Who is YOUR GUY (or girl) for 2008?

[AZIRISHFAN]

I would have to go with the Home State guy and take McCain. I have always liked him

 

[guff]

... free healthvare! ...

(hops on souped up lawnmower)

Free? Nothing is free, someone is paying.

 

[marv81s]

I would like to see on the Republican side someone like McCain or Newt, on the dem side I would have no idea. That party is a mess, how does anyone believe that this country would be better off with the Dems in charge of the house and senate right now is beyond me. That party has no ideas, they just critisize with no suggestions for what they would differently, so who would best represent them in '08 is beyond me. I would have to say Hillary (GOD forbid!). Obama is a no go for me since he is all for an open bolder, "bring 'em up" he says. Its no wonder that Illinois is going in the crapper in terms of debt. Whoever runs for the Republicans has my vote, and the Dems need some serious changes for the people in charge of that party. Dean and Pelossi are way out of touch.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I would like to see on the Republican side someone like McCain or Newt, on the dem side I would have no idea. That party is a mess, how does anyone believe that this country would be better off with the Dems in charge of the house and senate right now is beyond me.

Well, given the alternative...it's hard NOT to think they would do better. I cannot imagine them doing worse.

And yes, all they do is criticize. What is there to cheer?

 

[marv81s]

Not saying there is much to cheer about, just that the economy is growing faster than it has in years, unemployment is at it lowest in decades, more and more people own their own homes, Bush has spent more on education than any president in history. Not saying things in Iraq are all that great, if these f'n politicians would keep their nose's out of the war and let the generals do their job, we could take care of business over there, I can't believe, well yeah I can, that we didn't learn anything from the Korean and Vietnam war. If we had todays press during WW2, we would have lost that war. They, the Dems, don't have too cheer, just come up with a plan for what they do. Its always easier to throw stones and critisize, just be constructive, but they don't offer anything new. Pulling out of Iraq isn't an option, or what did those men and women die for. I think the media is not helping things either, we don't ever hear about all the good things that are being done over there, or that a very large majority of Iraq is stable and not in chaos. NO, we don't hear that because of their blind hatred for Bush and his administration.

 

[ShivaIrish]

Not saying there is much to cheer about, just that the economy is growing faster than it has in years,

----What does that even mean, that the rich are getting richer while the middle class still shrinks do to outsourcing and a greater difference in salaries between the rich and everybody else?

unemployment is at it lowest in decades

---with jobs that do not pay a living wage. Personally, I don't want to have to work at Wal-Mart. Is Bush counting all those illegal aliens as part of the employed deomgraphic?

more and more people own their own homes, Bush has spent more on education than any president in history.

---I think these are numbers games here. The population keeps on increasing, so just because more own houses doesn't mean the ratio is better. Same for education. Look at the spending on defense vs. education. Huge descrepancy on the percentage of the annual budget.

If we had todays press during WW2, we would have lost that war.

--Don't necessarily agree with this. If memory serves, WW2 was considered a "just war" if you're into that kind of thing, whereas Iraq has been condemned by the Pope and many other theologians--it is not just! To me, that's a big difference.

They, the Dems, don't have too cheer, just come up with a plan for what they do. Its always easier to throw stones and critisize, just be constructive, but they don't offer anything new.

--My impression is similar.

Pulling out of Iraq isn't an option, or what did those men and women die for.

--For the rich oligarchy's own private agenda. Not that that is much different than many other wars. You don't even have to agree with "Loose Change", although it does ask questions that still haven't been answered. People need to stop hiding behind the reasoning that, "If we admit we were wrong, than we're not supporting both the dead and alive troops. It makes their deaths meaningless." Well, they probably are, just like the deaths of countless people from malnutrition and disease that could easily be avoided. However, in order to stop such things, that might mean some country's economies must "stop growing."

I think the media is not helping things either, we don't ever hear about all the good things that are being done over there, or that a very large majority of Iraq is stable and not in chaos. NO, we don't hear that because of their blind hatred for Bush and his administration.

---I agree partly, but that isn't the whole story. I've heard the explanation that not all the good things happening can be reported because that might give away strategic information to those opposed to the new Iraqi government and the U.S. It really is a sticky journalistic situation. With that said, things still don't seem good when U.S. army commanders are admittedly worrying about the possibility of outright civil war.

