Can I Just Get The NEWS?!?

[Diesel]

Especially in these politically charged times, I've been finding it increasingly difficult to just get the news. As recently as 10 years ago, you turned on the news or picked up the paper, and were greeted by the relevant facts, presented without opinion or hidden agenda. Now, you turn on Fox News Channel, and you get "conservative Republican" news. You turn on MSNBC, and you get "liberal Democrat" news. What the hell happened to objective journalism?!?

Every story now is presented with some slant on the news, designed to appeal to a particular demographic. What happened to just presenting the news, and letting the viewer form their own opinion? What happened to a newsperson presenting the story objectively?

It used to be, not so long ago, that the reporter was an invisible entity, simply there to be the messenger. They were interchangable, and if an old one left, a new one took their place and presented the same story.

Not so anymore, with the Chris Matthews' and the Bill O'Reilly's and the Sean Hannity's of the world with their own platforms to present what is essentially their own opinions as news, based on the fact that their respective networks are classifying these shows as "news programs".

Not that there's anything wrong with those programs, if that's what you enjoy watching. It's just that I don't give most people credit to recognize and be critical of the difference between news and opinion, especially when they are told that what they're seeing is a "news show". The sad fact is that most American's are grossly uninformed when it comes to current events, and poll after poll, and survey after survey, only go to prove that point more conclusively. If the average American couldn't point out Iraq on a globe, should we expect them to be able to recognize the difference between opinion and fact?

Why has it become essentially impossible for the average citizen to get the news... just the story of the facts of the event... without being told what to think about it or how to feel about it?

[mthrlangl]

I dunno, Dan. I think the slant has always been there, but, like everything else, "news" is more accessible/broadcastable. Think back to Yellow Journalism. (Sadly, I had to go check that that was with the Spanish-American War. I've been out of school too long.) News, unfortunately, is just like everything else - a sellable commodity.

[Diesel]

I don't remember it being this way 10, 15, 20 years ago. I remember the news being very straightforward, with journalists being in the Walter Cronkite tradition, where they were just there to deliver the news with objective professionalism.
There will also be opinion shows, but they were never presented as factual "news programs" as they are today by the various networks.
It's a shame that everything is presented with a hint of "agenda", instead of just getting a factual recount of the events.

[BRiT]

Any possibility of the memories being off or perhaps being a bit naive to the facts back then? I only ask this as I rarely paid detailed attention to the news years ago. Though I do have to agree that today it seems more slanted/biased than five years ago. Or maybe I've grown to be cynical.

[Diesel]

Sure, it's possible. But considering that I was taking journalism courses about 11 years ago where popular news media outlets were being cited as credible due to their "consistent objectiveness", I honestly just don't think it's revisionist memory on my part.

I just honestly don't remember it being like this. I remember objective reporting from most news outlets, including CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. Not everything was tied to an agenda.
Honestly, I doubt 15 years ago if the Russian school hostage crisis from a few days ago would've been reported as "vindication of the Bush administration's stance against our so-called allies in the War on Terror", as I've seen it called in several right-ist news outlets in the past 2 days.

Not everything that happens in this world is tied to a political group, but if you were to watch the news, everything is reported as being the result of some party's policy in this or that. Crime is a result of the right's position on automatic weapons... Childhood illness is a result of the left's stance on abortion... perhaps not that extreme, but there always seems to be some link to politics, even for news items that have no apparent link to politics.

I definitely notice this has gotten a lot worse since 9/11, but I've honestly noticed it since the Clinton administration, where it got really bad towards the end. I'm guessing it really started to hit the consciousness during the first Gulf War, with CNN's coverage. That was, IMHO, the pinnacle of objective reporting from the last 30 years. Since then, it's gone right downhill.

[helium heart]

Wow Diesel, I think you've articulated really well what a lot of people are thinking but not expressing or challenging.
Why are so many putting up with crap news media and not speaking out ?
The hunt for quality, unbiased, opinion-free, up-to-the-minute, global+local news sees me channel surfing like some kind of hyperactive, attention deficit disorder freak. We have cable so BBC World News, CNN, and Sky have become staples.
I don't think I'm an obssessive news hound but I do like to keep up with current affairs/issues, global conflicts, medical break-throughs, techno trends etc,etc,etc
A few years ago at Uni our tutors (international politics) urged us to be discerning in all news choices, to question everything, to be critical of all media i.e:
ask, who wrote it ? why ? what's their agenda/hidden agenda ? what are their qualifications?
Who are they affilliated with ? any biases ? is there a conflict of interest? are they arguing to a point ? are their arguments cogent, persuasive, valid ? have the presented facts been verified by other reliable sources ? and so it goes on and on etc
Applying these standards helps keep me on track and afloat in a sea of mis-information, obnoxious, unsolicited opinion and out-of-control egos...hello Bill O'Rielly.
I really hope the generations coming up behind us learn the skills to recognize BS and have the energy to fight mediocrity in news media.

[MO]

Helium- I like that idea.
I wish more people gave it critical thought before taking things as an absolute truth.

Dan- I have noticed it, too. Fox News is notorious for it.

And Katie Couric and Matt Lauer seem to report lots of fluff. I don't really care about which couple they want to pick to get married on TV or an interview with Paris Hilton.

I do wonder though, if part of it is growing up and being more aware of it.

[BRiT]

This SinFest (http://www.sinfest.net/) comic just about sums it all up:
http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20040911.gif (http://www.sinfest.net)

[Diesel]

That's a great comic, BRiT.

