A question for Republicans

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Before I even type the question, I just want to let you know that I am being serious and am not interested in a witty remark, which is most of the comments made on political message boards

I have seen many Repubs on this site question John Kerry's military service. They either make a remark of how his purple hearts where cheap, or annoyed he spoke out against the war afterwards. But honestly the current president didnt even serve in the war and if you consider the national guard job he did, which is still questionable, how can you compare the two. Honestly Kerry served our country and then spoke his mind, I see Bush not doin a damn.

I just really wanna know why people keep using that even if you question his actions during or after the war at least he did something.

If you can give me a half decent reason why you can put down Kerry's military service, I'd like to here it.
 
A while back ago there was a profile about John Kerry in it was either The Boston Globe or the Boston Herald. One of the funnier things that I picked up from this article was that when John Kerry protested the Vietnam War after his service he gathered a group of returning vets who then proceeded to throw their medals on the White House lawn. However Kerry never threw his own medals but rather threw someone else's medals over. I guess this really doesn't pertain to your question but I thought it would be an interesting side note.
 
Sorry this isn't exactly an answer to your question but,

Typically I agree with most of what Republican candidates have to say - especially with regards to economic issues, not always with social - but I think it's clear that Bush doesn't really know what he is doing. That said, Kerry doesn't appear to me to be too honest either - he's just another politian playing the game of trying to position himself best to the masses. But who's the lesser of two evils? Now that is the question... With regards to his military service, the bototm line is no one really knows either way for Kerry or Bush. It's really an ancillary issue that has basically zero bearing on their actions once in the White House. More smokescreens to try to sling mud about each other... I just wish both candidates would focus more on things of interest to Americans today instead of military records from 30 years ago.
 
I agree with you technic but Joe Public remembers mud slingin much more than remembers the actual issues and the canidate that goes the completly moral route would get burried in the polls
 
thanks for asking in a calm tone, i will try to give you some insight

first, the portrayal of GWB as a moron could not be further from the truth. he trained as a fighter pilot, and honestly you do not do that unless you have skills. even if you argue until you are blue in the face that he got the chance because of who he is, there is an overwhelming amount of info that says he deserved to be a fighter pilot and he was damn good at it.

and i can tell you many, many reasons for why we have issues with kerry and his service. for one, he seems (and this is what I believe, you asked for what a republican thought) to at once want full credit for being an american war hero, and at the same time be a champion of the anti-war (for lack of a better term) movement or ideals.

the evidence that has been shown to me seems to show kerry doing and saying whatever it takes to gain an inch of ground, even if it conflicts with what he has said or done in the past (or it ends up conflicting with his future).

and of course i only have a limited time to respond (i am busy playing my new full spectrum warrior) but here is a brief response to why i question his service and medals (and i have discussed this with many in my family who were in vietnam, including my moms uncle who was a navy pilot held as a POW for 7 years, with John McCain and I can provide his name for furher research if this doesnt turn into a flame war)...

Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. All his injuries were so minor that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on, the boats were almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds, at least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three Purple Hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour.

here is a quote from a news site, from an interview with another vet:

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

i hope this sheds some light, and I hope this does not start a flame war. i believe in our country and GWB, and I have no stomach to argue back and forth, though I will gladly answer honest questions. i am scared for our country and our world, and I believe the best man for the job is GWB, a man who has a close relationship with God.
 
[quote name='everdave']
i hope this sheds some light, and I hope this does not start a flame war. i believe in our country and GWB, and I have no stomach to argue back and forth, though I will gladly answer honest questions. i am scared for our country and our world, and I believe the best man for the job is GWB, a man who has a close relationship with God.[/quote]


I don't intend to contribute to a burgeoning flame war either, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile GWB and his relationship with God and his clearly blatant lies about what was laying in wait for the US in Iraq in terms of WMD stockpiles that clearly now have turned out to be not only overwhelmingly untrue, but have also resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 800 American men and women. All of this while virtually insuring that our future generations will face the real possibility of Governmental bankruptcy in order to pay for it...
 
they were talking about him on the news, and how he requested a purple heart after a bullet or shrapnel or something grazed his leg and left a small scratch...


what a basterd
 
Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.
Click to expand...

That's about as fine a paragraph that I've ever seen wrapping the reasoning in a clear concise matter. I was of the belief 6 months ago that John Kerry had earned his way to being able to protest the Vietnam war due to his service and medals. Then I learned that he was a predominant anti-war speaker, protestor and gave testimony that many consider traitorist to Congress. Then I learn that none of his 3 Purple Hearts required an overnight stay in a hospital, MASH or evac unit. That said there are people he served with in his own unit that have come out vehemently against him.

Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine units are very small at their basic level. Sure you have divisions which may represent 30,000+ personnel but at the basic level you have squads and platoons which are less than 40 people. When you serve with a group that intimate people definitely know who you are, what you're about and what your true abilities and qualifications are If you've been in combat with these men you've been through something, a bonding experience, that is like no other bond men share in the world. These people that served with Kerry in such an experience are not universal in their praise for him. In fact at least one of his CO's has come out against him.

That's something to consider.

As far as GW's military record during the era? You don't put someone with no skills, qualifications or ability behind the stick of an F-102. That fighter was more or less the equivilent of an F-16 in the 60's. Ask yourself, with what you know about how we train combat pilots, even if its just from seeing Top Gun, do you think you put an idiot or political lackey in the cockpit of a front line fighter? National Guard units in the 60's were tasked with continental air defence and commanded in an overall structure with NORAD. During the cold war and even during the 80's we had a palpable and real fear of Russian bombers and missles. Not every military pilot was tasked to fly air to mud missions in the 'Nam.

It's incredibly difficult to tell teenagers and young adults how real the Soviet nuclear and bomber threat really was to the government and citizens. I'm only 34 but I was in East Germany, saw the Berlin wall from both sides. I was scared shyteless of them when Reagan was President. Bush's mission was needed and relevant as Kerry's. Now it's easy to laugh at because we were never attacked however if you told Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois in 1969 that you were shutting down all their Air National Guard units because there was no legitimate threat from the Soviets you would have been lynched or locked up on the spot.

Quite frankly I wish military service in that period of time would cease to be a political issue but its with us for another 30 years. Clinton in his own words "loathed the military" and was an unquestioned draft dodger. Kerry served, Bush served. I'm content with both records compared to Slick Willie.
 
I would hardly call the deaths of the soldiers serving unnecessary.

I wish this rage (and I am not saying you are raging) against Bush and the war would be turned against terrorists, dictators, and evil-doers around the world.

Saddam was a ruthless murderer. FACT. Yes there are many others in the world, but the fact is we had the opportunity to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We have stopped MANY terrorists. The Iraqi people do not hate us as the news would leave you to believe. Don't believe me? Go to the airport the next time a local national guard group returns from serving. Ask them - don't believe what you see on the news.

Ask yourself why are we not seeing the attacks on the world trade center on the news when discussing them? maybe you see a shot of a building smoking, but there has been a mandate to not show these images as "not to disturb the american public".

Dig deep, remember what you felt in the days and weeks following September 11. Remember the few short days when this country pulled together. For a few days we were united, until I honestly believe the democrats sat down and thought - hey this is not so good for us politically.

There is so much more I want to say - maybe we can keep this thread going. This should be a place of calm, factual discussion and reasonable opinions - now back to my game!
 
I think this is one of the more ridiculous parts of the elction issues (the entire thing is pretty absurd), but I have a problem with the fact that Kerry didn't throw his own medals. Doesn't seem to be honest.

Wow, a discussion on the internet that is pretty mature and calm... odd...
 
The irony of this whole debate is that people who are so quick to make general statements along the lines of "You don't put a moron behind the stick of a ...." or "A moron couldn't have done this...."

Don't compare different kinds of intelligences. Many people can learn to fly planes, run countries, own baseball teams and still be complete and utter morons and jerks. People can be brilliant mechanically and can be the dumbest people in the world when it comes to stringing together a cogent thought. So just because Bush never crashed his plane doesn't make him any more intelligent than the next guy.

My problem with Bush and the war effort was not the war itself, but the way in which EVERY SINGLE aspect of the war has to be handled. Whether it's the constant manipulating of images by the right wing media or Bush leaving Powell out to dry repeatedly or the poor soldiers being told one thing but slapped in the face the next minute or the whole WMD thing...it is obvious that the party in power will do anything it can to sway public opinion in the face of the fact that they have no clue what they're doing.

The Republicans would rather sell us a pile of horse shit than fess up to the reality of their own errors.

As for quoting unnamed web sites without any credit or frame of reference, here are a few damning Bush for the no account snake in the grass money grubbing bastard he is:

Bush-Linked Consulting Firm Set Up in Iraq to Profit from Rebuilding
The New York Times reports that a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. The new firm is headed by a string of Washington insiders including Joe M. Allbaugh, Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March, along with Edward M. Rodgers and Larry Griffith, former assistants to Bush Sr. The firm's website calls attention to the links between the company's directors and both Bush administrations and says that "no other existing firm has the necessary skill and experience to be effective in both Washington D.C. and on the ground in Iraq." The website also claims the company was "created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage to business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq." The U.S. government has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to American businesses operating in Iraq. Those contracts, some without competitive bidding, have included more than $500 million to support troops and extinguish oil field fires for Kellogg, Brown, & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney led from 1995 until 2000. Of the $3.9 billion a month that the administration is spending on military operations in Iraq, up to one-third may go to contractors who provide food, housing, and other services.
Source: New York Times, "Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq," Sept. 30, 2003.