 

[guff]

... Not that that is much different than many other wars. You don't even have to agree with "Loose Change", although it does ask questions that still haven't been answered.....

On the off chance that somebody actually believes any portion of "Loose Change" I give you these links. - Loose Change got one fact right - the date. Other than that it is as factual as a Grimm fairly tale.

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc) Check out the audio files about just above the photos. If you don't cry you aren't human.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

 

[ShivaIrish]

On the off chance that somebody actually believes any portion of "Loose Change" I give you these links. - Loose Change got one fact right - the date. Other than that it is as factual as a Grimm fairly tale.

I'm not claiming to buy into all the Loose Change stuff, but it leaves questions not properly answered.

For those who want to investigat the "other side" of the story to the links above,
here's a site started and supported by academic scholars (among others I imagine).

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

 

[guff]

And here's another group of "scholars" that don't believe the official version of a historical event

http://www.revisionists.com/

Sometimes scholar is a euphemism for idiot.

 

[marv81s]

Do you honestly think todays press would have covered the D-day invasion as a success, or any of the pacific campaigns? No way in hell!! Todays press and everyone is all caught up in death toll numbers. As a human being and a former marine, I hate to see any of our soldiers die, not a day goes by that I don't wish I stayed in so I could be back over there with my friends that are still in, so we can finish the job many of feel we should have finished back in 1990-91. Considering the type of war that we are in, we don't know who the enemy is, they hide behind civilians and are fighting, basically, chicken s**t warfare. This is a totally different war compared to other wars. The war in Iraq is justified, Saddam was a threat and he was an ally to terrorist. When the invasion first started there were dozens of terrorist training camps in the north. He was treating terrorist injured in Afganistan, he had WMD's, the under reported story from last month when they found 500+ artillery shells with chemical weapons proved that, and a former air force general of his admitted that before the invasion many more were shipped out of the country. So if you really think the Iraq war is for not except to help the rich get richer here in our country, then your very misguided. I guess if Clinton or Gore was president they would have made some BS deal with them, give them 800 million or so dollars and make Saddam promise not to pursue nukes. That worked out well for us with North Korea didn't it?

And who gives a damn about what the pope thinks in my opinion. Does anyone listen to the Vatican when it comes to these type of issues and the rest of Europe was against the war with Iraq for obvious reasons, Saddam had them paid off, he had Germany, France, and Russia all in his back pocket. Do you know that alot of the weapons and equipment that we seized during the invasion of Iraq was from France? Modern chemical warfare suits made in france. I don't support how the war was planned, but I sure as hell support what it is for.

I don't see the poverty rate for America going up at all. I spose the Libs is the party for the poor and middle class right? BS they all think we make too much money, that is why they always, ALWAYS vote to raise our taxes so we can have Gov't funded programs out the ass, when it should be OUR responsibilty to take care of ourselves. Dems also HATE the military, that is why they always oppose defense spending, as evidenced by Kerry and his other idiot buddies voting for a war, because a majority of america was behind it this time, but voting against the funding for it.

and these nutjob a-holes that think 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy, my GOD. What color is the sky in your world? That is so rediculous I refuse to even rebut that with any other response. The lib media and the dems are playing right into the terrorists hands, they are dividing us all and that is making us much more weaker as a society. Why do the people in Gitmo deserve the same rights as us, what makes them entitled to a trial? When they wouldn't hesistate to cut off our heads, torture us, hang us from a bridge after draggin us through a street? We need to recognize that this is not a convential war that we are fighting and we need to come together. Fight them over here is a better option than here.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Not saying there is much to cheer about, just that the economy is growing faster than it has in years

You misspelled "since Clinton was in office"

unemployment is at it lowest in decades

Again, you misspelled "since Clinton was in office"

more and more people own their own homes

Thanks to low interest rates...even Clinton could not really claim that as his own.

Bush has spent more on education than any president in history

He voted for a program he never funded. Which, in all honesty, is good since it failed so miserably in Texas. God help us if we "improved" the Nation's education the way it was "improved" in Texas.

Also, No Child Left Behind is full of UNFUNDED MANDATES.

Not saying things in Iraq are all that great, if these f'n politicians would keep their nose's out of the war and let the generals do their job, we could take care of business over there, I can't believe, well yeah I can, that we didn't learn anything from the Korean and Vietnam war.