Also related, I was just reading through Google's news site, which I regularly scan for a quick summary of the day's news items. Apparently, Google is also unable to separate news from opinion.

I found this piece, listed as a main story under the U.S. news section, along with articles in National Geographic and USA Today:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409131115.asp

Now, I have nothing against the National Review, but when you have banner ads for George Bush, and unflattering cartoons entitled "Kerry Waffles" on your site, as well as criticisms of left-ist press outlets, it ceases to be considered news, as it's obviously not objective reporting. I don't really blame the National Review for this... they are what they are, and they don't seem to be pretending to be a news site. Rather it's Google's fault for having that site in their list of "news sites" among sites like Reuters, USA Today, Bloomberg, and various legitimate television and newspaper sites.

Maybe Google is just as confused about what constitutes legitimate news nowadays as we are?

[painogb]

I am only 14 but still find that in order to find out what is going on in the world with out the policial input is to listen to the BBC in the morning. It is really verry scary when I listen to that in the moring an dthen talk current events with poeple in school who read the newspaper that morning.

[monsieurjohn]

i'm not as sensitive to the slant of different programs as some people... maybe i see through the slant to what they're talking about and just ignore it. plus i'm viewing it through my own filter, i tend to ignore intimations and focuses that i disagree with anyway

of course, i can see the slant in the national review, but that's what they're there for.

[anachein]

It seems to me that it has always been worse in an election year as far as what I call Marketed News goes. Also, just as retailers seem every year to start marketing for the holidays earlier and earlier, the news bias begins it political slant the second that someone drops the "hint" that they "might" be "considering" running for office.

I'd have to agree that it doesn't just seem to relate to politics these days, though. I've come to realize that most people(and yes I know one shouldn't generalize) want to be told what to think, eat, buy, feel, vote and so on... They haven't the time educate themselves about anything. So, even if a reporter or a reporting agency is unbiased or at least attempts to be their marketing guys are at some level recognizing that everyone belongs to a demographic and which market share is going to do the most for us...

Personally, I've given up on televison if I'm looking for anything of substance at all. Rarely if ever turn the damn thing on these days, however I am aware that it's not only television that is guilty of this but it does seem to be the most blatantly biased reporting is done there.

The good news is..(pardon the pun) Recently I've seen polls regarding bias in the news arena and online petitions to specific so-called "news agencies" regarding their biased reporting so there's some hope that it will swing around again.

But, it's about money and marketing and as long as people believe that "reality" television shows are reality, and televised wrestling is real there will always be a demographic that needs to be told what to think about the news.

[GoingNova]

My hobby is politics. I put a lot of thought and research into my vote. All of the following information I remember hearing or reading at one time or another. It took me more than two hours to compose this, and I had to dig relatively deep. It amazes me that none of this, or at least most of it, has never been put on the main stream news. 250 Decorated Veterans, as high in rank as Admiral, speak out against Kerry, and the main stream media does not give them so much as a peep, except to dismiss them as "Right Wing Spin". Then "The Today Show" gives Kitty Kelly, whose main source was debunked before she even went on the air, 3 ENTIRE DAYS! Dan Rather has the audacity to air a nonsense story based on forged documents, relating to a dead man who can never refute the story, and this is done on a prime time news show, but all of this is kept relatively silent.

The FACTS - NOT SPIN - On the War in Iraq

In 1991, the United States, along with a large coalition, went to war with Iraq to force Saddam from Kuwait. We won the war, and Saddam Hussein was defeated. The UN Security Council Resolution 687 declared that Iraq accept unconditionally, the demolition of its weapons of mass destruction. This was to be overseen by UNSCOM, a team of international weapons experts. Iraq accepted the resolution, but according to UNSCOM, Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what was called "presidential sites", and even seized their documents. Saddam gets away with this.

Then, in 1998, Saddam decided to stop cooperating with UNSCOM altogether until the Security Council lifted the oil embargo against it. That led to the exit of inspectors from Iraq. Again, the UN does nothing.

November 2002, three entire years without ANY inspections, the UN, under pressure from the United States, passes UN Resolution 1441 and sends them back in. What was the point? Three years have elapsed. Why bother?

Saddam broke the conditions of Resolution 687. President Bush had all the legal and moral authorization he needed to attack Iraq because Saddam was not in compliance with the Gulf War's terms of surrender, therefore making the them null and void, due to breach of contract. When that happens, you revert back to the state prior to this contract, which was war. If I go to a judge to get a warrant for an arrest, and lie to the judge, then the warrant the judge issues me becomes null and void, and the arrest is overturned.

That, and that reason alone, was enough to invade Iraq. Combined with the fact that Saddam has used WMDs against his own people(the Kurds). He's used them against his neighbors (in the war of Iran vs Iraq). He's demonstrated an intention to take the territory of his neighbors (when he seized Kuwait in 1991). All of these things lead to a rational belief that he had WMDs.

Where are the WMDs now? Well, look at the facts:

* Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what he called presidential sites (gee, what do you think was in those sites, embarrassing photos of Saddam in silk panties, or WMDs?)
* So first you have inspectors being told where they may and may not inspect (that sounds very effective huh?), and then Saddam EXPELS THE INSPECTORS ALTOGETHER in 1998

Is it or is it not reasonable to deduce he had the WMDs in the Presidential Sites? Then he expels all inspections in 1998. So, from 1998 until we invaded in March 2003, you don't think he had time to hide or transport them any weapons he may have had? They are generally believed to have been moved into either Iran or Syria. Can that this be proven? Not at this time, but do you think it is so unreasonable? Do you think we should have waited until some terrorist used a chemical weapon in the NYC Subway before we act?

