Support for President Bush

[avatar4321]

Figured I would take a poll of those who support President Bush or not. And please be honest.

[Hobbit]

For quite a while, it would have been option 2, but after his border stance, runaway spending, his refusal to defend himself against the Democrats, and other abandonments of the conservative ideal, I have to go with #3. Pretty much the only stuff I still support him on are tax cuts and winning in Iraq.

[Sitarro]

For quite a while, it would have been option 2, but after his border stance, runaway spending, his refusal to defend himself against the Democrats, and other abandonments of the conservative ideal, I have to go with #3. Pretty much the only stuff I still support him on are tax cuts and winning in Iraq.

What about his Supreme Court decisions?

[GW in Ohio]

History will not be kind to Mr. Bush.

History will make much of his family's relationship with the Saud royal family.

History will crucify him for his Iraq war. (He might like that, though.....crucified just like his Commander in Chief.)

[5stringJeff]

I support Bush on his stance against Islamofascists, his stance on tax cuts (though I don't think he goes nearly far enough), privatizing Social Security, and his being pro-free trade.

I oppose Bush on his stance on education (too much gov't involvement), immigration (it couldn't be any worse), and his overall big government outlook. He is a disappointment as a conservative overall.

[Hobbit]

What about his Supreme Court decisions?

He did a good job there (Harriet Myers was a political McGuffin), but it's been a while since there were any nominations, so that's really in the back of my mind right now.

[Abbey Marie]

He did a good job there (Harriet Myers was a political McGuffin), but it's been a while since there were any nominations, so that's really in the back of my mind right now.

That's never in the back of my mind. Since it usurped Congress' powers, the S.C. has the most power in this country to affect crucial social and other issues.

Interesting poll. :thumb:

[avatar4321]

That's never in the back of my mind. Since it usurped Congress' powers, the S.C. has the most power in this country to affect crucial social and other issues.

Interesting poll. :thumb:

Thanks. I was curious about support for the President with recent polls our more liberal posters have shown the GOP losing support for the President.

I think there are plenty of things he can do better. But he has my support and ill continue trying to encourage him and others to do things better.

[gabosaurus]

I actually believe Bush has good intentions and loves his country (then again, so did Nixon). But he has a poor sense of priorities and has made some horrific decisions. I believe his inner circle has consistently given him bad advice.

[GW in Ohio]

I actually believe Bush has good intentions and loves his country (then again, so did Nixon). But he has a poor sense of priorities and has made some horrific decisions. I believe his inner circle has consistently given him bad advice.

Yes. Many people are awed or intimidated by Cheney because he's got that gruff, George Patton-like manner.

But I've come to believe, after observing him for 6 years, that Cheney is an idiot.

[Dilloduck]

Yes. Many people are awed or intimidated by Cheney because he's got that gruff, George Patton-like manner.

But I've come to believe, after observing him for 6 years, that Cheney is an idiot.

You've observed Cheney for six years ? What behaviors over these six years helped you come to this "conclusion" ?

[GW in Ohio]

You've observed Cheney for six years ? What behaviors over these six years helped you come to this "conclusion" ?

1. Cheney is one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq war. That right there qualifies him as an idiot.
2. He didn't have enough sense to know when to get the hell out of Iraq.
3. You have to be a real idiot to agree to be W's babysitter for 4 years.
4. I'm not even going to mention the incident where he shot his lawyer during one of those GOP circle-jerk quail shoots.

[Mr. P]

For quite a while, it would have been option 2, but after his border stance, runaway spending, his refusal to defend himself against the Democrats, and other abandonments of the conservative ideal, I have to go with #3. Pretty much the only stuff I still support him on are tax cuts and winning in Iraq.

Same here, except I'd say, I support 'some' of what he has done.
He lost my total support through inaction on important issues and too much action on wild-ass spending.

[Dilloduck]

1. Cheney is one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq war. That right there qualifies him as an idiot.
2. He didn't have enough sense to know when to get the hell out of Iraq.
3. You have to be a real idiot to agree to be W's babysitter for 4 years.
4. I'm not even going to mention the incident where he shot his lawyer during one of those GOP circle-jerk quail shoots.

Pretty scientific study you pulled together after 6 years of observation. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Yes. Many people are awed or intimidated by Cheney because he's got that gruff, George Patton-like manner.

But I've come to believe, after observing him for 6 years, that Cheney is an idiot.

So you like that gentle, Mister Rodger's approach then? :poke:

Talk about an opinion based purely on feminine emotions. :gay:

[glockmail]

I support most of what Bush does because he deserves the benefit of doubt due to the media climate, and his policies on the economy, terrorism, and many social issues (including health care) are working.

[glockmail]

1. Cheney is one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq war. That right there qualifies him as an idiot.
2. He didn't have enough sense to know when to get the hell out of Iraq.
3. You have to be a real idiot to agree to be W's babysitter for 4 years.
4. I'm not even going to mention the incident where he shot his lawyer during one of those GOP circle-jerk quail shoots.

Sometimes you make me wonder if there is any logic or originality in your thinking whatsoever. This is entirely based on emotions and what libs have spouted within ear shot.

[loosecannon]

I support most of what Bush does because he deserves the benefit of doubt due to the media climate, and his policies on the economy, terrorism, and many social issues (including health care) are working.

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.

[Dilloduck]

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.

He put the world on notice that America won't sit idly by while Islamic crazies kill Americans.

[glockmail]

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.


wrong on every count. :slap:

[Abbey Marie]

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.

Brought class back to the White House, made some kickin' Supreme court nominations, and unemployment was very low, last time I checked.

[krisy]

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.

Bush has NEVER has the benefit of the doubt with the media,and I cannot remember a time when he didn't have journalistic scrutiny of his policies. He was being hammered by the media while he was running. Things like him calling some reporter an a$$hole when he thought his mic was off. That was a headline story....and a joke at that.

[avatar4321]

Surely you jest? Bush began his tenure with the benefit of the doubt and almost no journalistic scrutiny of his policies and management.

He has since proven himself to be a living "catastrophic success" as president. The economy is deadlining, the nation is mired in a war we can't win and can't exit, we have become a nation who tortures and imprisons without trial, we have squandered most of the worlds goodwill, and we didn't even get the oil.

Name even one thing GWB has done that had a positive effect or result.

you seriously have to be delusional to believe this. The media has had a hit on the President since before Al Gore tried to steal the election from him. They've done everything they can to undermine him and the administration despite 9/11

[loosecannon]

No delusions atall mates.

Bush got the longest and most unchecked free ride of any president since Reagan or Kennedy.

Esp after the 9/11 attacks.

Almost no criticism of his policies until years after he completely fucked our nation into the ground by getting us bogged down into a war we can not win and will suffer to end.

He is the least qualified pres in US history and has been as or more destructive to our national security as anybody else who ever held the office.

And he restored Nixonian corruption, secrecy and shame to the office of the president.

Way to go Busshie!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

He put the world on notice that America won't sit idly by while Islamic crazies kill Americans.

What about the American crazies who are sitting idly while Islamic crazies kill Americans?

[Mr. P]

What about the American crazies who are sitting idly while Islamic crazies kill Americans?

Yeah, but you can't tell those liberal crazies anything, they just don't get it.

[gabosaurus]

I can never figure out those crazies in the White House. I think they are enjoying this Iraq thing a bit too much. Everytime there is film of "insurgents" getting killed, Cheney leaves a stain on the carpet.

[Gaffer]

They are not insurgents, they are terrorist thugs and any film that shows their asses being creamed is wonderful to behold. Being as your a jihadist I'm sure this upsets you.

[SassyLady]

I didn't cast a vote because I'm not a Pub or Dem.