Reports: Bush-Cheney Reelection Campaign Sold Illegally-Imported Jackets
According to a recent news reports, the official Internet merchandise site for the Bush-Cheney campaign has sold jackets illegally imported from Myanmar. Since September, the Bush administration has had sanctions in place against Myanmar—also known by its colonial name Burma—because of human rights violations in that country. While Spalding, the campaign's supplier of merchandise, said the jackets were included for sale on the Bush-Cheney site by mistake, Arvind Ganesan of Human Rights Watch told Reuters he was appalled by the error: "One would expect that they would be extremely diligent about where they buy their products." One of the products being sold on the website was a $49.95 red fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo. It carried a "Made in Burma" label.
Source: Caren Bohan, "Made-In-Burma Jacket Stirs Flap," Reuters, March 19, 2004; Lauren Weber, "Reelection Togs May Have Come from Burma," Newsday, March 20, 2004.

Of course I can go on and on about the hypocritical and lying administration that contorts the truth and manipulates the media, but what good would it do against a media that is so unabashedly conservative and afraid to make waves they practically worship the ground out president walks on.
 
everdave, its nice he's one with god and all but I really dont like how its shaping America.

I feel a religous front is startin to take over America and its scary. First we got the FCC all over morality of the people, which is getting rid of freedom of speech. Howard Stern is being targeted but everyone knows what to expect by listening to him. Then we have abortion and stem cell research, his policy to block both of them are key elements in his religous belief. Stem cells could save lives but he chooses to ignore it by cutting government funding. Then there is the FDA banning the over the counter use of the morning after pill to teens. This is crazy, kids are goin to have sex no matter what, might as well allow them to not get pregnant and add another mouth to feed, but "morality" of the US tells us that this encourages sex in teenagers, which of course they wouldnt have if there was no pill. I wonder how many of our current leaders had teenage sex? Finally we have gay marriage, he is trying to change the constitution to save marriage from the gays. This is rediculous how can he in right mind change the constitution just for his religous beliefs. Whether you like or dislike gays there should be no question in mind that the government has no right to tell them they can't live their life like every other tax paying US citizen, it is just wrong.

Well I believe that this is all because of a wave of religion sweeping the country coming from the oval office
 
[quote name='loserboy']Of course I can go on and on about the hypocritical and lying administration that contorts the truth and manipulates the media, but what good would it do against a media that is so unabashedly conservative and afraid to make waves they practically worship the ground out president walks on.[/quote]

Do you live in the same country as the rest of us? It blows my mind when people use the phrase "right wing media" like there is an overabundance of cconservative mass media outlets when the vast majority have a left slant to them. The media rips on GWB every chance they get and the administration has no control over what the media reports.
 
[quote name='beerguy961']I think this is one of the more ridiculous parts of the elction issues (the entire thing is pretty absurd), but I have a problem with the fact that Kerry didn't throw his own medals. Doesn't seem to be honest.

Wow, a discussion on the internet that is pretty mature and calm... odd...[/quote]

Kerry has stated that he through some of his own ribbons (but not the medals) and medals given to him by other veterans who were unable to attend the protest in Washington.

It is not impossible to reconcile the facts that someone can serve admirably in war and yet still see how horribly some soldiers acted and want to speak out against the war when he returned. Lots of veterans protested when they returned and frankly, I respect their opinion more because they had been over there and seen what the war was like firsthand.
 
[quote name='Snowcone'][quote name='loserboy']Of course I can go on and on about the hypocritical and lying administration that contorts the truth and manipulates the media, but what good would it do against a media that is so unabashedly conservative and afraid to make waves they practically worship the ground out president walks on.[/quote]

Do you live in the same country as the rest of us? It blows my mind when people use the phrase "right wing media" like there is an overabundance of cconservative mass media outlets when the vast majority have a left slant to them. The media rips on GWB every chance they get and the administration has no control over what the media reports.[/quote]

Do you not remember how Clinton was drug through the mud for 8 solid years by the "liberal" media? Bush got the benefit of the doubt from the meida right after he took office. After several news organizations investigated and did a recount in Florida showing Gore had more votes, there was barely a peep. Then after 9/11, Bush hardly ever got bad press until the Democrats started their primaries. And even then the conventional wisdom was that none of those guys could touch Bush in the election.

"Liberal media" is a myth. Fox News is the number one rated news organization and Rush Limbaugh is the number one rated radio talk show. MSNBC dropped the one liberal they had (Phil Donahue) right before the Iraqi war started. Air America is liberal, I'll give you that one, but it is still a minor league player.
 
