Draginol Draginol

Thank goodness for blogger fact checking...

▼

Thank goodness for blogger fact checking...

Mainstream media is going to have to get cleaned up..

from JoeUser Forums

If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered.  When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

Conservatives have had to grin and bear it for years as the mainstream media, led by the New York Times and followed by the network news stations, had a virtual monopoly on news distribution.  NBC anchors could casually say "If we could get the NRA out of the way we could have a decent civilized discussion on the 2nd amendment" as if this were an established fact.

Books like Biased have warned for years that there was a serious slanting in the news - something most conservatives were painfully aware of.  Unfortunately there was nothing they could do about it. If ABC's Nightline wants to run a full show smearing Pat Buchanan as being anti-semetic without any real evidence, what could he really do? What could anyone do?

And conservative statistic freaks could notice that stories on homelessness and the AIDS epidemic seem to greatly increase when Republicans are in office but die down if a Democrat is in office (apparently AIDS and homelessness went away during the Clinton administration but boom, now it's back with a vengeance and it's undoubtedly the fault of the "smirking chimp").

I am sure the folks in news rooms across America wish for the days when the only opposition to their ideological positions came from a fat man on AM radio.  Now they not only have to deal with AM radio (gasp) but also cable news such as FOX and now the Internet.

Funny thing about the blog sites, the most popular blog sites are conservative. Not even a close call.  There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals (a: Conservatives are more interested in discussing real world issues on-line or b: Conservatives don't find enough conservative info through traditional outlets are the two Occam's razor answers).

And so as we head towards 2005, I am very thankful that, at time goes on, the mainstream media won't be able to pass on poorly researched ideological bombs as facts and history as they did in the past.  What happened with CBS this Fall wasn't unique, it was just that critical moment when the Internet had reached critical mass to be able to get the truth distributed out to counter the lies.

politics
22,897 views 73 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
When a person running for president tells the voters he met his obligation while serving in the military and did not obey regulatuions and attend drills that is relevant!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and the statement is still just as valid. Replace it with "people" for a good general view of how the world operates.

That would only be true if there was a history of Conservative Bias in Mainstream media.  Since there is none (and even if you want to argue that Fox is, they have not been around long enough), it is moot.

And the World?  Which World?  The world of the Guardian or al Jazeera? Yea, right!

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Fact is, bush has never, ever taken responsibility for anything he's ever done (Iraq debaucle comes to mind). Never. It's so much easier that way.

Off Topic.  Take it to your own blog.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

When a person running for president tells the voters he met his obligation while serving in the military and did not obey regulatuions and attend drills that is relevant!

Your previous post was fact, this one is just Bush Bashing.  FACT he fulfilled his obligation. Dont beleive me? Check the OFFICIAL records. Now back to the regularly scheduled Blog.

Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Standing for re-election constitutes taking responsibility.


It takes no responsibility to run for re-election, only a desire to stay in power. Can you name anything specifically he has taken any responsibility for or stated that he would fix. Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, deficit...anything that he has stated that there are problems out there that he will not blame others for?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is also likely that he went into the guard to avoid service in Vietnam.


Everything in this reply is 100% true!


Gene -

You can't prove statement 1 so statement 2 is false. And the rest is just your interpretation - what you want to believe - not truth. You undermine your credibility with posts like that. However, I'm glad you agree about the forged documents fiasco.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fact is, bush has never, ever taken responsibility for anything he's ever done


dabe -

Standing for re-election constitutes taking responsibility. He just didn't grovel at the feet of the left so you're still pissed.

Being a hardcore lib must be really tough just now. I feel your pain.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #24 By: COL Gene - 12/29/2004 10:54:50 AM Bush did get in and out of the guard with the help of his family cont


Sorry Col, no proof of that!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
It takes no responsibility to run for re-election, only a desire to stay in power.


I beg to differ. While it does take a desire to stay in power, it also puts your entire administration on parade. When Prs. Bush decided that he wanted to "stay in power" and run for re-election, he agreed to put the last 4 years on referendum. We, as the voters of the US were given the opportunity to scrutinize his record and cast our vote accordingly. We did so, and the results are history.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know, it has often seemed to me that, were we to disallow a person from public office on the grounds that they avoided service in Vietnam, then we would be deprived of a whole lot of potentially good or even great leaders from that generation.
Many, many people used family connections, educational deferments and even intentional personal injury to avoid being sent to Southeast Asia, or to avoid the draft entirely.
I seem to recall that a certain iconic president who served in the Oval Office from 1993-2001 (making him a two-termer, Lefties please take note) used his status as a student to avoid the draft by running off to England to "study" (no doubt studying the anatomy of English females and the effects of marijauna on the male libido, but this is just a personal opinion, of course). He dodged the draft and military service just like many other young males in that time. This is okay though, right?
Even if Bush did avoid service, which is clearly debatable, he did exactly what thousands of other young males were doing, so let's not paint an uglier picture of one than the other, based on partisan politics. At least this President wore a uniform at some point in time.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
To carry Rightwinger's point perhaps a tad too far, what about the draft lottery? I remember the anxiety and genuine fear we all felt at the time. My number came up 362 & I was home free - no need to sweat that moral dilemma. Should I feel any more legitimate than someone whose number came up 36 & chose a legal way to avoid both VietNam & jail?