And, while I have never agreed with everything a President (and Kennedy is the first I remember) or Congress does, I support them overall. If I have an issue with a specific item I will exercise my rights and actively try to implement change, but I do it privately and discreetly, never at a protest. I go to governmental hearings on the issue, and/or hire an attorney if needed, and present my case and hope for the best and live with the outcome.

With our convoluted government system I think the majority try to do what they feel is the right thing to do. However, they are human and humans have a tendency to make mistakes -- no one is infallible.

[SassyLady]

I can never figure out those crazies in the White House. I think they are enjoying this Iraq thing a bit too much. Everytime there is film of "insurgents" getting killed, Cheney leaves a stain on the carpet.

And your point is?

[GW in Ohio]

you seriously have to be delusional to believe this. The media has had a hit on the President since before Al Gore tried to steal the election from him. They've done everything they can to undermine him and the administration despite 9/11

The media didn't make Mr. Bush invade Iraq; he fucked that up all by himself.

Everything about this administration starts and ends with Iraq. If President Bonehead had not overreached by trying to reconstruct the Middle East, he would be ranked among the top half of American presidents.

[krisy]

The media didn't make Mr. Bush invade Iraq; he fucked that up all by himself.

Everything about this administration starts and ends with Iraq. If President Bonehead had not overreached by trying to reconstruct the Middle East, he would be ranked among the top half of American presidents.


If this had been President Clinton's war,it would be popular. Why? Because the media would report nothing but the GOOD happening. Because it's Bush's war,they have reported nothing but bad.

Be honest,you know there are good things happening in Iraq. How much has been reported? How much have you seen? The troops continually try to convince the American people that they are doing good,there are great things happening there. Their efforts are useless against this gigantic mass of Liberal media.

If this war had simply been reported in a less biased way,it would have the support of most of the American people,I beleive.

[glockmail]

The media didn't make Mr. Bush invade Iraq; he fucked that up all by himself.

Everything about this administration starts and ends with Iraq. If President Bonehead had not overreached by trying to reconstruct the Middle East, he would be ranked among the top half of American presidents.

And the last terrrorist attack on American soil was.....?????

[GW in Ohio]

And the last terrrorist attack on American soil was.....?????

Perpetrated by Saudis, with the odd Egyptian thrown in.

No Iraqis among them.

[Yurt]

History will not be kind to Mr. Bush.

History will make much of his family's relationship with the Saud royal family.

History will crucify him for his Iraq war. (He might like that, though.....crucified just like his Commander in Chief.)

You are sad person. An ass really. No rational person would make this comment and consider it helpful, thus you are doing nothing but trashing.

Good job Ohio.

[loosecannon]

The troops continually try to convince the American people that they are doing good,there are great things happening there. Their efforts are useless against this gigantic mass of Liberal media.



First, of all for almost an entire century the media has been a mouthpiece for corporate America, the Government and even the Bush administration. It has been conservative most of the time, liberal occasionally.

The argument that the press is liberal is just a sour grapes argument from folks who demand no less than a press suited to their own fantasies, fuck everybody else.

Even the Librul NYT had Judith Miller shamelessly promoting BA lies to prop up the support for the war.

The press is owned and operated by multinational media conglomerates. It is forced to produce programming that is accepted, in fact preferred by it's corporate sponsors, and it's number one source of news info is the government itself, by a long shot.

If the media reports news that is unacceptable to owners, advertisers and the government then the media is adversely effected by loss of advertising dollars, loss of access to their number one information providers (the government) and subject to the disciplinary and management corrections of it's owners.

The media is a slave to the dollar. Not to any liberal cause.

Occasionally liberal reports are broadcast. In the same way that losing teams get to snap the football in ball games. But they don't get into the red zone as often and don't dominate possession of the ball.

Second: Of course there are good things going on in Iraq. Just not nearly as many as the bad. And the troops, the generals, the joint chiefs of staff have not been shy about the near disastrous state into which Iraq has descended.

You can play selective and listen to, remember and spout the minority of events that support your preferred POV. That's cool.

But please, we aren't stupid. We can see thru your distortions as easily as we can see thru the Bush lies that have characterized the last 6 years.

Just say it like it is. YOUR opinion, not fact, not the opinion of the "troops", not reality. Just your opinion.

If you do it that way, nobody can deny you the right to your opinion.

Meanwhile I will continue to listen to the troops, generals and JCS for their opinions.

[krisy]

First, of all for almost an entire century the media has been a mouthpiece for corporate America, the Government and even the Bush administration. It has been conservative most of the time, liberal occasionally.

The argument that the press is liberal is just a sour grapes argument from folks who demand no less than a press suited to their own fantasies, fuck everybody else.

Even the Librul NYT had Judith Miller shamelessly promoting BA lies to prop up the support for the war.

The press is owned and operated by multinational media conglomerates. It is forced to produce programming that is accepted, in fact preferred by it's corporate sponsors, and it's number one source of news info is the government itself, by a long shot.

If the media reports news that is unacceptable to owners, advertisers and the government then the media is adversely effected by loss of advertising dollars, loss of access to their number one information providers (the government) and subject to the disciplinary and management corrections of it's owners.

The media is a slave to the dollar. Not to any liberal cause.

Occasionally liberal reports are broadcast. In the same way that losing teams get to snap the football in ball games. But they don't get into the red zone as often and don't dominate possession of the ball.

Second: Of course there are good things going on in Iraq. Just not nearly as many as the bad. And the troops, the generals, the joint chiefs of staff have not been shy about the near disastrous state into which Iraq has descended.

You can play selective and listen to, remember and spout the minority of events that support your preferred POV. That's cool.

But please, we aren't stupid. We can see thru your distortions as easily as we can see thru the Bush lies that have characterized the last 6 years.

Just say it like it is. YOUR opinion, not fact, not the opinion of the "troops", not reality. Just your opinion.

If you do it that way, nobody can deny you the right to your opinion.

Meanwhile I will continue to listen to the troops, generals and JCS for their opinions.



Loosecannon....it is just as much your "opinion" that the media isn't left wing as it is mine that they are. No sour grapes,no wanting to hear what is in my own 'fantasies". The media has proven over and over again that they cannot be fair to a Republican president. They are like vultures,making non stories big stories. Most of the media admit to being left wing,to think that their personal opinions don't come out....is foolish. They are human.

I can't tell you how many soldiers I've seen on t.v. trying to get the message across,telling the "journalist" to their face that they aren't reporting that war fairly.

And to think that CNN or MSNBC listens tto the government....or the Bush government is a joke. They hate him.

[loosecannon]

Loosecannon....it is just as much your "opinion" that the media isn't left wing as it is mine that they are.

Actually No, it isn't just my opinion. It is a documented reality established beyond dispute by the nations leading linguist as far back as the early 80's.

There are certanly examples of liberal bias in media. But MSM is forced to follow the programing directives of it's corporate sponsors, corporate owners and the government itself who is the leading source for information broadcast as news.

It is objectively true that the MSM in the US has had a corporate, right leaning bias for over a century.

In the mid 19th century it was the opposite. And that is also objectively proven. And the transition has been studied and verified.

Your opinion about the left leaning bias of MSM is objectively false and subjectively true.

Therefore it is only an opinion and not something that can be objectively proven.

If you have the stamina to read what the nations leading linguist has said on the subject I will gladly set you up with a link.

He is the nations leading authority on the subject.

[mundame]

Actually No, it isn't just my opinion. It is a documented reality established beyond dispute by the nations leading linguist as far back as the early 80's.




Noam Chomsky........

[avatar4321]

The media didn't make Mr. Bush invade Iraq; he fucked that up all by himself.

Everything about this administration starts and ends with Iraq. If President Bonehead had not overreached by trying to reconstruct the Middle East, he would be ranked among the top half of American presidents.

NEWSFLASH: Taking out dictators who have committed mass murder is not a bad thing.