You are right on here. If Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney had kept their nose's out and supported our Generals with the troops and equipment they needed in the first place. Things would be MUCH better.

But again, he screwed it up.

If we had todays press during WW2, we would have lost that war.

Why is that? The press in WW2 showed some pretty horrible things, but the country was behind the action since it threatened us and our allies.

They, the Dems, don't have too cheer, just come up with a plan for what they do. Its always easier to throw stones and critisize, just be constructive, but they don't offer anything new.

That is true. The Republicans, who criticized Clinton have found that out. We have gone through 5 of the worst years our country has seen. Some has been unavoidable. Some has been VERY avoidable.

Right now the country is being run as badly as it was Pre-Roosevelt. It's never been this bad since then. People complain about Carter, but that was nothing compared to this.

Pulling out of Iraq isn't an option, or what did those men and women die for.

1) I don't know...what did they die for anyway? I would LOVE to hear ONE explanation for it that's true.
2) It's an option, but a bad one since the country would drop into outright civil war...it would be brutal beyond anything we have seen so far. Our troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are ready.

I think the media is not helping things either, we don't ever hear about all the good things that are being done over there

I disagree. I see all kinds of stories about the wonderful things we have done over there.

However, as a LtCol buddy of mine said "we build schools...and a week later they blow them up."

or that a very large majority of Iraq is stable and not in chaos. NO, we don't hear that because of their blind hatred for Bush and his administration.

The places that are in Chaos are the places that matter. Funny how that works.

Iraq is far worse off now than when we invaded. In time, it will be better than it was.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserves death...but let's face it, there are plenty of those fellows running around. Sudan comes to mind.

So tell me...what good thing has Bush done while in office?

(I can think of one or two...)

 

[ShivaIrish]

And here's another group of "scholars" that don't believe the official version of a historical event

http://www.revisionists.com/

Sometimes scholar is a euphemism for idiot.

I agree that just because someone is a so-called scholar doesn't mean they have the final answer. However, you can't just discredit them by virtue of them disagreeing with your point of view. All I'm saying is, if there is some concern about how the WT towers collapsed, and some of the questioners include a physics professor at BYU and an engineer from MIT, shouldn't we listen to hear what they have to say? I know nothing about the revisionists scholars you cited, guff. Even if they are quacks, that doesn't in an of itself discredit what others say. After all, everybody on Fox News probably supports any and all rebuttals to Loose Change, but that doesn't mean, then, that the rebuttals are wrong either.

 

[ShivaIrish]

he had WMD's, the under reported story from last month when they found 500+ artillery shells with chemical weapons proved that, and a former air force general of his admitted that before the invasion many more were shipped out of the country. So if you really think the Iraq war is for not except to help the rich get richer here in our country, then your very misguided.

Washington Post: "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

The Duelfer (CIA weapon's inspector) report concluded against the idea that these shells were part of any chemical stockpile, and that they were pre-Gulf War vintage. Not even the White House will acknowledge them as being WMDs. It seems only Fox News-types are supporting this idea.

And who gives a damn about what the pope thinks in my opinion. Does anyone listen to the Vatican when it comes to these type of issues
--I do. So does Notre Dame. I'm surprised so many people will summarily dismiss the opionion of the pope who really is an intelligent and savy individual. That doesn't mean you blindly follow, but then why would you just digest what Bush, Fox News, etc. spoon-feed the public.


and the rest of Europe was against the war with Iraq for obvious reasons, Saddam had them paid off, he had Germany, France, and Russia all in his back pocket. Do you know that alot of the weapons and equipment that we seized during the invasion of Iraq was from France? Modern chemical warfare suits made in france. I don't support how the war was planned, but I sure as hell support what it is for.
---And many of the weapons and equipment came from the U.S., which is currently (as of last year) the second leading exporter of arms in the world. How do you know Saddam had Europe paid off?

and these nutjob a-holes that think 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy, my GOD. What color is the sky in your world? That is so rediculous I refuse to even rebut that with any other response.

---I'm not saying you should agree with the 9/11 "nutjob a-holes", but why not listen to them instead of shuting your ears and eyes. Have you even seriously listend to what they have to say? Why do you simply believe the "official" story by the Bush Admin.?

Why do the people in Gitmo deserve the same rights as us, what makes them entitled to a trial? When they wouldn't hesistate to cut off our heads, torture us, hang us from a bridge after draggin us through a street?