Based upon all the information I have just laid out (but wait, there is more below), doesn't it seem more reasonable to invade Iraq and lose SOLDIERS, damage ANOTHER COUNTRY, and pay money to REBUILD THAT COUNTRY, rather than have WOMEN AND CHILDREN in OUR COUNTRY get killed in a shopping mall, and then spend money to REBUILD OUR COUNTRY?

The link between Iraq and 911 is simple: Terrorists do not come FROM a country, they receive AID FROM a country:

http://dkhunt.tripod.com/totalvictoryforthehomeland/id5.html

http://dkhunt.tripod.com/totalvictoryforthehomeland/id6.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/8/125457.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/121047.shtml

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199222913.html?from=storyr hs&oneclick=true

Iraq was trying to buy weapons just before the war:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm

That brings us to our bosom buddies, the French, Germans, and Russians. Why would France, Germany and Russia oppose the war? Because they believed there was no WMDs? Nope, they could not care less. They opposed the war because they WERE MAKING MILLIONS FROM SADDAM. They intentionally misled Saddam, saying they could prevent the United States from attacking. If they had intervened in our behalf, they could have prevented the war! Had they told Saddam, our true intentions, which could not have been any more apparent, Saddam may very well have changed his tune. But instead, they told him we were not serious. They decided to make as much money as they could before the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq595.htm

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/28/164443.shtml

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6344726%5E1702,00.html

In closing, the loss of our soldiers in Iraq is indeed tragic. But when you are dealing with enemies that behead people, kill children, and have no respect for life in general, I say it is better to fight them on foreign soil, and lose soldiers rather than civilian. If you disagree with me, vote for Kerry.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207756/posts

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/237677p-203925c.html

[Diesel]

It's kinda funny that you post that these are the "facts" using such links as www.opinionjournal.com, as well as sites hosted on Tripod. Not exactly a bastion of reliable news sources.

You fell into exactly the same trap as most of the people I'm complaining about when I started this topic, in that you read something and assume it's reliable, because it's opinion presented as fact.

It's also awfully condescending of you to sum up things so "neatly", equating disagreeing with you and voting for Kerry as stating it's better to lose civilians rather than soldiers. That's an invalid correlation if I ever saw one.

Things are not so cut and dry, black and white, and voting for Kerry does not equal one saying it's better to have civilians die due to terrorism. Simply because you consider politics to be your "hobby" doesn't mean your opinion is more valid or holds any more weight, nor does it mean that you're any more informed than anyone else who follows current events, so don't try to box in someone to that mold just because they disagree with you.

[jourgenson]

Not to memtion that this timeline begins only in 1991. Which ignores the fact that the united states put both sadam and osama as well as the taliban in power. And also that the US told sadam that it could care less about Kuwait, basically trying to get him to invade it. These are not black and white issues and the origins of the conflicts in the middle east go back dozens, if not hundreds, of years. So invading each country we don't like in a quick war is probably not going to solve anything in the long term. It is sort of a shame that our country doersn't seem to be able to look more than 4-8 years into the future due to the limit on presidential terms.

[GoingNova]

The fact that politics is my hobby does not mean I any smarter than anyone else, but rather it simply means I take the time to look into these issues before forming an opinion. Someone watching 60 minutes for a half hour a week simply is not privy to information that someone who spends 20 hours each week gathering information is. Combine that with the fact that, the information they are receiving is usually biased. I spend over 20 hours a week listening and reading politics (I also listen to all sides - Yes, Air America). That does not make any smarter than you, just more informed.

You cannot discredit my sources when what you would call "valid" sources will not even bother to report this news. Although they were posted on that site, they did in fact credit The Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal (I am referring the tripod, which basically reprinted that information from a aforementioned news agency). Because a web site or a source has the word "opinion" it means that nothing it states is factual? It appears that you dismissed these links before checking them out.

The fact that the United States put those people in power means absolutely nothing at all. Your parents had you. If you grow up and become a mass murderer, are they responsible? They created you. Were Hitler’s parents responsible for his actions?

In regard to me making the matter Black and white, it is what it is. As I stated, the terms of surrender were violated, giving the United States every right in the world to remove Saddam. It makes no difference whether you think it valid or not, it IS a valid, legal and moral justification.

In my opinion, the problem with the world is the "middle of the road" people, who are so afraid of offending someone, or not seeing it "from their prospective". People who refuse to acknowledge black and white issues when they are in fact black and white issues do more damage than good. Am I saying everything is black and white? No. But there is no middle between good and evil. From what prospective would Saddam chopping people's hands off, throwing people off roofs, threatening to murder or in fact murdering relatives to coerce people, having his sons rape girls at whim, or him gassing people be a "gray area"?

I cannot remember who said it, but it has been said that no other country in the history of the world has ever amassed more power and wealth than the United States, and used that power and wealth in a more humane way. Are we perfect? We are, far from perfect. Show me a country that is perfect, and I will move there tomorrow. But the United States is the best country on God's Earth. More countries have followed our example, and implemented copies of our Constitution even over countries three and four times our age. More importantly, no matter what class you are born into, you may rise above that class, and better yourself and your loved ones. That simply does not exist anywhere else in the world at the level it exists in the United States - fact, not opinion. It certainly does not exist anywhere in Europe, where the "wealth redistribution, tax to death, socialist mentality" has taken hold.