Every politician lies. It's part of politics in general.
I'm neither for Kerry or Bush. It's more about the lesser of two evils. If Kerry wins, there will be some lies that are revealed and some people will turn on him. It happens. I watched our current prez tell the world yesterday that he barely knew or talked to this spy who was working with Iran.. yet the same guy was a guest of his at the state of the union address. He had many briefings from this same guy over the past couple years. They all Lie right to our face.. Anything to make you feel better about them...

I agree with Ikohn4ever , the religeous influence is getting scary around this country. I think religion is important and yet personal and private. Not everyone believes in Christianity. Don't push your religeous beliefs on someone who believes something different... You wouldn't like it if they did it to you. Gay marriage, stem cells and the FCC fines are all debatable. But lets not bring the religeous excuses into it. I think the relationship GWB has with God is fine... Just don't use it as an excuse to change the way I can live if I don't agree with it.
 
"Right wing media"? You cite Fox News as the leading news source? True, but it is outweighed by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Boston Globe and USA Today.

Rush Limbaugh is a commentator and talk show host, not a news figure.

Here are some facts about your "right wing media".

In 1996, the Freedom Forum released a survey, conducted by the Roper Center, of 139 Washington news bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents. It revealed that 89 percent of Washington reporters responding said they voted for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election compared to a mere 7 percent that voted for George Herbert Walker Bush.

Fifty percent said they were Democrats compared to a scant 4 percent who identified themselves as Republicans. Some 61 percent owned up to being "liberal" or "moderate to liberal" versus 9 percent who considered themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative."

The poll was conducted by Alexandra Pelosi, an NBC producer at the time (who happens to be the daughter of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the liberal San Francisco Democrat).

SOURCE

[/url]
 
The "liberal" media does a pretty good job of at least trying to look impartial though. I first heard about Kerry requesting his first purple heart after just getting hit with a tiny piece of shrapnel when he wasn't even bleeding from CNN. But if you watch say Fox news, it's almost terrifying, I saw a whole segment where they were trying to persuade people that the Patriot Act was the best thing since sliced bread, and the anchorman was encouraging people to spy on their neighbors. That's not even bothering to look remotely impartial.
 
But if you watch say Fox news, it's almost terrifying, I saw a whole segment where they were trying to persuade people that the Patriot Act was the best thing since sliced bread, and the anchorman was encouraging people to spy on their neighbors. That's not even bothering to look remotely impartial.
Click to expand...

When was this? Serious, when was it, who said it. I have Fox News on throughout the day in the background when I'm working and I never hear anything close to this. I have NEVER heard one personality ask people to spy on their neighbors. Not even their commentators Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity say this. You are seriously delusional.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']"Right wing media"? You cite Fox News as the leading news source? True, but it is outweighed by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Boston Globe and USA Today.

Rush Limbaugh is a commentator and talk show host, not a news figure.

Here are some facts about your "right wing media".

In 1996, the Freedom Forum released a survey, conducted by the Roper Center, of 139 Washington news bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents. It revealed that 89 percent of Washington reporters responding said they voted for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election compared to a mere 7 percent that voted for George Herbert Walker Bush.

Fifty percent said they were Democrats compared to a scant 4 percent who identified themselves as Republicans. Some 61 percent owned up to being "liberal" or "moderate to liberal" versus 9 percent who considered themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative."

The poll was conducted by Alexandra Pelosi, an NBC producer at the time (who happens to be the daughter of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the liberal San Francisco Democrat).

SOURCE

[/url][/quote]

I have to thank you for the chuckle. Posting a story on media bias from the FreeRepublic website. Irony is delicious.

I read the article. So what if news reporters are liberal or conservative? What matters is if their news coverage is biased and this article never offers any instance of a liberal bias in news coverage.

And I don't follow all of those news sources you mentioned but I can say that CNN, MSNBC and my beloved Washington Post have all slanted more to the right in the last few years.
 
You're right, reporting a poll done by Nancy Pelosi's daughter... extremely biased. It's a POLL! Look at who conducted it. Forget where it appeared, look who ran it. I didn't post that info to prove bias in reporting, it was meant to establish the leanings of those that write the news, cover the stories and how they may write them.

If you're noticing a slant or change in how CNN, MSNBC or the WP have started covering things in recent years it's because they can no longer get away with the spin they did in the past. CNN has had their heads handed to them on a silver platter. They had a nearly 90% market share and within 7 years Fox destroyed them. They wouldn't have been able to if they had a credible product. MSNBC? Same thing. They want to spark ratings and they bring back dinosaur Phil Donahue? The same guy that retired in 199-something because he was on the verge of cancellation because he was irrelevant?