If you think that we can win the war on terror without reconstructing the middle east, you are naive at best, dangerous at worst.

[GW in Ohio]

NEWSFLASH: Taking out dictators who have committed mass murder is not a bad thing.

If you think that we can win the war on terror without reconstructing the middle east, you are naive at best, dangerous at worst.

If you think we can reconstruct the Middle East, you are as crazy as Bush.

We can't even pacify Iraq.

I would be happy if we could turn things around in Afghanistan. That is an achievable goal.

[krisy]

Actually No, it isn't just my opinion. It is a documented reality established beyond dispute by the nations leading linguist as far back as the early 80's.

There are certanly examples of liberal bias in media. But MSM is forced to follow the programing directives of it's corporate sponsors, corporate owners and the government itself who is the leading source for information broadcast as news.

It is objectively true that the MSM in the US has had a corporate, right leaning bias for over a century.

In the mid 19th century it was the opposite. And that is also objectively proven. And the transition has been studied and verified.

Your opinion about the left leaning bias of MSM is objectively false and subjectively true.

Therefore it is only an opinion and not something that can be objectively proven.

If you have the stamina to read what the nations leading linguist has said on the subject I will gladly set you up with a link.

He is the nations leading authority on the subject.


I would like to see your link.

I'm sure you know that their have been several non partisan studies showing a left leaning bias in the media. Your argument that the media is driven by corporate sponsors may be true,but does that prove they are not left leaning corporate sponsors? I don't see where that proves the media isn't bias.

[loosecannon]

I would like to see your link.

I'm sure you know that their have been several non partisan studies showing a left leaning bias in the media.

I bet you can not produce one, and I will give you a year to try.

I will be glad to provide that link, but first it will consist of about 15-20 pages of modestly dense critical analysis.

Will you read it, all of it?

Half of it?

[Gunny]

History will not be kind to Mr. Bush.

History will make much of his family's relationship with the Saud royal family.

History will crucify him for his Iraq war. (He might like that, though.....crucified just like his Commander in Chief.)

Seems i heard the same about Ronald Reagan. History will be fine for President Bush provided Clinotn's revisionists don't get to rewrite his history too.

[glockmail]

Perpetrated by Saudis, with the odd Egyptian thrown in.

No Iraqis among them.

So you deny that Saddam was connected with bin Laden and other terrorists, many who wanted to wage war against the US and our allies?

[loosecannon]

So you deny that Saddam was connected with bin Laden and other terrorists, many who wanted to wage war against the US and our allies?

Saddam was an enemy of Bin Laden.

Saddam gave cash grants to Palestinians whose family members died in suicide bombings in Israel.

Israel is an ally but that is no excuse for us going to war with Iraq or even a security concern of us.

[Gaffer]

Saddam was an enemy of Bin Laden.

Saddam gave cash grants to Palestinians whose family members died in suicide bombings in Israel.

Israel is an ally but that is no excuse for us going to war with Iraq or even a security concern of us.

They were not enemies. They were reluctant allies. Saddam did give aid to al queda even harboring many of them. Hama's is a predominately sunni organization, just as al queda is. Hama's was the benificiary of saddams money gifts.

Our going to war in iraq had nothing what so ever to do with Israel.

[glockmail]

Saddam was an enemy of Bin Laden.

Saddam gave cash grants to Palestinians whose family members died in suicide bombings in Israel.

Israel is an ally but that is no excuse for us going to war with Iraq or even a security concern of us.

Saddam's guys and bin laden's guys net at least 100 times, and saddam gave bin laden access to traing and weapons. Is that what enemies do?

Israel is our most important ally in the middle east, possibly the world. Do you suggest that we ignore that relationship?

[krisy]

I bet you can not produce one, and I will give you a year to try.

I will be glad to provide that link, but first it will consist of about 15-20 pages of modestly dense critical analysis.

Will you read it, all of it?

Half of it?



LOL loose,I probably would catch heck from my kids if I spent that much time on here,just to read something that probably won't convince me. How does a linguist properly interpret media bias?

I did find an article on a well talked about study done a couple of years ago. They found a little right wing bias,but mostly all left.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

[Gaffer]

First, of all for almost an entire century the media has been a mouthpiece for corporate America, the Government and even the Bush administration. It has been conservative most of the time, liberal occasionally.

The argument that the press is liberal is just a sour grapes argument from folks who demand no less than a press suited to their own fantasies, fuck everybody else.

Even the Librul NYT had Judith Miller shamelessly promoting BA lies to prop up the support for the war.

The press is owned and operated by multinational media conglomerates. It is forced to produce programming that is accepted, in fact preferred by it's corporate sponsors, and it's number one source of news info is the government itself, by a long shot.

If the media reports news that is unacceptable to owners, advertisers and the government then the media is adversely effected by loss of advertising dollars, loss of access to their number one information providers (the government) and subject to the disciplinary and management corrections of it's owners.

The media is a slave to the dollar. Not to any liberal cause.

Occasionally liberal reports are broadcast. In the same way that losing teams get to snap the football in ball games. But they don't get into the red zone as often and don't dominate possession of the ball.

Second: Of course there are good things going on in Iraq. Just not nearly as many as the bad. And the troops, the generals, the joint chiefs of staff have not been shy about the near disastrous state into which Iraq has descended.

You can play selective and listen to, remember and spout the minority of events that support your preferred POV. That's cool.

But please, we aren't stupid. We can see thru your distortions as easily as we can see thru the Bush lies that have characterized the last 6 years.

Just say it like it is. YOUR opinion, not fact, not the opinion of the "troops", not reality. Just your opinion.

If you do it that way, nobody can deny you the right to your opinion.

Meanwhile I will continue to listen to the troops, generals and JCS for their opinions.

The media has been in the liberals pocket for over 40 years. It's not a matter of whether they are liberal, its a matter of they are not liberal enough for you. They still occasionally print or televise good news about America. I know that makes you squirm as they should only be bashing America. But hey, they still have to appear like they are speaking for the American people.

[Gaffer]

Actually No, it isn't just my opinion. It is a documented reality established beyond dispute by the nations leading linguist as far back as the early 80's.

There are certanly examples of liberal bias in media. But MSM is forced to follow the programing directives of it's corporate sponsors, corporate owners and the government itself who is the leading source for information broadcast as news.

It is objectively true that the MSM in the US has had a corporate, right leaning bias for over a century.

In the mid 19th century it was the opposite. And that is also objectively proven. And the transition has been studied and verified.

Your opinion about the left leaning bias of MSM is objectively false and subjectively true.

Therefore it is only an opinion and not something that can be objectively proven.

If you have the stamina to read what the nations leading linguist has said on the subject I will gladly set you up with a link.

He is the nations leading authority on the subject.

Please name all these leading linguists. Your going to give a link to some commie website and pass it off as a ligitimate source.

You not a liberal, your an outright communist.

[loosecannon]

from the article:


Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative.

IOW the entire basis for the articles claims is that media is measured according to it's coverage of issues measured against the voting record of the congress in dec 2005 (while the republicans controlled both houses of congress) by a liberal organizations standards of what liberal and conservative balance is.

That is three degrees of seperation from reality.

Your claim was that there had been several non partisan reports that identified the media as liberal. This report claims to be extruded thru two partisan filters or maybe three.

[Gaffer]

I bet you can not produce one, and I will give you a year to try.

I will be glad to provide that link, but first it will consist of about 15-20 pages of modestly dense critical analysis.

Will you read it, all of it?

Half of it?

If there's a link to a study about media bias there must be others as well. You might as well post them too. you say the media is rightwing bias. Prove it comrade.

[loosecannon]

The media has been in the liberals pocket for over 40 years. It's not a matter of whether they are liberal, its a matter of they are not liberal enough for you. They still occasionally print or televise good news about America. I know that makes you squirm as they should only be bashing America. But hey, they still have to appear like they are speaking for the American people.