Black and white? Is flying a plane into a building and murdering 3000 men women and children a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking over a school and butchering children while they try to escape a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is blowing up a bomb, intentionally killing school children while US Troops are giving them candy a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking a man, tying him up, and cutting off is head while he writhes and screams for mercy a Black, a White, or a Gray Area? Under what circumstances are ANY of those things justified? This is what our enemies do, and you expect me to sit back and wonder why do they do this? What their motivation is? Whatthe United States did to these people to cause them do this? Incidentally, if for some God Forsaken reason, US Troops ever did engage in such activity, would you be able to film Americans dancing and singing in the streets, celebrating it? Or, for that matter, Is celebrating these horrendous acts a Black, a White, or a Gray area?

Kerry is an internationalist. He has said in the first debate, that a President must "Pass a Global Test" before he can take action. If you agree with that, then by all means vote for him. I do not. I believe the President of the United States is beholden to the people of the United States. Not the UN, which is the most corrupt organization on the face of the Earth. Not France. Not Germany. Not Russia. Not ANYONE but the people of the United States. What is Kerry’s opinion on Iraq? Well, take your pick. He has had an opinion to satisfy all of us, because he has changed his stance so many times. It depends on whom he is speaking to. If it benefits him to pro war, he is. If it benefits him to be anti war, he is. If nothing else, please give credit to Bush for his stance on Iraq in so much that believes that the war was in the best interest of the country. He acts on core beliefs, not polls. Again, that is a fact, not an opinion. If you really think he is there solely as a source for oil, then you are either misinformed, so blinded by hatred for a man that you don’t care for the truth, or ignorant. You may be all three.

Also, please understand, without divulging too much personal information, I am from NY, and I lost many personal friends on 9-11. It affected me, and my loved ones, directly. The issue of terrorism and the war on Iraq are close to my heart. I have personally spoken to President Bush and therefore I have very strong opinions. If I am offending anyone, or if I am coming off as arrogant, please forgive me. That is not my intention.

[Diesel]

Wow! Where to start?!?
I think that is quite possibly the most self-serving, self-agrandizing, self-promoting post I have seen in my 4 1/2 years on this forum. You managed to try to take every single opportunity to point out any instance you could to try to demonstrate how you are more informed than anyone else's, how your involvement in the issue is more important than anyone else's, how your position is superior to anyone else's, and how your opinion should be exaulted above all others because you have the "facts" that no one else has.

You cannot discredit my sources when what you would call "valid" sources will not even bother to report this news.
How can you discredit *my* sources when I never actually mentioned any? You have no idea what sources I would consider valid, other than that I find yours questionable, since the ones I pointed out aren't actually news sources, but opinion sources.
But then, you're "more informed" than others, so how dare I challenge?

In my opinion, the problem with the world is the "middle of the road" people, who are so afraid of offending someone, or not seeing it "from their prospective". People who refuse to acknowledge black and white issues when they are in fact black and white issues do more damage than good.
In my opinion, the problem with the world is people who are so closed minded that they can't see that there are important and critical subtlties to issues involving people, and try to force others into seeing an issue in black and white when it's simply not that way at all.

If you really think he is there solely as a source for oil, then you are either misinformed, so blinded by hatred for a man that you don’t care for the truth, or ignorant. You may be all three.
Thanks again. You've proven my above statments perfectly. It's incredibly condescending and presumptive to think that your opinion is the only right one, and to not leave room for the fact that other people might not believe the same things you do, and to then call them ignorant for not thinking as you do... nice touch.

While I may not agree with you for your beliefs, I respect your right to have them. The funny part is that it's the exact same type of freedoms that you think make this country as great as it is ("But the United States is the best country on God's Earth.") that you're attacking others for exercising.

On a personal note, I find it absolutely disgusting and offensive that you would provoke your proximity to the events of 9-11 to try to show that your opinion "counts that much more", because that's certainly the way you are coming off. A good deal of us, myself included, are from the same area, lived through the same events, and lost others close to us. Furthermore, there are millions of people in this country who had a stake in the attacks, whether personal, emotional, or nationalistic, who were not physically close to the events, but who still had just as deep a bond as those who were physically there. The entire country takes the issue of terrorism seriously now. You're not a unique snowflake in this issue and this situation, so don't try to make yourself stand out by making it seem your involvement is more personal than anyone else's, because it isn't.

[meezercat]

I believe the President of the United States is beholden to the people of the United States. Not the UN, which is the most corrupt organization on the face of the Earth. Not France. Not Germany. Not Russia. Not ANYONE but the people of the United States.

This is a load of crap. Foreign relations is a VERY important part of the President's job.
It's a very important part of any national leader's job, but even more so for the U.S. President.

But if you want to talk about the shambles of a domestic situation we have going on here, by all means go right ahead. Because Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, he's all but forgotten about the Americans. Oh, wait, except for the wealthy ones.

[painogb]

Black and white? Is flying a plane into a building and murdering 3000 men women and children a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking over a school and butchering children while they try to escape a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is blowing up a bomb, intentionally killing school children while US Troops are giving them candy a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking a man, tying him up, and cutting off is head while he writhes and screams for mercy a Black, a White, or a Gray Area? Under what circumstances are ANY of those things justified?

It all depends on your point of view. Most americans think of the french, dutc ec.t freedom fighters of WWII heros. Men and women who risked their lives to weaken the occupational army in their country. How would they do this? Cutting communication lines attacking lightly armed convoys and blowing up things vital to the German army. Why weren't they killing children? Because they were THEIR children. So your Black and White all depends on which side you are on. To us the freedom fighters of WWII's deeds were white. But they Iraqie's doing similar deeds are black it is all about view point.

