have to account for things. Raising taxes and increasing gov spending does not pay off a budget for example.
gov should be run like a biz with long term goals.
and dollars in the bank is not the only goal taught in biz ed. a profitable business has a focus that few other enterprises do. I would love to see this kind of biz practice placed on increasing student grade pont average or reading competancy for example.
Originally posted by kraig911
unnecessary war? more people have died from terrorist attacks, than a low economy. And the market is still stifled from the onset that we could be attacked at any time from a bunch of idiots. The best defense is a good offense. So much is at stake not too take an initiative. Bush's policy is outlined and much of is about national security, childrens education policy, and now anti-discrimination. We havn't had this of a hardline president since LBJ... are you blind or something?
I think Jimmac was referring to the war in Iraq. You know the war of the previous two that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in US.
Originally posted by JC
gov should be run like a biz with long term goals.
This is true, but I believe it's illegal for a gov to make a profit. I learned that long ago, but don't know if it's really true or not anymore.
Originally posted by Anders the White
I think Jimmac was referring to the war in Iraq. You know the war of the previous two that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in US.
Good point and I was.
Originally posted by jimmac
Good point and I was.
As i was referring to the war in iraq as well. I just can't see how you can blindly call it unnecessary.
also I too think the government should run like a business, with accountability, where everything must be justified, heck I'd buy stock in that heh. Then they should only have one catch and that is the profit made should go into extra gratituous spending on the (insert your democratic program of choice).
Originally posted by jimmac
If the media is controlled by liberals ( as you maintained ) Then why was there such a media feeding frenzy over the Clinton sex scandal? For months we heard nothing but that. It was driving opinion for the next election in the wrong direction. If the media was truly controlled by liberals how could this happen?
I maintained that media is controlled by themselves and their only driving force is to sell copy ( not a good thing ether they should just report the truth but it's the way it is ).
Well?
Right...now I remember.
First, you are assuming your premise is true. That is, if the media jumped on the Lewinsky story, then they must not be biased. I disagree with that for several reasons...
Biased or not, the media has to report the news. For example, if Fox News, NBC and CBS all report something....and CBS doesn't due to political reasons, CBS looks disingenuous. So, the media can't simply ignore a story as big as the Lewinsky scandal. They still had to report it. The President lied to the American people (excuse that or not, it happened) and came very, very close to lying under oath (though technically, I suppose he didn't). This HAD to be reported. Ironically enough, one network went on for weeks without mentioning anything about Lewinsky while the rest of the media began it's buildup. The tool of the bias in this case was omission.
Secondly, there are many different ways news can be reported. Everthing from the media's debate of whether or not lying about sex mattered, to its villification of Kenneth Star (an ongoing process even today)....even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter can be, and were used.
Finally, the most common and subtle tactic: The failure to label liberal views as just that....liberal. Studies have proven that the label "conservative" is used more often. Liberal views are often presented as mainstream, while conservative views are not. This point is, of course, more about bias in general than it is about Clinton in particular.
To sum up my answer: Your premise is that if the media, on the whole, is liberal, than they would have ignored the story. I think that's a real leap. The story was too big even for the more Left leaning organizations to ignore....though as I said one of them DID try for awhile. You also assume that their coverage was impartial...or even slanted against Clinton, which I also disagree with. The House managers were often villified, along with the Special Prosecutor.
Jimmac, my Criminal Liberal Media comment was directed at the media as a total sum. There are many exceptions as I noted. I do agree with you on one thing: The truth should be reported without slanting either way. Since you disagree that the media on the whole is biased though, I must assume you feel it is conservative?
Originally posted by jimmac
" What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with? "
About this well let's just pick one ( there are so many ) how about starting a unnecessary war that costs a lot of money ( billions ) in a time of economic hardship?
But you won't agree that it was unecessary or that we are in real economic hardship so what's the point?
You are right, I disagree it was unecessary. That's another issue though.
In addition, the numbers don't point to "real economic hardship" on a national level. If they did, then I be saying it. For example, if we had 9% unemployment, four quarters of growth at -5%, and the DOW at new lows...I'd agree. We don't have that, though.