That is an empirically false myth. The media has been ultra conservative for over 100 years. You can believe in your myth, but in doing so you are choosing to believe a myth.

[loosecannon]

You not a liberal, your an outright communist.

And you are lying thru your teeth. I am DEFINITELY NOT a communist.

Are you a neocon traitor?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

there is your link, written by the leading linguist of the English language within the last 50 years and also among the most quoted scholars of our times.

[loosecannon]

I don't have to prove it Gaffe, scholars already have.

[Gaffer]

from the article:



IOW the entire basis for the articles claims is that media is measured according to it's coverage of issues measured against the voting record of the congress in dec 2005 (while the republicans controlled both houses of congress) by a liberal organizations standards of what liberal and conservative balance is.

That is three degrees of seperation from reality.

Your claim was that there had been several non partisan reports that identified the media as liberal. This report claims to be extruded thru two partisan filters or maybe three.

So they are basing their view on how reps in congress vote and not on reports presented by the media.Sure that's an unbias way to look at things.

[Gaffer]

That is an empirically false myth. The media has been ultra conservative for over 100 years. You can believe in your myth, but in doing so you are choosing to believe a myth.

I have watched news coverage for over 40 years myself and there has never been anything even resembling a conservative view in the media. They are just not commie enough for you.

[Gaffer]

And you are lying thru your teeth. I am DEFINITELY NOT a communist.

Are you a neocon traitor?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

there is your link, written by the leading linguist of the English language within the last 50 years and also among the most quoted scholars of our times.

Like I said. Communist propaganda. chevez's favorite author.

I am a sanctimonious prick. But you can call me Mr Prick. I'll just call you comrade.

[5stringJeff]

And you are lying thru your teeth. I am DEFINITELY NOT a communist.

Are you a neocon traitor?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

there is your link, written by the leading linguist of the English language within the last 50 years and also among the most quoted scholars of our times.

lmao... you post a link to Noam Chomsky and expect to be taken seriously?!? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: Maybe we'll rebut with an Ann Coulter piece!!! :laugh2: :lmao: :lol:

[loosecannon]

lmao... you post a link to Noam Chomsky and expect to be taken seriously?!? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: Maybe we'll rebut with an Ann Coulter piece!!! :laugh2: :lmao: :lol:


LOL, ROFL,

sorry dude, do you laugh at yourself constantly? You probably should.

Noam Chomsky is a world renounded scholar, author of dozens of best sellers, among the most quoted human being of all time, a certifiable genius.

Ann Coultier is a tramp who will do anything to self promote.

I truly feel sorry for you that you feel threatened by educated geniuses.

But you can mature, there is still hope for you.

[Hobbit]

I bet you can not produce one, and I will give you a year to try.

I will be glad to provide that link, but first it will consist of about 15-20 pages of modestly dense critical analysis.

Will you read it, all of it?

Half of it?

Here's a good place to start.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Oh, and here's another good one. This one from UCLA, an admittedly liberal institution.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

[loosecannon]

Like I said. Communist propaganda. chevez's favorite author.

I am a sanctimonious prick. But you can call me Mr Prick. I'll just call you comrade.

Mr Prick, If you call me comrade again I will sue your ass into hell:lol:

You don't have a clue which end is up or down.

You wouldn't be happy with the press unless they mimicked your every flip flop.

BTW, did you know that the median Bushbot is in the 15%ile to the furthest right, just beside Hitler and Mussolini? It's a fact Jack!

Enjoy the roasted jews feet and wop Caesar salad, fascista amiga.

Meanwhile back on earth.....I have no kinship with socialism, communism, or even worse corporate fascism.

You a corporate fascist Mr Prick?

[Hobbit]

Mr Prick, If you call me comrade again I will sue your ass into hell:lol:

You don't have a clue which end is up or down.

You wouldn't be happy with the press unless they mimicked your every flip flop.

BTW, did you know that the median Bushbot is in the 15%ile to the furthest right, just beside Hitler and Mussolini? It's a fact Jack!

Enjoy the roasted jews feet and wop Caesar salad, fascista amiga.

Meanwhile back on earth.....I have no kinship with socialism, communism, or even worse corporate fascism.

You a corporate fascist Mr Prick?

You quote Marx and Chomsky like they're gods and repeat their ultimately flawed definitions of capitalism. You're a closet communist.

I read the link you posted. Essentially, it said that media outlets were beholden to their owners, their advertisers, their sources, and their customers...DUH! It also said that starting up media is a huge, costly undertaking, which is no longer true with the rise of the internet. The final limitation it placed was the "western" belief that communism was the ultimate evil, which is less and less true in western media every day, but is believed quite vehemently by the Eastern Europeans who suffered under communism for the better part of a century. The whole thing was a complicated way to say things I already know. Chomsky's a fine linguist, but a cutting edge economist, he ain't.

Edit: You can't sue any of us. 1) You cannot prove damages 2) Your claim doesn't fall under the libel, slander, or defamation statutes (especially since it's true) 3) You don't have enough evidence to even get the subpoenas required to find out who we really are 4) If you did sue, you would lose, and bad. Somebody who hates capitalism that much probably can't afford the kind of lawyer I can get.

[avatar4321]

The reason why socialists hate capitalism is because its pure freedom at work. People act and consume according to their own desires and benefits. Socialists are power mongers and cant allow people to have any power themselves or they feel threatened, as they should. People dont put up with that crap.

[Gaffer]

Mr Prick, If you call me comrade again I will sue your ass into hell:lol:

You don't have a clue which end is up or down.

You wouldn't be happy with the press unless they mimicked your every flip flop.

BTW, did you know that the median Bushbot is in the 15%ile to the furthest right, just beside Hitler and Mussolini? It's a fact Jack!

Enjoy the roasted jews feet and wop Caesar salad, fascista amiga.

Meanwhile back on earth.....I have no kinship with socialism, communism, or even worse corporate fascism.

You a corporate fascist Mr Prick?

Well comrade, and I mean that sincerely, you go right ahead and sue away.

You have as many facts as psyco. Your just filled it's a fact. Maybe your really a factshish... nah, your a commie. gabby is a jihadist and psyco is....nuts. That pretty well pegs all three of you.

Damn I wish I was a corporate facists, I wouldn't have any money problems then.

[SassyLady]

Well comrade, and I mean that sincerely, you go right ahead and sue away.

You have as many facts as psyco. Your just filled it's a fact. Maybe your really a factshish... nah, your a commie. gabby is a jihadist and psyco is....nuts. That pretty well pegs all three of you.

Damn I wish I was a corporate facists, I wouldn't have any money problems then.

Well, I have no problem admitting that I'm a corporate facist. Capitalism has served me quite well. I'm a business owner and I quite a bit invested in corporate America. I spend quite a bit supporting other companies in America and I'd have quite a bit more to spend if I didn't have to pay so much taxes. Capitalism works for me.

[loosecannon]

You have as many facts as psyco. Your just filled it's a fact. Maybe your really a factshish... nah, your a commie. gabby is a jihadist and psyco is....nuts. That pretty well pegs all three of you.



anybody able to translate this from drunken stupor into english please do, and thanks for the labor.

[Hobbit]

anybody able to translate this from drunken stupor into english please do, and thanks for the labor.

He's comparing you to that jackass, psychoblues in the facts department, which I think is slightly unfair, since you at least TRY to form a reasonable fascimile of a coherant argument. He then lists off the trifecta of idiocy: You = communist (the sooner you admit it, the better off you'll be), gabosaurus = terrorist-hugging jihadist, psychoblues = frickin' nuts.