EDIT: I read the link you posted from FAIR. The main point I took away from it was that because the majority of sources NPR quoted were Republican indicated they weren't biased. Okay, let's say that the sources you use have any bearing on the issue. Consider the story. "Trent Lott, do you think you should resign for saying the United States would have been better off if we had elected a segregationist candidate in 1948?" Hmmm, now lets ask the same question of Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush oh and while we're at it we'll ask Tom Daschle. According to that roll call NPR can't be biased because Republicans were used as sources 6-1 over Democrats. Forget the story is the political equivilent of "So when did you stop beating your wife." NPR is now a right wing leaning news source because of who their sources are.

If you wanted to take that over a longer term and examine news issues in the 90's let's use two widely quoted news events. The government shutdown in 1995 and the Clinton impeachment. Question to Newt Gingrich "How can you starve school children?" this question was asked in many various guises because the House wanted to cut the growth of the school lunch program from 17% annual growth to 11% annual growth. Now... the budget was still going to go UP but to Democrats it was a cut. Reporters asked the question accordingly to Bob Dole, John Kasich, Dick Armey, Trent Lott and then took their answers to.... Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. So 4 people are Republican "sources" and 2 are Democrats.
 
Wow Pittsburgh, those are some pretty interesting percentages.

It's easy to see the bias in the vast majority of the media toward liberal views-- especially in most newspapers nationwide.

The only media outlet that is ruled by conservatives is talk radio on your AM dial. Ask youself why-- Answer: People tend to steer toward political discussions that are backed by logical arguments and solid facts (as opposed to emotionally driven arguments that really don't have alot of substance to back them up).

Steve A.
 
Odd that you berate a poster for using a supposed right-wing website as a source then do the same thing with a left-wing website the next post.
 
Oh my god! Everdave has just responded with the typical response from any republican bullcrap websight. Why not respond to the facts of John Kerry's war service? Like the following:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04151/324317.stm

I also find it very disturbing when Republicans quote people who say they served with John Kerry but never directly did(like a commander of John Kerry who never served directly with him and has been a life long active republican). Why not look up what the people who served directly with John Kerry say about the man. Warning: They all call him a hero! In the end it says alot about Republicans who are willing to go after John Kerry for his war record and not care a bit about George W. Bush's war record. The two wartime careers are light years apart. One served his country with honor and the other served himself.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Odd that you berate a poster for using a supposed right-wing website as a source then do the same thing with a left-wing website the next post.[/quote]

maybe he was using irony
 
Nope, I said it was ironic because FreeRepublic is notoriously right wing.

And you missed my point - where is the liberal bias in reporting? The article you posted never mentioned any, just that reporters by and large said they were Democrats. I don't care whether a reporter is liberal or conservative, what I want is news reported fair an balanced - a phrase Fox has made a mockery of.

*EDIT* I forgot to mention that Donahue was MSNBC's highest rated prime-time show when it was cancelled. Don't believe me, look it up.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Odd that you berate a poster for using a supposed right-wing website as a source then do the same thing with a left-wing website the next post.[/quote]

I wasn't berating him, I just said it was ironic to complain about liberal bias by using a right-wing website.

And I love irony.
 
LOL!!! Everything is there for anybody to check out and its from the horses mouth(the Navy and not some bullcrap republican websight)! I would love to see Bush do the same. Funny how Kerry has every record from back then and doesn't have to come up with excuses as to why the records are not complete.
 
I read the link you posted from FAIR. The main point I took away from it was that because the majority of sources NPR quoted were Republican indicated they weren't biased. Okay, let's say that the sources you use have any bearing on the issue. Consider the story. "Trent Lott, do you think you should resign for saying the United States would have been better off if we had elected a segregationist candidate in 1948?" Hmmm, now lets ask the same question of Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush oh and while we're at it we'll ask Tom Daschle. According to that roll call NPR can't be biased because Republicans were used as sources 6-1 over Democrats. Forget the story is the political equivilent of "So when did you stop beating your wife." NPR is now a right wing leaning news source because of who their sources are.

If you wanted to take that over a longer term and examine news issues in the 90's let's use two widely quoted news events. The government shutdown in 1995 and the Clinton impeachment. Question to Newt Gingrich "How can you starve school children?" this question was asked in many various guises because the House wanted to cut the growth of the school lunch program from 17% annual growth to 11% annual growth. Now... the budget was still going to go UP but to Democrats it was a cut. Reporters asked the question accordingly to Bob Dole, John Kasich, Dick Armey, Trent Lott and then took their answers to.... Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. So 4 people are Republican "sources" and 2 are Democrats.
 