--- because they're human beings, they should not be tortured and have their international rights revoked. And if this is a war on terror, you cannot simply do terrorist attacks on whomever one believes is a terrorist. That doesn't mean one is supporting the horrific acts of anti-Americans, but one cannot justify acts by saying "but they did it to us!"

 

[guff]

I'm not saying you should agree with the 9/11 "nutjob a-holes", but why not listen to them instead of shuting your ears and eyes. Have you even seriously listend to what they have to say? Why do you simply believe the "official" story by the Bush Admin.?

First off it's not the Bush Administrations story. I and every other person in the world watched the story unfolded in front of their eyes. And - yes perish the thought - we believe what we saw.

I see no reason to keep an open mind when it comes to idiocy. Shutting your eyes and ears to nitwittery is actually a good thing to do. Where I went to college there was a local resident who we called "Screaming Jesus" because oddly enough he looked like Jesus and he screamed. He would yell that world was ending and spout a variety of reasons, he would spray paint walls with pithy little comments like "Jesus is coming and he's pissed". After about a week of listening to him we tuned him out.

I listened to the nitwits and believed for a short period that they might be on to something. I then determined through research that there theories are pure nitwittery. Continue to listen to nitwits is a waste of my time. To engage nitwits in debate is equally a waste.

And if you believe it then you are a nitwit.

 

[marv81s]

wow, i don't even know where to start with your arguements on this points. I guess all I have to say is that we will never, ever agree on anything on this subject. You two believe that all of America's problems from education to the economy is all Bush's fault. That the president of the united states knew about 9/11 and did nothing, or that he had something to do with it, blah, blah, blah. That the numbers that prove the economy is strong and is growing at a fast rate is all BS. I am not happy or approve of the way that Iraq was planned. But lets be honest with ourselves, Bugs Bunny could have been president during Clinton's years and things would have been no different, Clinton had the dot com business's blowing up which boosted the economy and jobs, so why give him credit for that, oh that's right, because his VP is the inventor of the internet. Clinton had 3 golden opportunities to have Bin Laden, the true planner and funder of 9/11, and did nothing. You Libs can't blame all the worlds problems on GW, he inherrited a recession, terrorist attacks, two major hurricanes, a castrophic tidal wave in asia, two that the US had to pay way more than it should to help them out. A highly disruptive psycho in Iran, N Korea (that wonderful deal that your golden boy Clinton made with him) and now GW has to deal with that crap.

Its amazing that you stick up for the people in Gitmo. You think these were just friendly little farmers that made a wrong turn somewhere to end up in the middle of a battlefied in Afganistan and/or IRaq. I would love for you guys to tell one of these soldiers that their comrade died for nothing. Whether you belive it or not, they believe in what they are fighting for, WMDs was one of fifteen reasons for us invading Iraq. They are fighting to give the Iraqi people the same freedoms that you and I have, so they can talk shit and express their displeasures with their gov't. So they can have free elections like what happened 6 months ago. Our own country wasn't built in 4 or 5 years, it took over 100 years for us to get going, and we still haven't gotten it right. So why do we expect things to be different in a country like Iraq. Iran and Syria defiantely isn't helping matters any by funding the insurgency over there and provoking a possible Civil War. Every war has mistakes, and there has been plenty of them in this one no doubt. And I don't blindly listen to the words of the Bush Administration, like the last person I said, I believed what I saw through oberservation and after 5 years, I have come to the conclusion that we were attacked by radical islamist.

Funny how you all refuse to believe and admit that our press HATES Bush. Why can't you admit that? They have been blantly biased in their coverage of this war. I hate to sound insensitive here, but 2500 casualties is not that bad considering the type of warfare that we are fighting in this war. What did the media berate for days on end, Abu Grahib, which I am sorry, what happened there isn't torture, its college frat hazing if anything. We did worse stuff than that to each other when I was in the marines. These prisoners in Gitmo abuse our guards daily, but we don't hear about that. And just because those shells were from back in the gulf war days means that they are less dangersous? Were they the smoking gun and what they were hoping for? No, but that doesn't mean they weren't dangerous. You forgot the rest of my quote too. We did supply arms to Iraq, during its conflict with Iran, but I can tell you that a large majority of the weapons that we seized in the first Gulf War, and from what my friends tell me about this one, that are on the ground and were in the shit in fallujah and on the way into Baghdad, were french and soviet fairly new weapons. Read the oil for food scandal to see just how Saddam had Europe and the rest of that lovely UN paid off.

