Anyone paying attention to this bullsh%t? Check this out:

A group of far-right Bush allies released an ugly and outrageous ad which claims that John Kerry faked his injuries, betrayed his troops, and "dishonored his country" in Vietnam. The ad features people who say "I served with John Kerry" (although they didn't) and who make numerous provably false accusations about Kerry's war record. It's one of the most vile tactics seen yet in Bush's ferociously negative campaign.

The "Swift Boat" ad is so far beyond the pale that even Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, spoke out about it, calling it "dishonest and dishonorable." Yet despite Senator McCain's request that President Bush "specifically condemn" the ad, Bush refuses to say anything about it.

It's clear that the ad continues the tradition of Bush campaign dirty tricks. In a recent interview, Senator McCain noted that the ad "was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me" in 2000. McCain was referring to a vicious smear campaign -- which included race-baiting allegations that he had a black child our of wedlock -- run by close Bush allies in 2000. In fact, the same firm that ran some of the anti-McCain ads in 2000 produced the "Swift Boat" ad. And although the group claims to be independent of the Republican party, the group's funding mostly comes from a longtime Bush supporter who gave over $20,000 to his campaigns for Texas governor. Further, today it was announced that one of the subjects in the ad is a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans steering committee.

The "Swift Boat" campaign is a classical political hit job. But even before the ad went on the air, the Washington Post ran a piece discussing how President Bush is running the most negative presidential campaign in U.S. History. In an article titled "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," the Post quotes an expert who says that "there is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate."

Discussing the "Swift Boat" ad, Senator John McCain said, "I deplore this kind of politics." Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns (R) called the ad "trash" and even Pat Buchanan said "not a single charge is substantiated... I think the ad is wrong." But George Bush won't condemn it.

Jim Rassman, a Republican veteran who served under Kerry, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. He told the story of how Kerry saved his life. And he concluded with these words on the "Swift Boat" veterans: "[W]hen the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform.

Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

So, what are the top 10 domestic issues?

1. Assault rifles
2. Homelessness
3...?

Oh come on now Crow. There's really no need to get nasty about it. In fact, it doesn't help your cause to do so. Surely you can see that can't you?
Look, I don't agree with the opinions of Chief and Rabban and others, but I still respect them at the end of the day for speaking their mind. I understand the anger around this. Hell I'm angry too. I want Bush out of office. But getting nasty here isn't the way to go about it.

Now, as for media and who controls what, I'm not buying that most media is liberal controlled. Maybe it's not more conservative controlled either. Could be somewhere in the middle. So I need to ask then, what unbiased news sources do you guys read then? I'm asking that as a serious question.
I know there are liberal outlets. Yes, the New York Times tends to be pretty liberal. It is, after all, a newspaper in one of the more liberal cities around. But when I read anything on Fox, it's so blatantly obvious how much they love Bush. I can't believe you'd think that wasn't the case, but whatever.

Look, I'll admit something. Though I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, I was far less upset about him winning than most people I know. I really DO believe in giving people a chance, even though I didn't agree with his stances on issues. I feel like I gave him an honest chance to prove me wrong about him. I honestly wish he had proven us wrong, and turned out to be a great president. I would not have been upset about that. Fact is though, I don't feel he's done anything right in 4 years. OK, that's not true. I agreed with going into Afghanistan. That really needed to be done, especially in response to 9/11. But that's it. And I think ANY president would have had a similar response. Nothing else he has done in office has been good in my opinion. I seriously wanted to like the guy, but I just can't. So I feel very strongly that he had his shot, and it's time for someone else to take the helm. If Kerry wins, I may change my mind about him in 4 years too. You see, I don't vote Democrat or Republican, I simply want the best man for the job. Bush ain't it.

@JJ- I can't fill in that list, but I know jobs and the overall economy need to be top issues.

Hear -hear OM...

I'm down with that...all of it. I was very skeptical of bush ( I didn't vote for either bush or gore) but I though maybe he'd prove my skepticism wrong...he did quite the opposite. He ruled much further from the right than I thought he would. Even some of my republican co workers felt the same. After four years of it, I'm quite ready for something else...anything else. I'm luke warm on kerry, but at least he's statesmanlike and at least moderately intelligent.