Fox news tries to create paranoia. They tell you to watch your back and that your neighbors could very likely be terrorists and to report any suspicious activities.

Fox news is as far right as you can get, and the reporters are always making snide remarks about democrats and just saying insults all the time, yet they say they are neutral.

Bush and the neoconservatives lied about WMDs even though they clearly knew otherwise. There is no way around it.
He is also too religious, with all the bible based laws and "Jesus day" in Texas, its ridiculus how much hatred can come from a simple book.

The Soviet nuclear threat was retaiatory. The United States had missile sites located within range of Moscow, so the Soviet Union put missiles in range of Washington.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I read the link you posted from FAIR. The main point I took away from it was that because the majority of sources NPR quoted were Republican indicated they weren't biased. Okay, let's say that the sources you use have any bearing on the issue. Consider the story. "Trent Lott, do you think you should resign for saying the United States would have been better off if we had elected a segregationist candidate in 1948?" Hmmm, now lets ask the same question of Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush oh and while we're at it we'll ask Tom Daschle. According to that roll call NPR can't be biased because Republicans were used as sources 6-1 over Democrats. Forget the story is the political equivilent of "So when did you stop beating your wife." NPR is now a right wing leaning news source because of who their sources are.

If you wanted to take that over a longer term and examine news issues in the 90's let's use two widely quoted news events. The government shutdown in 1995 and the Clinton impeachment. Question to Newt Gingrich "How can you starve school children?" this question was asked in many various guises because the House wanted to cut the growth of the school lunch program from 17% annual growth to 11% annual growth. Now... the budget was still going to go UP but to Democrats it was a cut. Reporters asked the question accordingly to Bob Dole, John Kasich, Dick Armey, Trent Lott and then took their answers to.... Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. So 4 people are Republican "sources" and 2 are Democrats.[/quote]

I never said NPR was right-wing. I like NPR, I think they are fair and balanced.

I was, however, using that article to disprove the notion that the New York Times is liberal.
 
The Soviet nuclear threat was retaiatory. The United States had missile sites located within range of Moscow, so the Soviet Union put missiles in range of Washington.
Click to expand...

BS, BS and BS. The minute you make an ICBM regardless of where you put them... they're in range. They can hit anywhere on the planet. If you're targeting Moscow or DC it doesn't matter if the sites are in St. Petersburg or Pittsburgh. A missle in either location could get to either target.

The MAD theory was brilliant in its evil simplicity and it worked. The nuclear triad of both countries kept war from happening and misunderstandings going to total war. In 1962 the United States had IRBM's in Turkey, as a result the Soviets put equivilent missiles in Cuba. When that situation nearly went critical both countries removed their missiles from the respective contries.

However under Brezhnev the Soviets were placing IRBM's in western Russia (SS-18's and 20's to be specific.) that could hit no other targets than those in Western Europe. As a result the US and NATO deployed nuclear Tomahawks and the Pershing 2 to Europe to counter the threat That move was reactionary, not incindiary.

You have absolutely no idea about the balance of nuclear terror and how it eveolved and checkmated a war that would end the species as we know it. Instead you're swallowing pure revisionist feelgoodism that the U.S. was a horrible nuclear power and threatened the entire world when that was never the case.

its ridiculus how much hatred can come from a simple book.
Click to expand...
Funny, I think the same thing about the Koran I have in my bookcase . Amazing that you think someone not wanting to cut a living being out of a mothers womb is hatred and flying planes into buildings and cutting the heads off of people who don't share your religion must be viewed through the appropriate prism of the oppressed or freedom fighters.
 
this post was started with what I hoped would be a calm, mature discussion. instead, as usual it has turned into my calm responses being bashed. you asked what republicans thought.

this is a gaming forum, so I did not take time to post all of my links to my quotes, etc... The fact is that 19 of 23 people who served with Kerry (including one who went on to become a rear admiral) call into question his military service.

When I had reason to do the legwork, recently at my university a paper that I believe originated from Moby's website started making the rounds, basically calling Bush a liar and portraying the republicans in power as liars and thieves. Well some people took it upon themselves to FACT CHECK, something sorely missing in todays world, since someone can quote articles til the cows come home online supporting basically any issue they want. If someone can remember the name of that Moby deal then I can dig up links to the response. Well it turns out that everything Moby is saying is either wrong, a flat out lie, or a gross misrepresentation of THE FACTS.

Why do I respond "GWB is not a moron, he was a fighter pilot?" Because all over liberal media and entertainment - GWB is portrayed as a slobbering, drooling idiot. Case in point - SNL. Tina Fey in particular is always going "Duh, I am GWB and I am big stupid dummy, duh". Sadly for no one doing their homework (and I mean its not fun to me digging up FACTS, is why I cant sit here doing it all day) there is a chance they just pick up on this, and are like man, GWB is an idiot - go KERRY!