 

[ShivaIrish]

gufff---I put my reply on the Loos Change Documentary thread.

 

[ShivaIrish]

You Libs can't blame all the worlds problems on GW,

--I'm not even sure what a Lib is , but I'm not in support of any political party, and believe their should be more than two legitimate candidates, including for the next election. But GW seems to be pretty bad, and actually, I think a lot of the media is easy on him. Just because his approval ratings are down, don't then say the media is at fault for reporting that. Fox News seems to like him, and that is the most biased news orginization that I know of.

Another thing, if everybody things you're crazy, wouldn't that make you at least question yourself? If much of the world seems to think Bush is a bad leader, why wouldn't Amercia wonder the same thing? I do not know the whole story, but based on what I do know, things don't add up.

Its amazing that you stick up for the people in Gitmo. You think these were just friendly little farmers that made a wrong turn somewhere to end up in the middle of a battlefied in Afganistan and/or IRaq. I would love for you guys to tell one of these soldiers that their comrade died for nothing. Whether you belive it or not, they believe in what they are fighting for, WMDs was one of fifteen reasons for us invading Iraq.

--the people in Gitmo are people, even if they are not "friendly little farmers"--although some may (not all, I know) be akin to it, like the three English-Pakistanis(?) that were arrested and eventually released. I think ultimately, at least in most wars, people do die for nothing. WWII is one of the so-called "just wars", and you have to wonder about that even. Read All Quiet on the Western Front--a great book that illustrates the confusion of war.

Funny how you all refuse to believe and admit that our press HATES Bush. Why can't you admit that?

---see above comment.

 

[marv81s]

I think the reason why Bush isn't popular with foreign countries is because a lot of European leaders lost a lot of money when Saddam fell. The media hates Bush because he is so secretive, which I don't mind. Foxnews is the only news station that does straight up reporting without injecting the newscasters personal views, like NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN does. You really think Sheppard Smith is a fan of Bush after watching Katrina coverage? There are some that are conservative, but there is also some that Liberal, at least you get the story and you get the news.

I appreciate this discussion and your points of view, you do raise some good points. I will never agree with your point of view on Gitmo. The very large majority of people there are not innocent. Have we taken some prisoner that probably didn't deserve it, yes. But we have also released quite a few, just to have them taken prisoner again on the battlefield again. I will never agree with your statement that every war people die for nothing, at least not in this case. I don't believe that our men and women are dying for nothing now. I don't think anyone died for nothing in WW2, or korea. i don't believe most americans understand the war that we involved with right now, not their fault since nobody from our gov't has made an effort to help explain it. I would like to think I have an idea about what we are fighting for right now. Like what was said last week, if we didn't have an ocean in between us and the radical islamist, we would be in the same situation that Israel is in. you can't negotiate with terrorist. Wait until they get their hands on a nuke and set it off here in the U.S. It is only a matter of time till it happens, at least we have a president that is trying to prevent it from happening.

 

[jiggafini19]

Foxnews is the only news station that does straight up reporting without injecting the newscasters personal views, like NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN does.

No question about it.

 

[ShivaIrish]

mar81s--It has been good to talk about this stuff. I agree. Another problem just arises when people refuse to do so.

I should come clean about my stance on war, just so everybody knows where some of my comments come from. I am a pacifist, but in a "Kierkegaardian" sense, where doubt seems to be right there with my belief that ultimately any war is wrong. Why the doubt? I just don't know what to do in certain situations, like in WWII. I've spent time studying just-war theory in school (theology major) and so I feel comfortable about chategorizing wars on a number of levels within the context of dialogue. Personally, I just don't see Iraq nearly on the same level as WWII. But it is good, still, to hear what others have to say.

With that said (and this for jigga, also) Fox News is still the most biased and misleading news coverage. Any network that lets O'reilly etc. say the things they do is definitely the most biased. I wish I had more time to watch more news, but 24 hrs. etc. So I try to catch some from Fox, NBC, BBC, CNN, and other online sources including MediaMatters. I've only heard Fox bash MediaMatters, which I don't say is the end-all, but they do a good job pointing out errors with Fox using other media outlets info., as well as other Fox statements that are contradictory. Check it out for yourself, you'd be hard pressed to keep on defending Fox.