[avatar4321]

He's comparing you to that jackass, psychoblues in the facts department, which I think is slightly unfair, since you at least TRY to form a reasonable fascimile of a coherant argument. He then lists off the trifecta of idiocy: You = communist (the sooner you admit it, the better off you'll be), gabosaurus = terrorist-hugging jihadist, psychoblues = frickin' nuts.

I don't think that's really fair. Do you really think frickin' nuts people should be degraded enough to be associated with our friend there?

[loosecannon]

You quote Marx and Chomsky like they're gods and repeat their ultimately flawed definitions of capitalism. You're a closet communist.

I read the link you posted. Essentially, it said that media outlets were beholden to their owners, their advertisers, their sources, and their customers...DUH! It also said that starting up media is a huge, costly undertaking, which is no longer true with the rise of the internet. The final limitation it placed was the "western" belief that communism was the ultimate evil, which is less and less true in western media every day, but is believed quite vehemently by the Eastern Europeans who suffered under communism for the better part of a century. The whole thing was a complicated way to say things I already know. Chomsky's a fine linguist, but a cutting edge economist, he ain't.



You really are sorry Hobbit. Noam Chomsky is an unrivalled linguist and Karl Marx is an unrivalled economic theorist.

As much as i am adverse to criticizing you, you simply lack 50-100 IQ points from having a POV that is even capable of understanding, much less disagreeing or criticizing their POV.

In intellectual circuits, you don't have an opinion. You merely have an uninformed prejudice.

Meanwhile Chomsky and Marx still own you and can predict what will occur in your society 50 or 80 years into the future and have proven that they can.

Can you predict what will happen tommorrow? (NOT!)

If you had any sense at all you would discount what you think, and listen to what true geniuses say.

You will always be wrong. But they will often be right. Welcome to intelligent design.

BTW less than stupid, I am amongst the most conservative bastards you will ever meet.

But you are still too stupid to grok what conservative means.

The neocons are liberal, communist, socialist, reactionaries who forgot what they stand for. (flip flopperies)

Don't believe me? google neocon.

Your Bush is a communist symapathizer at heart.

But not me.

Gawd I get bored with ignorance.

[Gaffer]

He's comparing you to that jackass, psychoblues in the facts department, which I think is slightly unfair, since you at least TRY to form a reasonable fascimile of a coherant argument. He then lists off the trifecta of idiocy: You = communist (the sooner you admit it, the better off you'll be), gabosaurus = terrorist-hugging jihadist, psychoblues = frickin' nuts.

Thanks Hobbit, in spite of my leaving the word "with" out in the sentence, which I didn't spot until just now, you were still capable of deciphering what I had to say. And I agree, though his facts are all communist related, he does present them. While psycho just rambles and makes things up as he goes along.

[avatar4321]

You really are sorry Hobbit. Noam Chomsky is an unrivalled linguist and Karl marx is an unrivalled economic theorist.

As much as i am adverse to criticizing you, you simply lack 50-100 IQ points from have a POV that is even capable of understanding, much less dissagreeing or criticizing their POV.

In intellectual circuits, you don't have an opinion. You merely have an uninformed prejudice.

Meanwhile Chomsky and marx still own you and can predict what will occur in you society 50 or 80 years into the future and have proven that they can.

Can you predict what will happen tommorrow? (NOT!)

If you had any sense at all you would discount what you think, and listen to what true geniuses say.

You will always be wrong. But they will often be right. Welcome to intelligent design.

BTW less than stupid, I am amongst the most conservative bastards you will ever meet.

But you are still too stupid to grok what conservative means.

The neocons are liberal, communist, socialist, reactionaries who forgot what they stand for. (flip flopperies)

Don't believe me? google neocon.

Your Bush is a communist symapathizer at heart.

But not me.

Gawd I get bored with ignorance.

Marx is far from unrivaled. Quite the opposite. Ignorance of economics like that of Marx is quite common in the world.

[loosecannon]

He's comparing you to that jackass, psychoblues in the facts department,

BS I don't even know who psycho blues is. Your are stoned dude.

[Hobbit]

You really are sorry Hobbit. Noam Chomsky is an unrivalled linguist and Karl marx is an unrivalled economic theorist.

As much as i am adverse to criticizing you, you simply lack 50-100 IQ points from have a POV that is even capable of understanding, much less dissagreeing or criticizing their POV.

In intellectual circuits, you don't have an opinion. You merely have an uninformed prejudice.

Meanwhile Chomsky and marx still own you and can predict what will occur in you society 50 or 80 years into the future and have proven that they can.

Can you predict what will happen tommorrow? (NOT!)

If you had any sense at all you would discount what you think, and listen to what true geniuses say.

You will always be wrong. But they will often be right. Welcome to intelligent design.

BTW less than stupid, I am amongst the most conservative bastards you will ever meet.

But you are still too stupid to grok what conservative means.

The neocons are liberal, communist, socialist, reactionaries who forgot what they stand for. (flip flopperies)

Don't believe me? google neocon.

Your Bush is a communist symapathizer at heart.

But not me.

Gawd I get bored with ignorance.

You don't know me, so I'm only going to say this once. Insulting my intelligence will only get you as far as calling Andre the Giant small. Chomsky has no more business dictating economic policy than an astrophysicist has in critiquing history. Marx was an idealogue whose utopian dream has only led to the most brutal regimes in the modern world. While the capitalist regimes he so despised led to longer life spans, abundant food and housing, and unprecedented human rights, the regimes Marx brought about led to poverty, starvation, oppression (gulags, anyone? Tienamen Square?), and, ultimately, collapse.

Quoting geniuses doesn't make you a genius, but quoting communists' words as gospel does make you a communist.

Oh, and saying you're a conservative doesn't make you one. Your views are highly communistic, which is about as liberal as it gets.

[Hobbit]

BS I don't even know who psycho blues is. Your are stoned dude.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=7

The most obsessive psychopath and thread starter on this entire board.

[loosecannon]

Marx is far from unrivaled. Quite the opposite. Ignorance of economics like that of Marx is quite common in the world.


Maybe in YOUR world, but in the real world Marx is actually the most visionary economist of all time.

He accurately predicted the great depression 70 years before it happened.

He accurately predicted worldwide revolution 50-100 years in advance and even accurately predicted that the revolution would result in communist states in Eastern Eurasia and socialist states in western Europe.

He is the most accurate visionary of the last 200 years. And he is followed closely by GWB, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons.

You may not understand Marx, but the rest of the neocons and most of the western world still does.

You just have no clue how ununiformed you really are.

[SassyLady]

You really are sorry Hobbit. Noam Chomsky is an unrivalled linguist and Karl Marx is an unrivalled economic theorist.

As much as i am adverse to criticizing you, you simply lack 50-100 IQ points from having a POV that is even capable of understanding, much less disagreeing or criticizing their POV.

In intellectual circuits, you don't have an opinion. You merely have an uninformed prejudice.

Meanwhile Chomsky and Marx still own you and can predict what will occur in your society 50 or 80 years into the future and have proven that they can.

Can you predict what will happen tommorrow? (NOT!)

If you had any sense at all you would discount what you think, and listen to what true geniuses say.

You will always be wrong. But they will often be right. Welcome to intelligent design.

BTW less than stupid, I am amongst the most conservative bastards you will ever meet.

But you are still too stupid to grok what conservative means.

The neocons are liberal, communist, socialist, reactionaries who forgot what they stand for. (flip flopperies)

Don't believe me? google neocon.

Your Bush is a communist symapathizer at heart.

But not me.

Gawd I get bored with ignorance.

Cannon - I was going to refute your post point by point but I got to the end and realized that I could agree with your last point......bored with ignorance.

You bore me.

[loosecannon]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=7

The most obsessive psychopath and thread starter on this entire board.

Kewl, I still don't know who he is, compared nobody to him, haven't started a thread and you are still stoned dude.

