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
22,900 views 73 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa and ParatedsK

How would the daughter know what took place. The first hand source is the Speaker. In addition, How did Bush get into the guard ahead of 100 other applicants with NO skills to justify placing his ahead of others. How did he get away with not attending drills or taking a required physical if not because of outside help. I was assured by the professor Tsurumi that Bush did tell him his family did get him into the Guard and secured an early release. The subject of Vietnam was common at that time at Harvard and at Penn where I was an administrator in the early 70's. The issue came up because of how young Bush was to have completed his military service. It is always that a source is in error when anything that can be considered negative toward Bush comes up. Sec O'neil, Army CoS, Texas Speaker, Sec to Bush's commander, Bush's Harvard Professor, Amb to Iraq (Need for more troops) and the list goes on. I guess all the military being killed in Iraq are just a made up story.

As to my promotion to Colonel- it was becaure of my Officer Efficiency Reports that were written by many officers who were my superiors. That was also the basis for my selection to attend the Army War College and recomendation for promotion to General Officer. The problem with Bush is that he got things done that were not justified by his performance, skills etc. In addition, he did not have to accept the punsihments for failing to obey military regulations. I had three commands during my 30 years and if I had had an officer that failted to obey regilations or attend required drils the way Lt Bush did, they would have been subjected to the same punishment as any other officer or NCO that failed to obey regulations. Bush was granted an early release from the guard (WHY) and given an honorable discharge eventhough he did not obey military regulatuions. There is NOTHING MORE BASIC than a military member to obey requlations and orders. This is especially true for NCO's and Officers!
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
As to my promotion to Colonel- it was becaure of my Officer Efficiency Reports that were written by many officers who were my superiors. That was also the basis for my selection to attend the Army War College and recomendation for promotion to General Officer.


It was your efficiency and reports that got your name on the list to be considered for promotion to Col (and now General Officer). Once your name got on the list, nothing you had done up to that point mattered much. As you well know, promotions to O6 and E7 are every bit as political as they are meritorious. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, merely stating a fact. I've personally known a few LTCs whose days were numbered. They have all the right commands and all the right schools, but their wives pissed off the wrong officer's wives, so you know as well as I (probably better) about their chances of ever wearing birds.

George Bush may or may not have used contacts to get into the guard. Guess what, if that is the worst you can say about a person (especially 30 years after the fact), I'd say it's pretty weak. Where I live right now the economy of the area is based on 3 major factories. No one is going to get any kind of job at either of them if someone working there doesn't "put in a good word" for an applicant. Again, not saying its good or bad, just stating a fact.

I'm not defending him, and I'm not saying that you have no right to base you vote on whatever criteria you wish. That is your right. I'm just saying that (IMHO) it's a pretty weak argument against him.

The issue came up because of how young Bush was to have completed his military service


The issue came up because Sen. Kerry wanted to make his Vietnam Service the centerpiece of his campaign. In doing so, he also wanted to downplay any claims Prs. Bush may have made about his service at the same time. The ironic part was, Prs. Bush made no claims about his service (other than he was a fighter pilot in the Texas Air Guard), and openly stated that Sen. Kerry's service was more heroic than his own.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
If he sees the problem and does nothing to help, then he is part of the problem.


Thank you for the voice of micromanagement. The office of President is that of an administrator, a delagator.. not a micromanager. If you really want the president to have that much authority over ever part of government, then just cut to the chase and admit that you'd rather have a dictator. That would be the only type of leader who could actually control all the things that Prs. Bush's detractors want him to control.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not only that Bush used his contacts but that he DID NOT OBEY REGULATIONS and got away it. He claims he meet his obligations which is not true. He did the same thing in getting into Harvard Grad School. Students with a "C" average in under grad school do not get into grad school mush less Harvard! Professor Tsurumi told me in a E-Mail that George W. was a poor student with some of the most" off the wall" ideas he ever heard! How did George W. get investors, who were connected to his family to invest millions of dollars into his two failed companies. How did he becone the manager of the Texas Rangers. With all these great things, how did he becone Gov. of Texas? If George W. Bush had been George Smith, given his military, academic and business experience, he would have been an asst manger at a 7/11!
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
and yet, today, he's President. Only in America!!!! ;~D
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is always that a source is in error when anything that can be considered negative toward Bush comes up.


Not so - when a single source is the only source, the veracity of the claim remains open to question, whether positive or negative. That aside, you seem to apply the same standard (How would the daughter know...?) to criticism of sources you cite. You want to believe - no, your mind is fully made up it appears - so there's little point in demonstrating that there is evidence which casts that belief in doubt. And it's all irrelevant now, anyway.