Personally, I'm not Republican or Democrat or anything. I just want whats best for not just American, but the world. In this context, it's not about competition for me. I have ND football to help in channeling my competitive attributes.

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

Shiva, open your ears, buddy. Shows like "The Factor" criticize what the Repulicans are doing more so than than wha the Dems stand for. Your opinion is typical of the "headhunting" approach Dems take to politics. Repubs seem just as bad but they are merely reactive to all the garbage that democrats spew in the media. I can't say that I even support Republicans in my life. They have done too much harm to the reputation of the party over the past 15 years. But, at least they have better intentions than Democrats. This country would be in shambles if it weren't for the "other" political party making up for Dems mistakes. This world would be rules by communism and radical extremists if Democrats were consistently in power. Clinton's adminisration is the reason that we had to go to Iraq at all. He couldn't even handle Somalia much less the Middle East. If The Soviet Union had still been in power during the 90's who know what would have come of democracy and this country.

 

[Sir John]

Clinton's adminisration is the reason that we had to go to Iraq at all.

???? I thought it was the current presidents decision to go in? Is he blaming another for a bonehead move?

 

[marv81s]

Well Shiva, with that last response I can understand why you have a biased opinion of Foxnews considering where you get your sources from. Considering that most of the news organizations that you watch to get your news have nothing good to say about us and cover us (meaning Americans) in a pretty unfavorable light, especially the BBC who dispise Bush and his administration almost as much as the NY Times and The Atlanta Constitution. I am going to bet you haven't watched a whole hour of O'Reily, as well as Hannity and Colmes, or even the Fox Report with Shepard Smith. If you have, I don't see how you can say that the network is pro-republican. They attack each party with the same amount of "force". It just so happens that the Dems have brought a lot of critism on themselves by their personal attacks and not offering anything new to solve the problems that we have right now. anybody can sit back and point out the mistakes that have been made, give us solutions. And when they do come up with a plan, it is the things were doing anyway. But it will work when they are doing it because Bush has alienated the USA, which is BS. All the so called great peace deals that Billy Boy did ended up being worthless, would have better to use the paper that those deals were signed on to wipe my ass with. I have to say that in about 10 years, we'll look back and Bush will be judged by his actions then. Reagan wasn't exactly popular, but when we look back at the things he accomplished, he is looked at as one of the better presidents in our history.

 

[marv81s]

no, clinton's idea of retaliation was lobbing a couple missles over to an area and saying, well i retaliated, now where's Monica at?

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

Sir John, if you don't kno the facts and the reality behind my post then you shouldn't be commenting on this subject. Our current president would not have been forced to make the decision he did if our previous president weren't banging women other than his wife instead of paying attention to foreign affairs.

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

I'm sorry, "he DID NOT have sexual relations with that woman." Let me clear my throat!

 

[ShivaIrish]

I'm not supporting what Clinton did; maybe he did make it harder on the Bush administration, especially for foreign policy. I'm not a Dem. just trying to bash republicans. I'm not a Dem. at all. And I've watched enough of O'reilly, Cavuto, and Hannity &Colmes to know what kind of stuff they say. Have you ever done extra research on what they say? Fox can't even always report the actual main events correctly, much less constantly putting a "neo-conservative" (whatever that means) spin on everything. What other sources do you guys check? Or do you just watch Fox? I'm not supporting NBC or any others as saying they are the end-all. You have to go for a wide variety, because most are skewed, and I don't know of a single one that is not biased one way or the other. So you have to gather info. from a wide selection of media sources. It just so turns out that Fox is probably the most biased and innacurate, and if you only trust them as your source, you simply are buying into whatever propaganda Murdoch allows to fed to the public. Come on, what other news comp. is trying to downplay and question global warming to the extent Fox does? (I hope that comment doesn't open a can of worms). It's pretty much science 101 at this point.

With that said, I'm inclined to think the BBC (gasp-a non-American news organization) is probably the most balanced, especially out of the major news companies.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

You two believe that all of America's problems from education to the economy is all Bush's fault.

No. But I believe he as done very little to ameliorate those problems.

That the president of the united states knew about 9/11 and did nothing, or that he had something to do with it, blah, blah, blah.

The conspiracy theories are hair-brained, I agree.