[Hobbit]

Maybe in YOUR world, but in the real world Marx is actually the most visionary economist of all time.

He accurately predicted the great depression 70 years before it happened.

He accurately predicted worldwide revolution 50-100 years in advance and even accurately predicted that the revolution would result in communist states in Eastern Eurasia and socialist states in western Europe.

He is the most accurate visionary of the last 200 years. And he is followed closely by GWB, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons.

You may not understand Marx, but the rest of the neocons and most of the western world still does.

You just have no clue how ununiformed you really are.

He predicted the Great Depression in about the same manner as Nostradamus did. Not only was it pretty vague, but the cause was way off. As for the revolutions in Eastern Europe, they were pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. He was also quite wrong about the sustainability of communism, something any first-year econ student can easily grasp. Marx was a foolish pipe dreamer whose vision is responsible for the brutal and violent deaths of hundreds of millions around the world.

[Hobbit]

Kewl, I still don't know who he is, compared nobody to him, haven't started a thread and you are still stoned dude.

Ok, so I talk in coherant sentences, make logical points, refute illogical points, and manage to translate the poorly spelled and composed post of another poster, all on about 5 hours' sleep, but because I think you're, well, wrong, to put it nicely, it must mean I'm stoned. How sophomoric. Either you're a college student who bows at the feet of people whose ambition stops at tenure or you're somebody who never matured past that phase.

[5stringJeff]

Maybe in YOUR world, but in the real world Marx is actually the most visionary economist of all time.

The fact that you are a true Marxist is interesting, but your love affair with his economics is, frankly, pathetic. Go learn some real economics: http://www.mises.org/

[Gaffer]

seems comrade cannon needs to read a few more threads, he might understand where people are coming from a little better. Would be interesting to see him and psycho square off. The marxist verses the legend in his own mind. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

He predicted the Great Depression in about the same manner as Nostradamus did. Not only was it pretty vague, but the cause was way off. As for the revolutions in Eastern Europe, they were pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. He was also quite wrong about the sustainability of communism, something any first-year econ student can easily grasp. Marx was a foolish pipe dreamer whose vision is responsible for the brutal and violent deaths of hundreds of millions around the world.

Idiot!

He wasn't at all vague about the great depression and was dead on for the causation.

The revolutions in Western europe were a million miles from self evident, nobody else predicted them decades in advance.

Communism has never happened strike that comment from full fool.

He was an accurate visionary who caused no deaths at all around the world.

In stark contrast to the Empirialism trend that caused several hundred million deaths between 1400 and 1900. Perhaps as many as 600 million in total.

Do you even try to be real Hobbit or just spout shit and hope it might be true, maybe, some day, perhaps?

You apparently don't know shit about the history of the last 200 years.

BTW, why is it neocons are from the school of commyism and socialism? Ever wonder?

It IS a fact you know? Wanna own it or have it shoved down your throat?

[loosecannon]

The fact that you are a true Marxist is interesting, but your love affair with his economics is, frankly, pathetic. Go learn some real economics: http://www.mises.org/

5 string Jeff, no worries mate I already know far more about econ than you and your kids and grandkids will ever know.

Sleep well tyke.

[loosecannon]

Ok, so I talk in coherant sentences, make logical points, refute illogical points, and manage to translate the poorly spelled and composed post of another poster, all on about 5 hours' sleep, but because I think you're, well, wrong, to put it nicely, it must mean I'm stoned. How sophomoric. Either you're a college student who bows at the feet of people whose ambition stops at tenure or you're somebody who never matured past that phase.

No, you quoted a fully coherent sentence, and you accused me of comparing somebody to a troll i have no knowledge of.

So apologize, drop it or just stfu.

[SassyLady]

5 string Jeff, no worries mate I already know far more about econ than you and your kids and grandkids will ever know.

Sleep well tyke.

Still bored.

[loosecannon]

seems comrade cannon needs to read a few more threads, he might understand where people are coming from a little better. Would be interesting to see him and psycho square off. The marxist verses the legend in his own mind. :laugh2:

Gaffe you seem like a nice enough commie traitor, so why don't you just slink back to your commie embassy and encrypt messages for the kremlin, ok neoconartistcommietraitor?

Seems like YOU really need to read a few more threads so YOU know where people are coming from eh Comrade Commiegaffe?

You can earn the right to scold me, lecture me and maybe inform me when you get your shit together, ka Dudeski?

Neocons form a line on the right and salute Comrade Stalinbush! Upright! SeigHeil!@.

[Hobbit]

Idiot!

He wasn't at all vague about the great depression and was dead on for the causation.

Nope. He claimed it would be a part of the naturally occurring economic cycle spending out of control, when, in fact, it was credit artificially prolonging a high period followed by an unstable banking system intensifying the crash followed by government intervention artificially prolonging the low period. He also predicted the next one would be worse. I'm still waiting on that one. The idea that he perfectly predicted the Great Depression is one mainly prepetuated by those who practically worship Marx and his ideals. It's just like watching people talk about the wonders of Nostradamus.


The revolutions in Western europe were a million miles from self evident, nobody else predicted them decades in advance.

Not self-evident, self-fulfilling. The prediction came true because it was made, rather than the other way around. Marx's appeal to what later became the Eastern Bloc was what caused it to go communist. While his cause was a little less direct, it's like claiming somebody was a psychic for predicting a person's murder just before shooting him.


Communism has never happened strike that comment from full fool.

And the U.S.S.R. was what, then? What about China? Is this going to be the same tired argument that no communist country was actually communist and that if you just had the right people running it, it would work? Sorry, but I'm not riding in a thrice crashed plane just because you think you have a better pilot.


He was an accurate visionary who caused no deaths at all around the world.

I take it a Marxist, such as yourself, absolves his vision from the government slaughters, reprogramming, and downright painful propoganda required to enforce his vision on an unwilling populace. Gulags and Chinese soldier-police were both systems designed to torture or kill all who opposed the vision of Karl Marx.


In stark contrast to the Empirialism trend that caused several hundred million deaths between 1400 and 1900. Perhaps as many as 600 million in total.

So now comes the tired communist argument that communism isn't so bad because capitalist countries which used to be imperialistic killed a lot of people during their empire-building days. I'm not claiming that imperialists were all that great, either. In fact, they were inhumane dictators. They declared themselves lord of the land, natives be damned, and that was wrong. They even believed themselves to be inherantly superior, rather than simply more advanced. You cannot, however, excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. Murder may be horrible, but assault is still bad.


Do you even try to be real Hobbit or just spout shit and hope it might be true, maybe, some day, perhaps?

You apparently don't know shit about the history of the last 200 years.

BTW, why is it neocons are from the school of commyism and socialism? Ever wonder?

It IS a fact you know? Wanna own it or have it shoved down your throat?

Ladies and gentlemen, we observe here the sophomoric mind at its most self-destructive. After attempting to contain your nearly infantile rage at my insult to your hero, you finish your argument with a name-calling rant, labeling me with words you do not know the meaning of and statements you cannot back up. You also present faux facts that are unsupported by evidence, thus finally leeching away any credibility your argument ever had. I told you, insult my intelligence at your own peril. Many have crossed swords with me and won, but never through personal attacks and sophomoric insults.

You cannot win this argument at this point. I have learned your most provocative buttons and have successfully provoked you into making yourself look stupid. Any further arguments you have will be tainted by this prior bad behavior, and any attempt to convince anybody of anything will be an uphill battle that, judging by past performance, you will inevitably fail. Your worship of Karl Marx has clouded your thinking, and a clouded mind cannot hope to prevail against an informed community.

I am done with you for tonight. I need sleep before fatigue clouds my mind and I say something I regret.

[Hobbit]

No, you quoted a fully coherent sentence, and you accused me of comparing somebody to a troll i have no knowledge of.