Another thing this topic was started against politically slated news and you seem to be getting yours from places that this topic was complaing about. Now admitedly i didn't veiw them but I plan to.

[jourgenson]

The fact that the United States put those people in power means absolutely nothing at all. Your parents had you. If you grow up and become a mass murderer, are they responsible? They created you. Were Hitler’s parents responsible for his actions?


In this case it mean these are people the U.S. put in power and were allies until we betrayed them. the taliban was ignored as soon as the soviet union was desolved and this allowed it to fester and gain hate for the u.s.. Iraq was betrayed when we began to send arms to iran (iraq's mortal enemy) was well as iraq. Then we further betrayed iraq, by convincing them that we coulnd't care less about the dictatorship of kuwait in order to creatye a reason to go to war.

just because a country is ruled by evil, bloodthirsty people has not been a reason, historically, to conquer them. even hitler was allowed to stay in power for years until he started taking things that mattered to western europe. If it was then the u.s. would be forced to deal with north korea and half of africa just for starters. the us will not do this because it can't go after real dangers like north korea because they actually wmds and the u.s has no vested interest in really helping the peoples of africa or south america.

[GoingNova]

Wow! Where to start?!?
I think that is quite possibly the most self-serving, self-agrandizing, self-promoting post I have seen in my 4 1/2 years on this forum.

Resorting to person attacks is always a great way to debate. You start out not by addressing any of my points directly, but with a personal attack. That really weakens your whole argument.

You managed to try to take every single opportunity to point out any instance you could to try to demonstrate how you are more informed than anyone else's, how your involvement in the issue is more important than anyone else's, how your position is superior to anyone else's, and how your opinion should be exaulted above all others because you have the "facts" that no one else has.

I merely said that I spend a lot of time listening to and reading about Politics. If you dispute that someone who watches a half hour of 60 minutes can gather as much information as a person who spends 20 hours a week reading, watching, and listening to various news organaztions, then please enligthen me. I would love to be able to get that much information in a half hour. The "person who watches a half hour of 60 minutes" is a generalization . It refers to people who watch a little bit of news and think they are informed. You keep saying I think I am better than everyone else, when I never said that, then you begin your rebute with a personal attack. Who is arrogant and condescending?

How can you discredit *my* sources when I never actually mentioned any? You have no idea what sources I would consider valid, other than that I find yours questionable, since the ones I pointed out aren't actually news sources, but opinion sources.

Had you bothered to check out these sources, you would have seen that they were infact valid. Apparently you can determine if a source is valid or not by simply looking at the title of the link. And you call me arrogant? For the record:

Tripod link one - at the bottom - Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal Edictorial Page
Tripod link two - at the top - Reprinted from The Weekly Standard

There were 11 links mentioned. You had a problem with 3, the two tripods, and the opinion journal. You comletely ignored the fact that the remain 8 all came from major news sources, and implied that the foundation of my argument was based on the three you wrongfully discredited. I deduce this from your statement "It's kinda funny that you post that these are the "facts" using such links as www.opinionjournal.com, as well as sites hosted on Tripod. Not exactly a bastion of reliable news sources. . Actually, what is kind of funny is that someone can make that statement when obviously they did not bother to check the sources.


But then, you're "more informed" than others, so how dare I challenge?

Where in my entire post do I say that no one has the right to challenge me? Another assumtion on your part. You know what they say about assuming.....

In my opinion, the problem with the world is people who are so closed minded that they can't see that there are important and critical subtlties to issues involving people, and try to force others into seeing an issue in black and white when it's simply not that way at all.

Thanks again. You've proven my above statments perfectly. It's incredibly condescending and presumptive to think that your opinion is the only right one, and to not leave room for the fact that other people might not believe the same things you do, and to then call them ignorant for not thinking as you do... nice touch.

That proves your statement? Then you have a pretty weak statement. The beginning of the sentence begins with IN MY OPINION. So let me get this straight, in YOUR opininon, anyone who "think(s) that your(his/her) opinion is the only right one" is "incredibly condescending and presumptive"? That is idiotic! Of course I think my opinion is the only right one, otherwise what the hell is the point of having an opinion? If I DIDN'T think that my opinion was right, then I would be an idiot to defend it! You can still be open minded and have a strong belief in values. Case in point, I was as far left as you can get only 8 years ago. I used to be anti-gun, pro UN, pro choice, if it was a liberal cause, I was for it. But, because I have an OPEN MIND, unlike some of the people in this thread, I was able to do a 180. You see, I had a very strong belief in my liberal views, until someone was able to convince me otherwise. But to say that because I think I am right, I am condescending and presumptive is really, well, very condescending and presumptive!

While I may not agree with you for your beliefs, I respect your right to have them. The funny part is that it's the exact same type of freedoms that you think make this country as great as it is ("But the United States is the best country on God's Earth.") that you're attacking others for exercising.

Really now, who did I attack? Because I post my opinions, I attacked someone? Who? In a debate, both sides post their side of the story. YOU resorted to attacks, not me. Saying that someone, directed to no one in particular, may be "ignorant" is hardly a personal attack, and is certainly not comparable to "most self-serving, self-agrandizing, self-promoting, disgusting and offensive",which you directed directly to me. The proof is right here for all to read.