However, Clinton had a plan to "Roll Back Al Qaeda" and told Bush the Bin Laden was the US's "#1 Threat". Given that information Bush did NOTHING. In fact, he did nothing on the matter until 1 week before the attacks on 9/11.

That the numbers that prove the economy is strong and is growing at a fast rate is all BS.

The economy is being bolstered by a housing bubble. Go see how well that worked for Japan circa 1990.

I am not happy or approve of the way that Iraq was planned.

Nor were the PROFESSIONAL Military planners who were overruled by Donald "small and light" Rumsfeld. Or is that Donald "McNamara" Rumsfeld?

But lets be honest with ourselves, Bugs Bunny could have been president during Clinton's years and things would have been no different, Clinton had the dot com business's blowing up which boosted the economy and jobs, so why give him credit for that, oh that's right, because his VP is the inventor of the internet.

So was it Bugs Bunny who:
1) Halved the deficit in 2 years? (with NO Republican votes)
2) Created a number of back-to-work programs?
3) Gave BILLIONS in tax cuts for higher education?
4) In his first 6 years in office never signed a bill that increased spending over 4%? (tell me when Bush limits it to LESS than 4%?)
5) Was it Bugs Bunny who gave BILLIONS in tax cuts and then SPENT Billions on top of that?

As for Al Gore... Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn two of the key founders of the Internet said this about Gore:
As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Influence_on_the_Internet

Clinton had 3 golden opportunities to have Bin Laden, the true planner and funder of 9/11, and did nothing.

Clinton missed some opportunities it is true. They were not as clear or legal as people pretend though. Here are some of the actions that Clinton took:
1) Submarines were ready to attack bin Laden: For all of 2000, Clinton
ordered two U.S. Navy submarines to stay on station in the northern
Arabian sea, ready to attack bin Laden if his coordinates could be
determined.
2) Startng in 1998, Clinton sent in teams of American officers to northern Afghanistan in an attempt to recruit tribal leaders in Afghanistan. The CIA
attempted to recruit tribal leaders who might be persuaded to take on bin Laden; contingency plans had been made for the CIA to fly one of its planes to a desert landing strip in Afghanistan if he was ever captured
3) Clinton administration lawyers determined that the United States could legitimately seek to kill bin Laden and his lieutenants despite the presidential ban on assassinations, according to current and former American officials. The lawyers concluded that efforts to hunt and kill bin Laden were defensible either as acts of war or as national self defense, legitimate under both American and international law. As a result, President Clinton did not waive the executive order banning assassinations
4) The United States launched cruise missiles against a meeting bin Laden was believed to be attending, encouraged Massoud and other Afghan leaders to try to capture him, and received a secret report from one Afghan group 2000 about its failed attempt to assassinate bin Laden.
The effort to work with Massoud followed the most direct and open American effort to kill bin Laden. It came on Aug. 20, 1998, two weeks after the embassy attacks in East Africa. Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on a complex near Khost, Afghanistan, where the CIA had learned that bin Laden was scheduled to be meeting with 200 to 300 other members of al-Qaeda.
The sea-launched cruise missiles slammed into the camp only about an hour or so after bin Laden left the conference, American officials believe. According to former senior Clinton administration officials, some 20 to 30 al-Qaeda members were killed, temporarily disrupting the organization

You Libs can't blame all the worlds problems on GW...

Easy sport...I am a disaffected Conservative. I disliked a lot of what Clinton did...but it was a fair sight better than the current bumbling fool. A man who thinks you can cut taxes and increase spending with no discernable represcussions is a fool.

he inherrited a recession, terrorist attacks, two major hurricanes, a castrophic tidal wave in asia, two that the US had to pay way more than it should to help them out.

True, Bush did not create the recession...but he did little to get us out of it. Just look above for what Clinton did. Don't forget Bush the elder...he took action as well.

As for the Hurricaines, I have only to point you to all the UNQUALIFIED people Bush put into office. FEMA Director Brown. The lawyer for the Arabian Horse Association... C'MON!!! Pick someone with experience in disasters. (of which Brown had none)

A highly disruptive psycho in Iran, N Korea (that wonderful deal that your golden boy Clinton made with him) and now GW has to deal with that crap.

North Korea is a no win. I don't pin this on Bush or Clinton. This is a Cold War relic which remains to be waited out and contained.