So apologize, drop it or just stfu.

One more thing before sleep. I feel that I may have inadvertantly insulted you. If I insult you, I would like it to be intentional. I never accused you of comparing anybody to psychoblues. Instead, I merely translated an incoherant post comparing you to psychoblues. If you would calm your rage and uncloud your mind, your anger would not lead you to make such mistakes of understanding. Only with cool heads and a clear understanding of the others' posts can you prevail in any intelligent discussion.

[Nuc]

Why didn't you give the option of "Independent"? or "Other"? :lame2:

I am independent and don't like the direction the US is going (to the extent that I moved to a different country), but I don't blame Bush for it entirely. There are a lot of negative forces outside his control. However I think he has made some really poor moves during his presidency.

[Gaffer]

Gaffe you seem like a nice enough commie traitor, so why don't you just slink back to your commie embassy and encrypt messages for the kremlin, ok neoconartistcommietraitor?

Seems like YOU really need to read a few more threads so YOU know where people are coming from eh Comrade Commiegaffe?

You can earn the right to scold me, lecture me and maybe inform me when you get your shit together, ka Dudeski?

Neocons form a line on the right and salute Comrade Stalinbush! Upright! SeigHeil!@.

neoconartistcommietraitor is that a word? I've been called a lot of things but never that. Hell I can't even pronounce it. You keep up the creative name calling and I will stick to calling you comrade. It's your badge of honor wear it proudly.

[Gaffer]

Why didn't you give the option of "Independent"? or "Other"? :lame2:

I am independent and don't like the direction the US is going (to the extent that I moved to a different country), but I don't blame Bush for it entirely. There are a lot of negative forces outside his control. However I think he has made some really poor moves during his presidency.

I'm an independent too. But since it wasn't listed I went with repub. Because I am a conservative. I usually don't like the party line but its to the point where I will never vote democrat again for anything.

[krisy]

from the article:



IOW the entire basis for the articles claims is that media is measured according to it's coverage of issues measured against the voting record of the congress in dec 2005 (while the republicans controlled both houses of congress) by a liberal organizations standards of what liberal and conservative balance is.

That is three degrees of seperation from reality.

Your claim was that there had been several non partisan reports that identified the media as liberal. This report claims to be extruded thru two partisan filters or maybe three.

hey loose!

I have a feeling we won't agree on this subject in any way shape or form. I cannot be convinced. I will try to look at your link some more tho. The report that I put a link to was widely reported by the media itself. I know earlier in this thread you were given some more examples,but I have a feeling you won't be convinced either!

[Gunny]

Perpetrated by Saudis, with the odd Egyptian thrown in.

No Iraqis among them.

Yeah, the fact that they're all Arab, militant religious extremists mean nothing. That's like saying because someone who is from California commits a crime, there aren't any criminals in Texas.

[5stringJeff]

5 string Jeff, no worries mate I already know far more about econ than you and your kids and grandkids will ever know.

Sleep well tyke.

If you say so.

[loosecannon]

hey loose!

I have a feeling we won't agree on this subject in any way shape or form. I cannot be convinced. I will try to look at your link some more tho. The report that I put a link to was widely reported by the media itself. I know earlier in this thread you were given some more examples,but I have a feeling you won't be convinced either!

Krisy one of those examples was a duplicate of yours.

I do not need to convince you. You have a right to your opinion.

[loosecannon]

If you say so.

There is a capitalism thread.

if you know as much as what the definition of capitalism is then you will be way ahead of most of the other posters.

See you there.

[loosecannon]

neoconartistcommietraitor is that a word? I've been called a lot of things but never that. Hell I can't even pronounce it. You keep up the creative name calling and I will stick to calling you comrade. It's your badge of honor wear it proudly.

Fine, just so that you know that the neocons have their roots in the communist and socialist parties of the 70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon


Neoconservatism is a political movement, mainly in the United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administration of George W. Bush.[1]

The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism.

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history."

So next time you call somebody a trotskyite, a marxist, a commie, a socialist, just remember that if YOU are a neocon that describes yourself.

And it describes GWB, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and many other BA personalities.

Neocon means:

NewTrotskyite
NewMarxist

[Hobbit]

There is a capitalism thread.

if you know as much as what the definition of capitalism is then you will be way ahead of most of the other posters.

See you there.

Starting with you. Your definition of capitalism is stupid and contradicts the words of every economist except Marx, who you seem to hold in such reverence that it borders on religion.

As for neo-con, the wikipedia article quotes people who compare the movement to certain aspects of Trotskyism. It's quite a stretch to call the entire neoconservative movement Trotskyist. In fact, it's wrong.

And while we're at it, most of us on this board are against the neoconservative movement, as it fails to advance a truly conservative agenda and pretty much makes nothing but a bunch of big-government, fiscally irresponsible RINOs.

[gabosaurus]

Laughs at anyone who uses wikipedia for reference...

[Gunny]

Laughs at anyone who uses wikipedia for reference...

This coming from one with the political knowledge of a two-years old.

[loosecannon]

Starting with you. Your definition of capitalism is stupid and contradicts the words of every economist except Marx, who you seem to hold in such reverence that it borders on religion.

He is the most revered economist in world history. He invented much of the "science" and accurately predicted a big chunk of the next 100 years of capitalisms path.


As for neo-con, the wikipedia article quotes people who compare the movement to certain aspects of Trotskyism. It's quite a stretch to call the entire neoconservative movement Trotskyist. In fact, it's wrong.

But NewTrotskite and NewMarxist are dead on


And while we're at it, most of us on this board are against the neoconservative movement, as it fails to advance a truly conservative agenda and pretty much makes nothing but a bunch of big-government, fiscally irresponsible RINOs.

Good, then you oppose most everything Bush has done in 6 years. I did not see that reflected in the poll tho.

Bush is the pre eminent "fiscally irresponsible RINO" of all time.

[Hobbit]

He is the most revered economist in world history. He invented much of the "science" and accurately predicted a big chunk of the next 100 years of capitalisms path.

This part right here is wrong. Adam Smith is far more 'revered' than Karl Marx and was the father of all modern economic theory. Marx, on the other hand, invented a faulty system that, by the very nature of economics, is doomed to failure.

As far as Bush, I wouldn't call him a RINO. He came out pretty strong, lowering taxes, fighting for the country, appointing constitutional judges, and several other conservative values, but he abandoned fiscal responsibility, signed the McCain-Feingold idiocy (after stating that it was unconstitutional), went soft at a pillow on the border, and, on many other levels, pissed me off. I'm still with him on the war, tax cuts, and a couple of other things, but his second term has been a huge disappointment.

[loosecannon]

This part right here is wrong. Adam Smith is far more 'revered' than Karl Marx and was the father of all modern economic theory. Marx, on the other hand, invented a faulty system that, by the very nature of economics, is doomed to failure.

As far as Bush, I wouldn't call him a RINO. He came out pretty strong, lowering taxes, fighting for the country, appointing constitutional judges, and several other conservative values, but he abandoned fiscal responsibility, signed the McCain-Feingold idiocy (after stating that it was unconstitutional), went soft at a pillow on the border, and, on many other levels, pissed me off. I'm still with him on the war, tax cuts, and a couple of other things, but his second term has been a huge disappointment.


well according to John Keynes, Adam Smith was just a macheavelian type apologist for the new royal class of capitalists. In fact Keynes said that almost all economists were exactly that. And in contrast between the two Keynes was three times the intellect that Smith was.

As for Bush, How do you reconcile his war, his tax cuts and his deficits with your statement:


most of us on this board are against the neoconservative movement, as it fails to advance a truly conservative agenda and pretty much makes nothing but a bunch of big-government, fiscally irresponsible RINOs.