On a personal note, I find it absolutely disgusting and offensive that you would provoke your proximity to the events of 9-11 to try to show that your opinion "counts that much more", because that's certainly the way you are coming off. A good deal of us, myself included, are from the same area, lived through the same events, and lost others close to us. Furthermore, there are millions of people in this country who had a stake in the attacks, whether personal, emotional, or nationalistic, who were not physically close to the events, but who still had just as deep a bond as those who were physically there. The entire country takes the issue of terrorism seriously now. You're not a unique snowflake in this issue and this situation, so

n't try to make yourself stand out by making it seem your involvement is more personal than anyone else's, because it isn't.

With all due respect, HOW DARE YOU SIR! HOW DARE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT! You do not know me. You do not know my situation. You have the AUDACITY to call my ending statement disgusting? Do not say that someone who had several people they loved ripped from their lives on that horrible day, or someone who watched a fellow human being jump out of a window in utter desperation and splatter on the floor beneath their feet, NEVER say that people like that do not have the right to say that 9-11 effected him or her more personally then everyone else. Your statement about the millions of people in this country who had a stake in the attacks and have as deep as a bond as those who were physically there is without a doubt, one of the stupidist. coldest, and aberrant things I have ever read! Using your analogy would mean that we, as Americans,who have, as a country, experienced 9-11, have as deep of a bond about Beslan as those poor Russians who had their children machine-gunned down before their eyes! THAT IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS!

That is all I have to say to you on this matter.

[GoingNova]

Sorry, I was trying to reply to this post and I hit the wrong button, so this post was accidentally deleted. - meezercat

Ok, I will repost it. Essentially, I said:

I never said that foreign affairs were not important. What I said was that a President is obliged to look out for the needs of the people who elected him, not the desires of foreign countries. While dimplomacy is important, it certainly should not trump the need and interests of the United States. It appears Kerry would put the interest of the world ahead of the interests of the United States. He said in the first debate, when the United States goes to war, “you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test". What does that mean?

The Bush Economy, last time I checked, it was growing. Look that up. Perhaps the "shambles" you are referring to was the bursting of the artifical Economic Bubble, you know the one from the the 90's. Yeah, the economic "growth" of the 90's was actually people throwing billions of dollars at anything that ended with a .com. That made the economy boom alright. Until earnings reports started to show no earnings. Then people realized that the .coms were not really making any money, and the economy started to decline. Then, the bubble bursts, and we enter a recession. THEN BUSH GETS ELECTED, and inherits that recession. Oh, then a little thing called September 11th happened, and the country lost the world's financial center, and was forced to spend BILLIONS on rebuilding NY. Yeah, that has been Bush's economic plan. Considering all of that, I think he did an INCREDIBLE job, since, as I said, the economy is currently growing.

And, your comment on the "wealthy". Well, which wealthy are you referring too, because my wife and I, neither of whom has graduated college, or comes from a "wealthy" family both work like dogs to bring in a salary, and under the Kerry plan, we are considered wealthy. We are far from wealthy. So then I asked if you were referring to the people who bust their asses and make a million dollars. I wanted to know when being successful stopped being a good thing. Then, the only other wealthy I could think of, was the people who work hard, make millions, and when they die, instead of leaving their money to a GOOD cause, the government, they leave it to <GASP> their CHILDREN! THE BASTARDS! Imagine that! Someone getting an inheritance, and not having to work! WHAT SCUM!

Stop the class warfare! There is something called CHARITY. That is when wealthy people donate money. Or, you can progressively tax people, like we do in this country. We penalize people who are successful. And don't tell me if you are rich, you SHOULD pay the burden of the poor. That is called COMMUNISM! And don't start naming corrupt CEOs, like the ones from Enron and Global Crossings (as a side note, all of that corruption happened in the 90's, and they were caught during Bush's watch, but of course he gets blamed for it). Just because you can name some corrupt rich people, does not mean they are all corrupt! That is like saying all low income people resort to crime and are criminals.

[GoingNova]

Originally Posted by goingnova
Is flying a plane into a building and murdering 3000 men women and children a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking over a school and butchering children while they try to escape a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is blowing up a bomb, intentionally killing school children while US Troops are giving them candy a Black, a White, or a Gray area? Is taking a man, tying him up, and cutting off is head while he writhes and screams for mercy a Black, a White, or a Gray Area? Under what circumstances are ANY of those things justified?

To which the person replies:

It all depends on your point of view.

So, you think there are circumstances that allow for the aforementioned atrocities? I am not going to even bother responding to this one.

[GoingNova]

[QUOTE=goingnova]
The fact that the United States put those people in power means absolutely nothing at all. Your parents had you. If you grow up and become a mass murderer, are they responsible? They created you. Were Hitler’s parents responsible for his actions?


In this case it mean these are people the U.S. put in power and were allies until we betrayed them. the taliban was ignored as soon as the soviet union was desolved and this allowed it to fester and gain hate for the u.s.. Iraq was betrayed when we began to send arms to iran (iraq's mortal enemy) was well as iraq. Then we further betrayed iraq, by convincing them that we coulnd't care less about the dictatorship of kuwait in order to creatye a reason to go to war.

Do you follow history at all? I am just curious. Anyway, let me get this straight. The United States supports someone, and assists/puts them in power. They become corrupt, and start committing crimes against humanity so we stop supporting then, and we are betraying them because... why? I don't get that.

The Soviet Union was EVIL. They murdered people at whim, and suppressed their people to no end. They committed countless crimes, and I am not going to even try to list them all. If they were not evil, and it was not so bad, why were people willing to die to get out? Why would we NOT assist any country that was fighting against them? Isn't it good military doctrine to support the enemies of your enemy?

just because a country is ruled by evil, bloodthirsty people has not been a reason, historically, to conquer them. even hitler was allowed to stay in power for years until he started taking things that mattered to western europe.