And it annoys me no end, too, that someone who at least joined the Guard is castigated while Bill Clinton, whose dodge is more reprehensible on the reprehensibility scale the left has constructed for us, gets a pass (at least from the left). Somehow, to the left it was *more moral* to scam a college deferment than to join the Guard, as long as you were a genuine peacenik. There is the problem, I suppose - joining the guard wasn't the politically correct thing to do, wasn't anti-war enough & was therefore illegitimate.

Seems to me that if Bush's family was as all-powerfully connected as the left likes to claim, we wouldn't even be having this conversation - W would never have needed to bother with the Guard. Why risk crashing a fighter when Pops can pull strings for you?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

The former speaker of the Texas house said he got Bush into the Gurad. Bush himself told his former Economics prof at Harvard that his family contacts got him into the Guard and got him a early honorable discharge. I have been in contact with the Harvard professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, about the Bush statement to him.

Dr Guy

As to Bush meeting his military obligations- His failure to take a required physical ment he was unable to fly which is the obligation he took when he accepted a commission and the tax payers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train Bush to fly which he failed to fulfill when he was grounded. That is a fact . In addition, the Bush pay records show he was not paid for 5 monthh at the end of 1972. His Officer Efficiency Report said he could not be rated because he was not observed. These are factual documents from his military records. There is also the order grounding Lt. Bush for failure to take the required physical. These are not NBC documents but the documents released by both Bush and DoD.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being a hardcore lib must be really tough just now. I feel your pain.


Yeah, Daiwa, it's pretty tough. But, this too shall pass. But, given your political leanings, I doubt you really do feel my pain. However, I really do wish you could feel and understand. That sure would help.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
It takes no responsibility to run for re-election, only a desire to stay in power. Can you name anything specifically he has taken any responsibility for or stated that he would fix. Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, deficit...anything that he has stated that there are problems out there that he will not blame others for?


The answer to this is a resounding......................... NOTHING
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #33 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 2:59:31 PM
Standing for re-election constitutes taking responsibility.


It takes no responsibility to run for re-election, only a desire to stay in power. Can you name anything specifically he has taken any responsibility for or stated that he would fix. Iraq, outsourcing of jobs


I'm going to say this once more! You can NOT blame Bush for outsourcing! The jobs that left do NOT belong to the government and hence are NOT under Bushs jurisdiction! They belong to the employer and they can do what they please with the jobs! It ain't cool but those are the facts!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The former speaker of the Texas house said he got Bush into the Gurad.


And his daughter went on TV & radio to refute that claim, wholly made up by her father. She was so upset with the bald-faced lie that she felt publicly rebuking him was more important than any family strains it might cause.

As for what Bush told his economics prof, what might be the political leanings of Professor Tsurumi, pray tell? Let's see, Professor of Economics at a highly liberal institution situated in Boston. Hmm... but that's just speculation on my part. Has any independent third party or witness confirmed Professor Tsurumi's claim?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Draginol for going off subject. (But this maybe an example about your internet subject come true)

I'm going to say this once more! You can NOT blame Bush for outsourcing! The jobs that left do NOT belong to the government and hence are NOT under Bushs jurisdiction! They belong to the employer and they can do what they please with the jobs! It ain't cool but those are the facts!


Just remember who signed the NAFTA acts into law, give you one guess and one hint. His name does not end with Bush.

An other Question for you too: What family members has moved more jobs out of the US? a) Kerry-Heinz Family or b) Bush Family

As for what Bush told his economics prof, what might be the political leanings of Professor Tsurumi, pray tell? Let's see, Professor of Economics at a highly liberal institution situated in Boston. Hmm... but that's just speculation on my part. Has any independent third party or witness confirmed Professor Tsurumi's claim?


I've been taking University classes for years and have never thought about telling anyone else (especial Professors) things like that. Plus the same Professor stated Bush rode and spanked him too. Not one other person at the University or his frat house has validated the professor's comments.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
All right. I don't post here often... only when I think that something needs to be said. Mostly, I like to just read the things that people fare more intelligent than I am have to say.

I am a conservative. I always have been and probably always will be. My very best friend in the entire world is just as liberal as I am conservative. As you might imagine, we both love to argue about politics (even though we're teenagers and know nearly nothing while we pretend to know almost everything). We come inches from strangling each other almost once a week over things like abortion, moral relativity, the death penalty, and everything else you can think of. We disagree on a lot of things, and we hash it out quite often.