On your first point: At least we are getting somewhere now. You're making an attempt....
Though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right...now I remember.
First, you are assuming your premise is true. That is, if the media jumped on the Lewinsky story, then they must not be biased. I disagree with that for several reasons...
Biased or not, the media has to report the news. For example, if Fox News, NBC and CBS all report something....and CBS doesn't due to political reasons, CBS looks disingenuous. So, the media can't simply ignore a story as big as the Lewinsky scandal. They still had to report it. The President lied to the American people (excuse that or not, it happened) and came very, very close to lying under oath (though technically, I suppose he didn't). This HAD to be reported. Ironically enough, one network went on for weeks without mentioning anything about Lewinsky while the rest of the media began it's buildup. The tool of the bias in this case was omission.
Secondly, there are many different ways news can be reported. Everthing from the media's debate of whether or not lying about sex mattered, to its villification of Kenneth Star (an ongoing process even today)....even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter can be, and were used.
Finally, the most common and subtle tactic: The failure to label liberal views as just that....liberal. Studies have proven that the label "conservative" is used more often. Liberal views are often presented as mainstream, while conservative views are not. This point is, of course, more about bias in general than it is about Clinton in particular.
To sum up my answer: Your premise is that if the media, on the whole, is liberal, than they would have ignored the story. I think that's a real leap. The story was too big even for the more Left leaning organizations to ignore....though as I said one of them DID try for awhile. You also assume that their coverage was impartial...or even slanted against Clinton, which I also disagree with. The House managers were often villified, along with the Special Prosecutor.
Jimmac, my Criminal Liberal Media comment was directed at the media as a total sum. There are many exceptions as I noted. I do agree with you on one thing: The truth should be reported without slanting either way. Since you disagree that the media on the whole is biased though, I must assume you feel it is conservative?
You assume wrong! They're out for themselves! Weren't you listening? They're only motivation is to sell the news. It means ratings and money for them. Period. They roasted Clinton alive with their coverage.
Still in check.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bunge
This is true, but I believe it's illegal for a gov to make a profit. I learned that long ago, but don't know if it's really true or not anymore.
Hmmmm, since we are in debt the government has to make a profit in order to get out.
I think that the government is just not allowed to store profits. they can not put over a certain amount of money in the bank. they have to put it back into the system so that the tax payers (thats us) reap the benifits.
ou assume wrong! They're out for themselves! Weren't you listening? They're only motivation is to sell the news. It means ratings and money for them. Period. They roasted Clinton alive with their coverage.
Still in check.
Ummmm...OK, jimmac. Relax there...big guy. I agree they are out for themselves in terms of money. I still contend though, that bias exists. I will say this: The media as a whole has been far less biased since 9/11. There is also Fox News, which balances out some of it. In addition, it seems there may be a shifting taking place. This is supported by the departure of liberal hosts on major networks in recent weeks. This would support your "it's all for the ratings" comments. Though, I would argue it's taken them a hell of a long time to figure it out. And, I don't think they would have figured it out at all had Fox News not been kicking their asses all around the airwaves. MSNBC and CNN are getting their heads handed to them in prime time. That will force change every time.
This isn't the point fo the thread anyway. I asnwered your question, whether you like my answer or not. I won't respond to your ridiculous "aren't you listening" comment any further. This entire line of debate is totally off topic, and nothing more than attempt by you to paint my views as extreme on this issue, in the hope that it destroys my credibility in THIS thread.
The point is the Democratic leadership is in denial as to their recent defeats. They cling to failed tactic which are both shameless and ineffective.
Originally posted by jimmac
By SDW 2001,
-------------------------------------------------------------
" though, there is no proof that a war hurts the economy. In fact, war often HELPS the economy as a matter of historical precedent. Sure, it costs money. But, there isn't a definite correlation between that and a recession or economic slowdown. There is a fair amount of rhetoric on this point, as there is on tax cuts as well (i.e. "We can't afford to spend money a tax cut", a typical misleading statement because a tax cut is not spending). In reality, the cost of the war and the overall state of the economy are not necessarily related. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Great response, jimmac!