Now, that is correct, and Europe was WRONG for waiting. They should have cut Hitler off at the knees instead of trying to appease him.

If it was then the u.s. would be forced to deal with north korea and half of africa just for starters. the us will not do this because it can't go after real dangers like north korea because they actually wmds and the u.s has no vested interest in really helping the peoples of africa or south america.

North Korea - let us take care of Afghanistan and Iraq - possibly Iran and Syria first - before we engage in a three front war. Engaging in too many fronts is militarily unsound - see Nazis Germany for an example - also see Incompetent Foreign Relations, look under Madeline Albright to find out WHY the Koreans have nukes.

Africa - Umm, 12 Billion in aid from President Bush to Africa. Is that enough of a vested interest in helping the people in Africa, or should care more?

South America - Do not know enough about the matter to make a comment.

[painogb]

I have a question whatsn't this thread started about our inabiliy to get the news with out a polical slant? Not as a fight between a hard-core republican and the rest of us?

goingnova: you seem to be doing exactally what we were complaing about, only giving some of the info. I did a google news search for war on Iraq and these were one of the first things that came up.

http://www2.townonline.com/easton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=95683
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOP40100304.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100304A.shtml
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9812783.htm?1c

[GoingNova]

I have a question whatsn't this thread started about our inabiliy to get the news with out a polical slant? Not as a fight between a hard-core republican and the rest of us?

You are correct. My original post contained information that was never really addressed in Prime Time News, or if you prefer, the main stream media. So, it certainly had relevance to the thread. In fact, the statement that what you found were the first things you found, and what I found was buried, proves the relevance.

I am a hard-core republian? Funny, I never mentioned my political affiliation. I am a conservative. Zell Miller is a democrat and a conservative. Why do you post as fact that I am "Hard-Core Republican" when I never said I was? Do you have access to the voter registration database, or is there some other information you have access to that told you I was a Republican, since I never said I was.

goingnova: you seem to be doing exactally what we were complaining about, only giving some of the info. I did a google news search for war on Iraq and these were one of the first things that came up.

http://www2.townonline.com/easton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=95683
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOP40100304.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100304A.shtml
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9812783.htm?1c

You just proved the reason why I posted this. The links that you found were the first to come up. That's wonderful. The problem is, Link # 1 is an opinion, not fact, Link # 2 is also an opinion, not fact. Link # 3 bases the argument soley on the tubes, which were PART of the information used to deduce Saddam had nuclear weapons. It never mentions all the other reasons why we thought he had Nuclear weapons, including the FACT that Saddam tried to buy Nuclear Weapons from Korea (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm). Link #4 is about the image of the United States among Latin Americans, which is relevant to the reason we are in Iraq because?????

Funny that none of the following quotes, which were made by some of the people who today produce the most shrill attacks against the President on the WMD issue, were anywhere NEAR the first few things to come up!. Let's take a look, shall we?


"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


Does this BLATANT HYPOCRISY sound news worthy to you? I guess Dan Rather was too busy "verifing" those documents to talk about this. It's ok, because that BASTION OF MEDIA BIAS, Fox News mentioned it. But BUSH LIED! THERE WERE NO WMDs! Let's LYNCH HIM!

What I actually find amusing is that all of the posts with differing opinions never acknowleged the plain and simple fact, that the United States had a legal and moral right to invade Iraq if for no other issue than the fact that they did not abide by the terms of surrender, period, case closed. No one can say that President Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. That irks the hell out of me. Now, if you say he should not have invaded Iraq, or you don't think he should have, that is fine because it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact is, he had a legal reason and a right to invade Iraq. Iraq was trying to shoot down our planes as they flew over the UN Sanctioned "No Fly Zone" for God's sake!

[GoingNova]

Here is a prime example of the Media Bias. Bush's National Guard story is PRIME TIME news. Kit Kelly's book gets 3 days on "The Today Show". Meanwhile, John Kerry is running for the office of the President of the United States, yet most people have never heard about Kerry's first book, "The New Soldier" (http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php) . Can anyone fairly say that the following quote, at the very least, sounds news worthy? Don't you think the public should be made aware of this, and Kerry should be asked to explain it?

In JOHN KERRY's own words: "And so a New Soldier has returned to America, to a nation torn apart by the killing we were asked to do. But, unlike veterans of other wars and some of this one, the New Soldier does not accept the old myths. We will not quickly join those who march on Veteran's Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." "We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars...." "We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim"

I am not commenting on the CONTENT of the book, nor the CONTENT of the quote. I simply am trying to show you how the media determines what is newsworthy and what is not, and chooses to not inform the public about things that may hurt the candidate they have chosen. I would challenge anyone to defy that the book and that quote are, without question, worthy of discusion and debate. Dan Rather believes that whether or not Bush disobeyed an order to take a medical exam is much more news worthy. It frightens and angers me, it really does.

[painogb]

You raise a good point it is up to the news agencies what is shown to the public and what is not. I can see why this frightens and angers you. It rather annoys me. American "World" news is ususally only centered on what is happening here or in places like Iraq or Afganistan where U.S. troops are or palces that would matter to the U.S. people. As I said earlier in this tread I listen to the BBC in the morning. The BBC's world update is the only true world news that anyone around here can get because the U.S. news agencies only air stories important to the U.S. people. 2 or 3 years ago I was the only one who knew about Argentina going bankrupt and going through pres.'s like nothing. Why was I the only one who knew this because of the news agencies not deaming it appropriate. What news we get revolving around what they think we should get is an outrage I agree but their in the buisness to make money and if they gave all the news people would stop watching it and they lose money so they only show what they deam appropriate.