But the thing is, we're always friends again the next day. Neither of us is going to stop speaking to the other if we "win" (I've come to the conclusion that you never really "win" an argument. Either people are too closed minded or they give up and surrender, but there is never a "win") an argument. Neither of us is going to Steal the other's candy, and neither of us is going to even be mad the next day. Because we debate the actual issues, and we allow our differences to stop at the water's edge.

Now, I know this all sounds very trite and I'm sure you could all tell that it was a naive little teenager behind the keyboard typing this... but that's the way it should be. People shouldn't hate each other because they believe something different, and people shouldn't have to debate what's biased and what's not... it really all sounds like whining eventually. The discussion is great--it's what I believe makes America great, but the heated discussion among the Great Philosophers of our time should not be about which way the media slants, or how Hollywood slants the board even further, or how the Christian Right and Clearwater are manipulating TV... it should be about why we're fighting a war, or why abortions should or shouldn't be performed. I ask this simple thing--attack the issues with a fury due their cause, but don't attack things that have no bearing, and certainly don't attack each other.

That's all I really had to say.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
COL Gene. I happen to know a lot about Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officer promotion boards. I happen to know that a good Officer (Commissioned of Non) can make up to E-6 or O- 5 based on their own merits. On that same token, no one makes Sergeant First Class or Full Colonel without a lot of the right people contacting the promotions board on the promotable Officer or NCO's behalf.

In other words, if you are really a COL, I happen to know that you got it based good word from your own contacts. Without the efforts of your contacts you would have been passed over and left hoping that your civilian contacts could help you out more than your military ones did.

In other words, quit acting like you are a completely self made man. Quit trying to condemn Bush for your assumptions that he used political contacts to get what he wanted, when you and I know that we have both done the same. ;~D
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cool words, especially coming from a teen. The best political (or even religious) discussions are the ones where everyone involved can shake it off and still be friends (cyberbuddies, or merely fellow bloggers) after the submit buttons cool off.

should not be about which way the media slants, or how Hollywood slants the board even further, or how the Christian Right and Clearwater are manipulating TV...


I will disagree with you here though. Sometimes it is the "media slants, or how Hollywood slants the board even further, or how the Christian Right and Clearwater are manipulating TV" that is the point, therefore it should be included in the discussion. Of course, most the time, when these things are invoked, it is merely taking an example or analogy and making it the point ;~D.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #42 By: Lee1776 - 12/30/2004 12:45:22 AM
Sorry Draginol for going off subject. (But this maybe an example about your internet subject come true)

I'm going to say this once more! You can NOT blame Bush for outsourcing! The jobs that left do NOT belong to the government and hence are NOT under Bushs jurisdiction! They belong to the employer and they can do what they please with the jobs! It ain't cool but those are the facts!


Just remember who signed the NAFTA acts into law, give you one guess and one hint. His name does not end with Bush.


Sorry but you can't blame Slick Willie either. NAFTA ain't got nothing to do with it. I'll say it again. The JOB belongs to the EMPLOYER NOT the government!
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can NOT blame Bush for outsourcing!


It's kind of interesting how so many people want Prs. Bush to take on enough authority to control military unit supply, job creation, the stock market, oil production, oil prices, K-12 education; radio and television programming, standards, and transmission requirements; terrorist actions, medical ethics, pharmaceutical safety and effectiveness, use of natural resources on private property, and renewable resource research.

I mean, I like the guy, but there's no way I'd want to see any president given the authority to take on that much responsibility. ;~D
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just remember who signed the NAFTA acts into law, give you one guess and one hint. His name does not end with Bush.


If an employer can get the job done cheaper (which directly affects the bottom line) then it's their priviledge and *right* to take the job offshore. After all it's their money paying for the job, not yours.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm going to say this once more! You can NOT blame Bush for outsourcing! The jobs that left do NOT belong to the government and hence are NOT under Bushs jurisdiction! They belong to the employer and they can do what they please with the jobs! It ain't cool but those are the facts!


You don't give a tax credit to someone who sends jobs overseas. You don't make it easier for them and pat them on the back when it happens. Its like inviting the wolf to dinner after they eat the chickens.
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
It's kind of interesting how so many people want Prs. Bush to take on enough authority to control military unit supply, job creation, the stock market, oil production, oil prices, K-12 education; radio and television programming, standards, and transmission requirements; terrorist actions, medical ethics, pharmaceutical safety and effectiveness, use of natural resources on private property, and renewable resource research.

I mean, I like the guy, but there's no way I'd want to see any president given the authority to take on that much responsibility.


If he sees the problem and does nothing to help, then he is part of the problem. What is his answer to environmental problems? Give money to the polluters. What is his answer to rising health costs? Give money to those raising prices on drugs and making billions. I just talked about his solution for loss of jobs overseas. His answer to everything is to reward the wrong doers thinking if he gives them a cookie they will have a change of heart. What is the difference between corporate welfare and welfare to the poor. Short answer, the wealthy get wealthier.