The issue came up because Sen. Kerry wanted to make his Vietnam Service the centerpiece of his campaign. In doing so, he also wanted to downplay any claims Prs. Bush may have made about his service at the same time. The ironic part was, Prs. Bush made no claims about his service (other than he was a fighter pilot in the Texas Air Guard), and openly stated that Sen. Kerry's service was more heroic than his own.


Precisely. And many people considered Bush's approach to the subject the more honest and decent one. (You have to leave out the 527's on both sides in this discussion).

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2k -

Would make a great human interest story, one the NYT would ordinarily love to run:

"Former Assistant 7/11 Manager Elected President!"

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #58 from PolMach Forums Top
Thank you for the voice of micromanagement. The office of President is that of an administrator, a delagator.. not a micromanager. If you really want the president to have that much authority over ever part of government, then just cut to the chase and admit that you'd rather have a dictator. That would be the only type of leader who could actually control all the things that Prs. Bush's detractors want him to control.


I am not talking about micromanagement. In each instance I sited steps that George Bush took in reaction to problems out there. In each case he decided to reward the wrong doers and ignore the causes of the problems.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #50 By: whoman69 - 12/31/2004 1:15:01 PM
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.


Okay you made the statement now show me where he gives a tax credit for outsourcing.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, Only in America can a son ride so far on the coat tails of his father. Without being the son of a powerful congressman and CIA Director, George W. would hold a job today he could handle! Look at the results he has achieved during the past four years:

A war that was poorly planned that is killing our brave military with no benefit to America. We have spent $200 Billion and he will be asking for another $100 Billion. We have 25,000 injured military so far in the Iraq War

Turned a $125 Billion surplus into a $400 plus Billion dollar deficit

Turned most other nations aginst him

Failed to create jobs for 5 million new workers

Granted tax cuts to people who do not need anything more and is borriowing the money to pay them the tax cuts

Cut helath care for children and home heating help for the poor

Failed to provide an energy policy and we now have $2 gal gasoline

No workable plan for Social Security or Medicare. His plan is to borrow trillions more to set up individual accounts to make the stock brokers wealthy.

Established (with the help of Congress) a prescription drug plan that will add $550 billion to our costs with no way to pay for it

The president is responsible to set policies and propose laws that improve the issues that require action. Bush has totally failed to make any of our most pressing problems better!
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
whoman69

Bush had failed to provide policies that have resolved any of the major issues- security, economic, budget, trade, energy, health car, Social Security etc. Everything he has done has made the situation worse or has provided help to groups that did not need help.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col Gene, I took the liberty of reading some of your own blog earlier today. I wonder, how would you react if I was an NCO in your command and you found me speaking to the troops the same way you speak of your Commander In Chief??? I wonder if you would accept it as my freedom of expression.... just curious.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are some people for whom the glass is perpetually half empty. There is no point in debating you, Gene.

Cheers & Happy New Year.

Daiwa
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Parated2K

In answer to your question. Yes I would accept your talking about the President in a factual way. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you go into the military. I would however, require you to obay all lawful orders and regulations and would not accept you trying to get other members of the military to not follow the lawful orders they receive. The issue with Bush is basic. He did not obay the lawful orders and regulations he was to follow. If the military today did the very same things that Lt. Bush did, we would not have an effective military. In fact if the officers and NCO's refused to obey their orders, Bush and Rummy would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Daiwa

I believe the glass is half full. When policies are not moving from 1/2 to a full glass, it is time to change our policies. For example, Bush said he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2008. That is the wrong objective. We must eliminate the deficit and generate a surplus to repay the debt that we have built up and which will require large increases in interest that will take the money we need for other important needs i.e Social Security, education, Natiional Defense etc. The Bush soultion is rather than die fron cancer in 6 months he wants to give us a year. We need to cure the cancer and resore our strength i.e move to a full glass. If we used the tax cuts for the top 2% to help the low and middle income taxpayer we would stimulate demand to a far greater extent than the granting tax cuts to the wealthy and borrow the money to pay them tax cuts. CBO estimated $270 Billion of the 2004 deficit was because of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush suppotrters confuse a "Strong Lerader" with a "Good Leader" A strong leader taking the country in the wrong direction is a BAD thing. Saddam was a strong leader- Was he good for Iraq? I agree with President Bush when he said we should judge by results. When you look at the deficit, trade, jobs, the Iraq War, energy policy, solutions for Social Security and Medicare over the past four years, the results are not good. Thus to move us forward we need more effective solutuins not to "Stay the Course" that has not been producing the desired results!
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #64 By: COL Gene - 1/1/2005 11:36:41 AM believe the glass is half full. When policies are not moving from 1/2 to a full glass, it is time to change our policies. For example, Bush said he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2008. That is the wrong objective. We must eliminate the deficit and generate a surplus to repay the debt that we have built up and which will require large increases in interest that will take the money we need for other important needs i.e Social Security, education, Natiional Defense etc