Bush's war is the epitome of neoconservative planning and agenda focus, his war and his deficits are characterized perfectly by your phrase "big-government, fiscally irresponsible RINOs".

The government is bigger today than ever, thanks to Bush.

The nation is at the crest of fiscal irresponsibility, thanks to Bush.

And don't conservatives believe in isolationism and not getting embroiled in foreign entanglments.

Don't conservatives favor containment over elective foreign wars.

Bush ISN't a conservative, he is a neocon reactionary.

So how do you reconcile support for Bush AND his neocon regime while striking a true conservative posture?

[Hobbit]

well according to John Keynes, Adam Smith was just a macheavelian type apologist for the new royal class of capitalists. In fact Keynes said that almost all economists were exactly that. And in contrast between the two Keynes was three times the intellect that Smith was.

Nope, Smith is the master. Keynes was a populist, and while his ideas weren't entirely bad, they were counter-productive to the system of capitalism. It was a pick your poison moment, and I'm still not sure we made the right choice. The Depression's sting was lessened, but prolonged, and the long-standing effects of the New Deal are drawing closer and closer to collapse.


As for Bush, How do you reconcile his war, his tax cuts and his deficits with your statement:



Bush's war is the epitome of neoconservative planning and agenda focus, his war and his deficits are characterized perfectly by your phrase "big-government, fiscally irresponsible RINOs".

The government is bigger today than ever, thanks to Bush.

The nation is at the crest of fiscal irresponsibility, thanks to Bush.

And don't conservatives believe in isolationism and not getting embroiled in foreign entanglments.

Don't conservatives favor containment over elective foreign wars.

Bush ISN't a conservative, he is a neocon reactionary.

So how do you reconcile support for Bush AND his neocon regime while striking a true conservative posture?

None of that has anything to do with war or tax cuts. We're at war because people want to kill us, and lower taxes are a key part of conservatism. You're essentially trying to give everybody a black or white choice. Either you oppose every part of the Bush administration or you support every part of it. The war, the judges, the tax cuts, and a few other things were good moves that strengthened the country and the economy and are also perfectly in line with conservative values. Other things he did, such as pork approval, expansion of the Department of Education, and his unwillingness to take the border seriously are bad for the country and directly against conservative values. Tax cuts, the War on Islamic Fascism, and the desire to appoint Constitutional judges are anything but neoconservative. They are conservative.

[loosecannon]

Nope, Smith is the master. Keynes was a populist, and while his ideas weren't entirely bad, they were counter-productive to the system of capitalism. It was a pick your poison moment, and I'm still not sure we made the right choice. The Depression's sting was lessened, but prolonged, and the long-standing effects of the New Deal are drawing closer and closer to collapse.

talk about a false choice, and a fictional one. Keynes ideas about intervention are absolutely correct. They weren't even new and had been discussed on the public record before the founding of the Federal reserve in 1913.

Keynes ideas about aggregate demand driving the economy is 100% correct.

The New Deal isn't what ended the depression in case you are implying that. And neither Keynes ideas or the new deal corrected the depression. The war spending and the forceful ramp up of the economy did.




None of that has anything to do with war or tax cuts. We're at war because people want to kill us, and lower taxes are a key part of conservatism.

Of course it does have something to with war and taxes. We are at war with Iraq because Bush wanted to be a war president and steal some oil.

And sure lower taxes are part of conservatism, along with lower SPENDING. Once you do the first without the last you end up fiscally irresponsible which was your stated complaint, remember?

So after discounting all of the things you criticized about neocons you are left with only one thing Bush did that you are proud of....he appointed judges.

Duh, every president appoints judges.

Do you wish he had managed to get Harriet Miers onto the Supreme Court?

Oh and you still like that completely unneccesary elective war with Iraq because you think Islamofascists are wuntin ta kill us.

Yeah scary huh? Like bees and spiders and snakes.

Autos are a faaaaar greater danger than islamofascists. The whole crock was cooked up to fool the most guilible 25% of Americans cuz nobody else would ever believe that shit!

But hey 25% is about as many as still approve of Bush's presidency, so don't knock the value of a mere 25%.

[Hobbit]

talk about a false choice, and a fictional one. Keynes ideas about intervention are absolutely correct. They weren't even new and had been discussed on the public record before the founding of the Federal reserve in 1913.

Keynes ideas about aggregate demand driving the economy is 100% correct.

The New Deal isn't what ended the depression in case you are implying that. And neither Keynes ideas or the new deal corrected the depression. The war spending and the forceful ramp up of the economy did.





Of course it does have something to with war and taxes. We are at war with Iraq because Bush wanted to be a war president and steal some oil.

And sure lower taxes are part of conservatism, along with lower SPENDING. Once you do the first without the last you end up fiscally irresponsible which was your stated complaint, remember?

So after discounting all of the things you criticized about neocons you are left with only one thing Bush did that you are proud of....he appointed judges.

Duh, every president appoints judges.

Do you wish he had managed to get Harriet Miers onto the Supreme Court?

Oh and you still like that completely unneccesary elective war with Iraq because you think Islamofascists are wuntin ta kill us.

Yeah scary huh? Like bees and spiders and snakes.

Autos are a faaaaar greater danger than islamofascists. The whole crock was cooked up to fool the most guilible 25% of Americans cuz nobody else would ever believe that shit!

But hey 25% is about as many as still approve of Bush's presidency, so don't knock the value of a mere 25%.

Everything you've listed above has been repeated ad nauseum by people who at least sound smarter than you, and none of it washes. I'm not wasting my time with your drivel anymore. Everybody knows you're full of crap, and I have better uses of my time.

[loosecannon]

Everything you've listed above has been repeated ad nauseum by people who at least sound smarter than you, and none of it washes. I'm not wasting my time with your drivel anymore. Everybody knows you're full of crap, and I have better uses of my time.

IOW you surrender unconditionally, and admit you were (wrong) by default.

Kewl!

[glockmail]

Saddam's guys and bin laden's guys net at least 100 times, and saddam gave bin laden access to traing and weapons. Is that what enemies do?

Israel is our most important ally in the middle east, possibly the world. Do you suggest that we ignore that relationship?

It looks like Geoge Tenet has proven me right on ths once again.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

"GEORGE TENET'S JUST released book, At the Center of the Storm, has created quite a stir. Over the past few days, a myriad of news accounts have referenced various snippets of the former director of Central Intelligence's self-serving collection of remembrances. But here is something you probably have not heard or read about Tenet's book: it confirms that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. And, according to Tenet, "there was more than enough evidence to give us real concern" about it too."

[Abbey Marie]

This is worth highlighting...


It looks like Geoge Tenet has proven me right on ths once again.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

"GEORGE TENET'S JUST released book, At the Center of the Storm, has created quite a stir. Over the past few days, a myriad of news accounts have referenced various snippets of the former director of Central Intelligence's self-serving collection of remembrances. But here is something you probably have not heard or read about Tenet's book: it confirms that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. And, according to Tenet, "there was more than enough evidence to give us real concern" about it too."

[glockmail]

You won't hear that perspective from the libs.

[Abbey Marie]

You won't hear that perspective from the libs.

What a dilemma for the Bushphobics.

Tenet is generally attacking Bush- so it's good and he's a credible source.

But... but... he's supporting Bush's claim that there was a link, so it's bad, and he's not a credible source.


What to do... :lalala:

[glockmail]

As I recall I had several lengthy debates about this issue, some nearly as rabid as a gay debate. Where are these fools now? :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Figured I would take a poll of those who support President Bush or not. And please be honest.

I'm surprized at how this turned out.

I voted republican, opposed to much of what he does. I truely HATE his handling of the border, and his globalist north American union agenda, and I'm not 100% on board with the war in Iraq. Those topics are huge, so no, I'm not really happy with him at all.