Of course there are extreme examples of liberal and conservative bias in the press. Fox stands out because of its access to the populace through the medium of television. I sorta think that if your news source is telling you what you want to hear, it may very well be biased.

Ps. Rabban...that link you provided came from a partisan blog...not exactly an unbiased representation of facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

More mud slinging http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/index.asp

Silly

@stinkfingers

Funny stuff.

Hey JJ:

1. Economy...stop the bleeding off of jobs...find ways to bring production jobs back to the usa...even if we have to enact protectionistic tarrifs...
2. Education...require accountability, but adequately fund...
3. Environment...duh
4. Health care...universal, provided for all who need it...paid for by the populace, for the populace
5. Civil rights...oppose aspects of the patriot act, oppose modifying the constitution to discriminate against gays
6. States rights...stop the meddling of the federal government in the business of states (i.e. Ashcroft v the state of oregon).
7. Energy...reject the energy lobbies' influence on national energy policy...over fund finding alternate fuel sources
8. Science...cut with the religion and bring on the knowledge
9. Taxes...tax cuts that disparportionately favor the rich? No good.
10. Reiteration of #1: put people to work!!! Good wages, good work=higher moral, dignity, mutual respect...national dialogue regarding fair pay.. Should CEOs get 100 times more compensation than worker bees? No damn good. Profit sharing! Made in America! Pay people enough so that we can end this both parents working crap...

11. Don't be afraid.

You guys...

How far below the surface do you look? I'll give you a couple of things to chew on and spit back at me.

First FOX. Fox is not a news medium. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch and only airs what he approves. If you become rich enough you too can own a network and become fair and balanced. Ya right.

Two. Regarding the above mention of alternate fuels and environment. Cool, I'm all for a beverage me and my tank can share. But you ever wonder why an ol SaudiTexan oil man would ever promote hydrogen? Cause it's the next big thing or is it because the Japanese have such a commanding lead over US automakers in hybrid technology which is something we can use NOW to shave off millions of gallons of gasoline usage. And why did he push so hard for Arctic drilling when all current gasoline refineries in the US are operating at 100 percent capacity and couldn't use the oil if they had it?

Next time someone asserts that the media is generally left, they can follow up with an explanation of how Bush is our president, was handed the election, has failed in every aspect of his administration, AND IS STILL LEADING THE POLLS . (See C below)
Stop insulting us with that garbage.
Now, allow me to refute and/or reject nearly everything Chief and Rabban say:
A.

I cannot believe this is the spearhead of your argument. In the 10 years since the assault weapons ban, what percentage of firearms have been banned? Is it 100%? 50%? 5%? 0%? How slippery your slippery slope is. If Kerry wins, I bet preparations are being made to hold Gay Mexican Commie Pinko weddings on the White House Lawn.
A2.

Seriously?

B. Pff. Removed.
C. Let's not use in-house generated data from the "free republic" as god's metric of media bias. Above the fold there is a "Prey for Bush" link. On their Campaign page, they link to CNSNews.com and Drudge, bastions of centrist objectivity.
*
Excuse my poetic license, but I have never seen so many people clamoring to get back onto the Titanic before. In this deluge of bulllshit being slung back and forth, let us try and apply just a kernel critical thinking.
Stop believing, start thinking.
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/cbsnews-20040910.mp4

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 2:34:36 AM

Chin up fellers. http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/040913/feature_1.html
O btw JJ, you were right on that email call.

Stop believing, start thinking.

@ Tally

Wow....sumpin musta woke you up. Oh yeah - all of the assault rifles being fired in celebration!

Seriously - and this is regarding "A" - if you can't consider my point as the primary reason the assault weapons ban has run into opposition, then just why do you think it is being opposed? I seriously no-shit always thought that this was common knowledge....you got two camps...one has no problem with firearms and the other one does.

ON "A2" - you're addressing Rabban so it's his to respond to. Was it OM or stinky that pointed out that our favorite news outlet is the one that tells us what we want to hear? This kinda dovetails nicely into my liberal media comments of the past. Looking at it logically...if there's...I dunno...let's say 7 news "networks" (including A, B, & NBC).....and Fox is the only one you have a problem with....I guess maybe the media is over 85% liberally tilted?