And you believe that all this could be acomplished in 4 years? Gee I want some of what your smoking.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiller

Well Bush went from a $125 Billion dollar surplus in 2000 to a $420 Billion deficit in 2004. That is a shift of $545 billion in four years. In addition if you objective is only to cut the deficit in half ($210 Billion reduction) there is no way to solve the fiscal problem we have created. If Bush makes the tax cuts perminant and pays for his conversion of Social Security with more debt, how is he to cut the annual deficit in half? It is the biggest load of BS EVER! We have also not counted the added cost for the prescription drug card which begins in 2006. That is over $50 Billion more each year. Add the money not included in ther defense budget for Iraq and the increased maintenance cost on our military equipment because of the Iraq War and the prospect of reducing the current defficit is a Bush dream.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #66 By: COL Gene - 1/1/2005 6:21:09 PM
drmiller

Well Bush went from a $125 Billion dollar surplus in 2000 to a $420 Billion deficit in 2004. That is a shift of $545 billion in four years. In addition if you objective is only to cut the deficit in half ($210 Billion reduction) there is no way to solve the fiscal problem we have created. If Bush makes the tax cuts perminant and pays for his conversion of Social Security with more debt, how is he to cut the annual deficit in half? It is the biggest load of BS EVER! We have also not counted the added cost for the prescription drug card which begins in 2006. That is over $50 Billion more each year. Add the money not included in ther defense budget for Iraq and the increased maintenance cost on our military equipment because of the Iraq War and the prospect of reducing the current defficit is a Bush dream.


Excuse me, I recall *you* specifically talking about 7 *trillion* dollars not 545 million deficit. And unless he's god (not happening) or finds a ton of gold that no one knew about (also not happening) then the junk your talking ain't happening either. In that case cuttting it in half would be considered in most books to be a good start. And if you don't recall talking about 7 trillion dollar deficit, go back back and look at your earlier posts.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who gives a shit, people? That was over 30 years ago.....he's president now, fairly (and legally, I might add) elected. Get over it. If you want to bitch about something, make it something current, for God's sake. Something that can maybe be changed. Unless you've got a DeLorean with a Flux Capacitor, you're not going to change Bush's Guard status.
Reply #69 from PolMach Forums Top
million


No billion; that's a huge difference.
Reply #70 from PolMach Forums Top
In answer to your question. Yes I would accept your talking about the President in a factual way. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you go into the military.


COL Gene I guess in editing my question, I didn't make it clear. What I meant was, how would you react to me (if I were an NCO in your command) speaking about you to the troops, the way you speak of Prs. Bush.

My point is not to question you constitutional rights, of course, we both know we didn't give up those when we enlisted or accepted a commission. But I do wonder how you would accept someone in your command speaking of you the same way you speak of your Commander In Chief. In reading your blog I see much more than mere political differences between you and Prs. Bush, I see pure, unadulterated hatred.

I guess the question that would be more to the point would be, if you read a blog from someone in your command, that spoke of you with the same hatred with which you have for Prs. Bush, what would be the chances of them getting you support for promotion? Again, just curious.
Reply #71 from PolMach Forums Top
Excuse me, I recall *you* specifically talking about 7 *trillion* dollars not 545 million deficit. And unless he's god (not happening) or finds a ton of gold that no one knew about (also not happening) then the junk your talking ain't happening either. In that case cuttting it in half would be considered in most books to be a good start. And if you don't recall talking about 7 trillion dollar deficit, go back back and look at your earlier posts.


The annual debt and the total debt are two different animals. We must start seeing black or we will see increasing amounts of money we pay out to pay off the interest on the debt. Bush and Reagan figured out that deficit spending helps the economy, but Bush Sr found out it only helps up to a point. The interest became so unmanagable in his administration that it worked the other way.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #71 By: whoman69 - 1/2/2005 10:55:46 AM
Excuse me, I recall *you* specifically talking about 7 *trillion* dollars not 545 million deficit. And unless he's god (not happening) or finds a ton of gold that no one knew about (also not happening) then the junk your talking ain't happening either. In that case cuttting it in half would be considered in most books to be a good start. And if you don't recall talking about 7 trillion dollar deficit, go back back and look at your earlier posts.


The annual debt and the total debt are two different animals.


You are right. But that's NOT what he quoted to me before the election.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #69 By: Alex Gottschalk - 1/1/2005 10:01:24 PM
million


No billion; that's a huge difference.


Your right my mistype.