With what you were saying about all the discusion about Kerry and Bushes Military service I say what is in the past is in the past and shouldn't determine who we elect for president. Although Kerry is basing his campaign on his military service so it should be looked at. Bush isn't and what he did in the Military doesn't really effect how good of a pres. he is/can be.

But wether or not Kerry deserves the 3 purple hearts he has was something determined by higher military officers durring Vietnam and why all of a sudden are groups like the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth comming out and arguing them.

[GoingNova]

EXCELLENT POINTS! Now that is funny, because I think the bringing up of Bush's National Guard stuff is fair game, but what angers me is the one-sided attacks against him, while Kerry is left untouched.

I wish I could hear the BBC, but I tell you, the John Batchelor (http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=9178 ) is pretty good. It is where I get my global news. It is fascinating, because, as you said, you really don't hear about other countries unless they directly effect the United States. His foreign affair reporting often has nothing to do with the United States, but focuses on the country he is talking about. If you can find a station in your area that plays him, give him a listen. :)

[painogb]

What I don't see is how what a canidate did 20 or 30 years ago matters. It isn't about what they did then it's about what they can and will do now. Like durring the 2000 election how they had the thing about Bush getting on OUI like 20 years ago. What does it matter if he got an OUI 20 years ago? Does that make him any worse of a Pres. because of it. Not really he would have been what in his 20's? Was he thinking 'I need to keep a clean record just so i can become president in 20 years'? Would you? That's what doesn't make sense to me. But then what do I know i'm just a 14 year old kid.

That's another thing I hate is everyone saying that we should stay informed on what is going on because it will efect us. The common example is the draf bill going through congress. In 4 years, if it passes, I will be eligable for the draft. So it could be said that it's my future in that bill but do I get any say in the matter? No.

It doesn't appear we get John Batchelor but i'll look some more.

[lobo]

But then what do I know i'm just a 14 year old kid.
You will testify it the court :ulaugh:

Hey man! Don't do our debates if You are just a 14 y.o.k This battle for experienced warriors like ... hm ...

[GoingNova]

A 14 year old eh? Well, you are pretty damn bright for a 14 year old! Your parents should be proud of you, because you hold your own. ;)

You make another good point with the past, but I would venture that it depends on what you are talking about he did. Abusive drinking, drugs, DWI's, all stupid things, so I can see clearly your point on that, but remember, what we do in the past says things about our character. In my opinion, character is very much relevant. The things in President Bush's past, the DWI, the drinking, the "alleged" drugs (sorry, never proven, although likely, never proven) shows us that he had a character problem in the past, but first admitted his mistakes, corrected them, and learned from them. That shows character. Can you see my point? Of course, these are my personal feelings.

Kerry, well, he has not even had the opportunity to discuss his past because no one brings it up, which is the focus of this thread, the bias in the media. :) The Swiftboat Vets? Well Kerry put a couple, don't remember, but it was like 10-14 Vets that served on his boat with him on stage, but refuses to answer the charges of about 200 Vets, that while they did not serve on his boat, some did serve with him on other boats and or knew him in Vietnam. See for yourself what they have to say, (http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php) and you decide if it is a valid point.

The draft, well, we all had to register for the Selective Service when we hit 18. But I believe what you are referring to is House Bill 163, authored by Democrat Charles Rangel (http://clerk.house.gov/members/inter_mem_list.html?statdis=NY 15) of NY, and Senate Bill 89, authored by another Democrat, Fritz Hollings (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Hollings ) of SC. They are the authors behind these bills and these are the representatives who need to be contacted if you wish to protest. For the record, it is not the Bush Administration that is trying to bring back the draft, as the Kerry's proclaim (http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/09/20/daily58.html), but two Democrats.


14 eh? I am impressed. In life, always listen to whatever people have to say to you, because sometimes you may be lucky enough to learn from their mistakes, but always try to make up your own mind. ;)

[lobo]

But then what do I know i'm just a 14 year old kid.
You will testify it the court :ulaugh:

Hey man! Don't do our debates if You are just a 14 y.o.k This battle for experienced warriors like ... hm ...

Hey, painogb!

I am so sorry if this my post insulted You :no:

Where are You? This is real fun to watch Your debate talents.

Shure, I am just an old farty snowman and any my opinion is wrong and fishy :nod: :tongue:

[painogb]

I am so sorry if this my post insulted You :no:


don't wory it didn't it takes allot to insult me. A side effect of going to a high school these days :rolleyes: :mad:

[Diesel]

I'm almost dreading digging this thread up again, but I saw something today that basically summed up my feelings in the initial post better than I had been able to.

It was a quote from the CNN article today about Jon Stewart's book winning the Book Of The Year award from Publishers Weekly.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/12/06/books.jonstewart.ap/index.html

The 2nd paragraph of that article:
In announcing the award Monday, Publishers Weekly called the book "a serious critique of the two-party system, the corporations that finance it and the 'spineless cowards in the press' who 'aggressively print allegation and rumor independent of accuracy and fairness.' "

Now, I don't know that I'd use such vitriol in describing them, but that last part... 'aggressively print allegation and rumor independent of accuracy and fairness.' was exactly what I was complaining about at the beginning of this thread.

On the one hand, it's nice to know that there are other people who clearly recognize that this is a problem. On the other, I just thought it was a phrase that summed up what I was trying to demonstrate, if not a little more clearly than I was able to manage.