And finally, people dig up pictures and visits from so and so, and call it evidence of something. I was actually reading a liberal argument, saying something about GWB meeting with Vladimir Putin, and I still dont get what they were saying. They were like he met with PUTIN - this animal GWB is a liar and should be stopped! Do they even know who Putin is?? I would hope the leader of our country would meet with him and keep an open dialogue.

this is wearing me out. this is a tiny drop in the ocean of what needs to be said and discussed, but I am on vacation!
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='MrBadExample']I like NPR, I think they are fair and balanced.

[/quote]

I hope this comment wasn't serious. NPR has admitted its own leftwing bias.

article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml

Yes, townhall is right wing. Drop that argument.[/quote]

Well I can see why townhall would consider NPR liberal becuase they are WAY over to the right.

Now you drop that argument.
 
Oh John Kerry" - Walter Scott Hudson
"Take the time to review the complete voting record of our would-be fearless leader during this congress. When he actually shows up to do his job, just about every vote either takes away more of your money to provide for frivolous nonsense, or deprives those same funds from going toward the War on Terror. Of particular note is roll 400, whose purpose was to provide “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for [the] Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004.” Kerry voted no."

His voting record says all you need to know - link:
http://tinyurl.com/3xd8a
 
[quote name='Lil Stinky']LOL!!! Everything is there for anybody to check out and its from the horses mouth(the Navy and not some bullcrap republican websight)! I would love to see Bush do the same. Funny how Kerry has every record from back then and doesn't have to come up with excuses as to why the records are not complete.[/quote]

How is it coming from the Navy? It's his website, he could easily add or detract any records and reports he felt like. Kerry's war service record may trump Bush's, but it's nothing to brag about at all. Neither canidate seems to care about what they really did 30-40 years ago, they just want the votes without having to focus on the issues at hand which is what should be the focus of their campaigns.
 
Ugh, apparently you didn't actually read the article. Well, I'll save you the time. Jeffrey Dvorkin (from NPR) called HIS OWN organization left wing.

The right doesn't need to accuse NPR of being left wing if NPR wears its left wingedness with pride.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='MrBadExample']I like NPR, I think they are fair and balanced.

[/quote]

I hope this comment wasn't serious. NPR has admitted its own leftwing bias.

article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml

Yes, townhall is right wing. Drop that argument.[/quote]

Well I can see why townhall would consider NPR liberal becuase they are WAY over to the right.

Now you drop that argument.[/quote]
 
[quote name='everdave']Why do I respond "GWB is not a moron, he was a fighter pilot?" Because all over liberal media and entertainment - GWB is portrayed as a slobbering, drooling idiot. [/quote]

By your logic, I can say that Kerry is a war hero because he got a Silver and Bronze Star. I haven't heard anyone say Bush was a bad pilot. Quite the contrary, that's why it was a little confusing how he suddenly stopped flying after not taking his physical.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Ugh, apparently you didn't actually read the article. Well, I'll save you the time. Jeffrey Dvorkin (from NPR) called HIS OWN organization left wing.

The right doesn't need to accuse NPR of being left wing if NPR wears its left wingedness with pride.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='MrBadExample']I like NPR, I think they are fair and balanced.

[/quote]

I hope this comment wasn't serious. NPR has admitted its own leftwing bias.

article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml

Yes, townhall is right wing. Drop that argument.[/quote]

Well I can see why townhall would consider NPR liberal becuase they are WAY over to the right.

Now you drop that argument.[/quote][/quote]

I read it, I just don't put a lot of faith in it. Are you seriously trying to say that NPR is as far left of center as FOX News is far right? I would love to see anyone try to back up that claim.
 
:rofl:
I read it, I just don't put a lot of faith in it. Are you seriously trying to say that NPR is as far left of center as FOX News is far right? I would love to see anyone try to back up that claim.
Click to expand...

Perception of media bias is reality of media bias. You will find millions of people that will say NPR is as far left of center as you will say FOX News is far right. Does it make it so? Nope. Personally I don't find FOX News far right just as you don't consider NPR far left. Why? Personal perception. We all see the world through tinted glasses whether we admit it or not.

You have to admit, especially in a forum like this, that there are people just aching to be offended. Eager to show that there is something wrong, that they have been slighted, demeaned, belittled, their intelligence has been insulted, that someone out there has an agenda that isn't their own and have sinister intentions because of it.

That's what bias is. Perception. That's the reality of American and Western politics too. We have camps of left and right, conservative and socialist/communist/progressive. We see the news through that spectre of reality. The bitterness which divides the camps shouldn't be shocking to anyone that visits a gaming message board.