Its amazing that you stick up for the people in Gitmo. You think these were just friendly little farmers that made a wrong turn somewhere to end up in the middle of a battlefied in Afganistan and/or IRaq.

Some of the guys in Gitmo are scum. Many are people who fought "invaders". What if the new Iraqi government decided to hold all of our soldiers INDEFINITNATELY for invading their country (which we did...just for the record)? Wouldn't you be a bit upset?

Also, what if the US attacked someone unjustifiably and we were invaded? Wouldn't you pick up a gun to drive out the invader, despite our previous actions? Of course you would. If I were in Afghanistan or Iraq, I would very likely have taken up arms too.

I would love for you guys to tell one of these soldiers that their comrade died for nothing.

What did they die for?

Whether you belive it or not, they believe in what they are fighting for, WMDs was one of fifteen reasons for us invading Iraq.

Just because you make up a bad reason does not make it a real reason.

They are fighting to give the Iraqi people the same freedoms that you and I have, so they can talk shit and express their displeasures with their gov't.

Actually, it's really more to create a country that creates a strategic balance against Iran and Syria...but keeping believing what you want. I personally think its a good idea...but I would never be foolish enough to think this was for Freedom. That's a joke.

Our own country wasn't built in 4 or 5 years, it took over 100 years for us to get going, and we still haven't gotten it right.

OUr country was founded by lawyers and people who believed in Democracy...this situation is COMPLETELY different. They are incomparable.

So why do we expect things to be different in a country like Iraq. Iran and Syria defiantely isn't helping matters any by funding the insurgency over there and provoking a possible Civil War.

The insurgency is NOT funded by Iran. Get your facts straight. The insurgency is SUNNI. The Iranians are shias and they fund the leaders in the south who OPPOSE the insurgency.

Every war has mistakes, and there has been plenty of them in this one no doubt.

The first mistake was not listening to the Generals who were asked to plan for it...and then were over-ridden by Bush's inner circle.

Funny how you all refuse to believe and admit that our press HATES Bush. Why can't you admit that?

The press "hated" Clinton. He could do nothing right. But its not about hate. It's about criticism. Bush believes he cannot be critized...otherwise you are supporting the enemy.

They have been blantly biased in their coverage of this war.

How so? They show that there are HUNDREDS of attacs daily. And in fact, everytime Rumsfeld says its getting better...it does not.

I hate to sound insensitive here, but 2500 casualties is not that bad considering the type of warfare that we are fighting in this war.

Try checking out the totals of wounded...its far worse than the deaths show.

What did the media berate for days on end, Abu Grahib, which I am sorry, what happened there isn't torture, its college frat hazing if anything.

Men died from this hazing. Wow...how many died from your hazing at school?

And just because those shells were from back in the gulf war days means that they are less dangersous? Were they the smoking gun and what they were hoping for? No, but that doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.

We knew about them. Knew where they were... They were NOT the reason...not even part of it.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

This country would be in shambles if it weren't for the "other" political party making up for Dems mistakes. This world would be rules by communism and radical extremists if Democrats were consistently in power.

Ummm...how many Republicans initiated military action to oppose Communism and Communist actions?

None.

Try again.

Clinton's adminisration is the reason that we had to go to Iraq at all.

Actually it was Reagan. He alone spent the money to keep Saddam in power during his darkest times.

I won't pin too much on Bush the elder when he had the chance to get Saddam, since he was merely securing Kuwaiti oil fields.

He couldn't even handle Somalia much less the Middle East.

Didn't Reagan turn tail and run from Beirut? Hmmm?

If The Soviet Union had still been in power during the 90's who know what would have come of democracy and this country.

Nothing. Communism is a hollow ideal that complete ignores human motivations in making lives better. It ALWAYS crumbles under its own weight.

George Kennan killed the Soviet Union...every President from Ike to Reagan merely followed his advice.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Sir John, if you don't kno the facts and the reality behind my post then you shouldn't be commenting on this subject. Our current president would not have been forced to make the decision he did if our previous president weren't banging women other than his wife instead of paying attention to foreign affairs.

Cute...and trite...but not accurate.

Clinton was more successful in Foreign policy that W has been. George Bush (the elder) was even MORE successful than Clinton. (Bush the elder was a mastermind in Foreign Affairs...he had such an amazing team in that area)

W's foreign policy is reactive and poor at best.