Think of how many times you've had to read that a publication, website, news organization or poster had a bias against a PS2, Xbox, or GameCube. Now think about that in reality. Do you think anyone at CNN actually thinks "Hey, lets do a story on hot Christmas gifts that make Nintendo look "TEH KIDDIE"!" Yet if that turns out to be the reality Nintendo fans go apeship. Do you think IGN or Gamestop sit around reviewing games and purposely give the PS2 version a higher review score than the Xbox or Cube because they are on Sony's payroll? That they want the PS2 to "win". Nope. Yet how many countless posts have you read about system bias. I didn't even mention how evil EGM was.

Now to put that same reality in to proper context I think bias in the media is absolutely real. I also believe it is entirely self sustaining from reporting personnel and not based in editorial controls. I don't think news organizations are inherently conspiritorial spin machines. I do think they are incredibly lazy though. Someone already mentioned asking "How hard can it be to check facts?" well, on deadline... apparently very. Is it easier for a reporter to dig into CBO or OBM numbers him/herself? Or is it easier for them to report "Republican's claim...." or "Democrat's claim....". Is it easier for them to send a reporting team to talk to 100's of Iraqi's about what they think about the U.S. being in their country and how they view the future or is it easier for them to say "Sources on the ground say/claim.....".

The bottom line about why bias exists in the media goes all the way back to Journalism 101 at the S.I. Newhouse school of journalism (Syracuse) or any other top journalism school in the country. When Freshman majors are asked why they want to be journalists the number one answer is "Because I want to change the world.". Guess what, journalism isn't crusading, it's the reporting of facts. Unfortunately we've dredged up a 2nd and 3rd generation of reporters that fit this mindset as opposed to the Murrow/Brinkley kind that thrive of fact gathering so we're stuck with this kind of bias indefinitely.
 
The TRUTH is that there is no unbiased news. In the end the editor has views on something and those views will be reflected in what gets reported.

Whether you like it or not the majority of news media is liberal and only since the start of Fox news (a conservative news media), have they started to be less liberal since they saw that Fox was dominating them in the ratings and wanted to beat Fox.

Also don't forget about ratings and how news is more about entertainment than about information. Real unbiased news reporting won't get you any ratings so that is why it is non-existent.
 
The majority of news is far from liberal. I can't remember the last time I saw a truly liberal news show. You show me someone crusading against capital punishment or someone who wants to talk about the legalization of drugs...and then you can talk about liberal.

This country is already so far to the god damned right that MODERATE concepts like extending unemployment insurance for 13 weeks when the unemployment rate is still at 5.6% seem left wing.

The media is as far right as it has ever been. The over reaction to Janet Jackson's tit is proof of that. A liberal media would've handled it a little bit differently than the ultra conservative pundits that each and every news outlet provides us with.

Show me some REAL LIBERAL BIAS. Please...I'd love it.

The truth of the matter is this whole country has become right...and no one seems to notice or care...
 
I want to take this opportunity to politely agree to disagree with the conservatives here. Obviously we are not going to change each other's minds.
 
I spent some time thinking about this last night, and it's so funny the way that Michael Moore gets lambasted for his far left views (he's a REAL liberal). But Rush seems to have carte blanche to say and do whatever he wants with little attention paid to him by the media.

If the media were truly liberal, they would crucify that hypocritical hate monger every time he opened his drug addled mouth...but they don't. Why is that? Yet any time a liberal says ANYTHING...it is torn apart, mocked or in worst case scenarios...they are often called unpatriotic or trying to commit treason....

We live in one of the most conservative, right-wing countries of the Western World. Many European countries have socialized medicine, work weeks that are far more beneficial to the worker (not the employer), major socialist newspapers, many have extraordinarily stringent handgun laws, they are opposed to capital punishment...and yet people try to talk about our media being liberal.

What a joke.
 
Actually, I never once mentioned Fox News. Where did you get that from?

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental']Ugh, apparently you didn't actually read the article. Well, I'll save you the time. Jeffrey Dvorkin (from NPR) called HIS OWN organization left wing.

The right doesn't need to accuse NPR of being left wing if NPR wears its left wingedness with pride.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='MrBadExample']I like NPR, I think they are fair and balanced.

[/quote]

I hope this comment wasn't serious. NPR has admitted its own leftwing bias.

article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml

Yes, townhall is right wing. Drop that argument.[/quote]

Well I can see why townhall would consider NPR liberal becuase they are WAY over to the right.

Now you drop that argument.[/quote][/quote]

I read it, I just don't put a lot of faith in it. Are you seriously trying to say that NPR is as far left of center as FOX News is far right? I would love to see anyone try to back up that claim.[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top