I also don't see where " Bush is our president, was handed the election, has failed in every aspect of his administration, AND IS STILL LEADING THE POLLS" has to do with this issue...or maybe I just don't understand the question. It is kinda late.

B. Where'd it go????

C. See A2

@ OM

Thanks for pointing that out. Guess I thought that one of the 3 largest television networks in the country presenting falsified documents as fact in a presidential election year was a bigger story than they did. I should have looked a little closer.

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:26:38 AM

Independent Media Analysts Conclude Major Networks and Cable News Outlets 85% Tilted (±3%).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Were these the same three television networks that proliferated the specious attacks on Kerry's war record, bereft of supporting evidence, that helped bump Bush? Or were those three other networks?

Stop believing, start thinking.

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:48:32 AM

Stop believing, start thinking.

Re fox vs the others...abc, nbc, cbs are "presumed" to attempt objectivity in their news coverage. Of course you hear charges of bias from the left (see chomsky, bagdikian and so forth) and charges from the right (see every hate radio personality and bible thumper). Fox news doesn't have a reputation for objectivity (perhaps because rupert murdoch is a large bush campaign contributer has something to do with it) I dont go whining about the "conservative" slant of nbc, abc, cbs every time they run some story on clinton's hummer or kerry's bandaids...because sooner or later, along comes a story about bush's benders, cocaine parties, or cowardice.

criticism and bias are not synomymous concepts. Sycophantry and bias are. So are disparagement and bias. Cbs for example, criticises bush for actions that deserve the scrutiny they get. Fox, on the other hand would find a reason to praise bush even if he was holding down a 15 year old iraqi detainee so rumsfeld could sodomized him.

Stop believing, start thinking. this isn't religion...reason and logic matter here.

The question is MUTE!

You are all powerless to affect any change in politics!

It just doesn't matter!

Cause the guys over at Camp Mohawk are gonna get all the good lookin chics anyway!

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 6:19:02 AM

NBC parent company GE - one of the world's largest defense contractors
ABC parent company Disney - the people who attempted to prevent fahrenheit 9/11 from ever seeing the light of day
CBS parent company Viacom - the people who refused to allow MoveOn.org to run anti-bush ads during the superbowl, cancelled a controversial mini-series on the life of Ronald Reagon

Dont you remember that all of these corporations did a fantastic job of packaging and selling the iraq adventure? Barely a trace of skepticism was ever aired.

Moot?

Ya see, I knew folks were going to attack the source link I used to post the study done concerning liberal bias in the media. Sure, Free Republic posted it for obvious reasons, but it was a "Joint study by faculty at University of Chicago and Stanford University". So, OK, "that link [I] provided came from a partisan blog", but does that disqualify the study from being "an unbiased representation of facts". Are UC and Stanford bastions of conservative thinking? Was there something within the study itself that gives Stink pause, or just the findings? You guys wants "science" and "facts", but it seems like when someone actually comes along and does a media study and finds that it is slanted to the left, you cry foul just because it supports the right's claims.

As far as assault weapons go, there might be a time in the near future when citizens will need access to those sorts of weapons. I'd rather go down in a hail of bullets during a kidnapping attempt rather than die an infidel's death. If I have the right to bear arms, it should be my decision as to what sort I buy and use.

From the study in question:

Does this really seem scientific to you? Somehow it doesn't to me. What do others feel about it? Again, a serious question. I'm not a research scientist, so I can't say how accurate this would be. Just going on gut feeling here.

Going back to the Hydrogen Fuel argument (because I have more knowledge on that one): the hydrogen-fuel push is being pushed by the very same people who give you gasoline. That is why Bush supports it. Let me explain:
There are only so many ways to reduce car polution:
(1) Make the cars a lot more efficient and restrict the old beasts (less fuel is burned)
(2) Promote mass transportation (less fuel is burned)
(3) Enforce speed limits on Highways (less fuel is burned)
(4) Just make the car run a different kind of fuel (just as much fuel is burned, it just has fewer pollutants)

Hydrogen fuel doesn't pour from magic fountains, people, it has to be PRODUCED. We can extract it from oil, or use fuel-powered generators to separate water. EIther way, it means the fuel industry still stays fat and happy. They get to sell fuel (which will cost even MORE) while people enjoy less pollution. Trust me, if altering the gas-station infrastructure wasn't such a pain, you would have seen hydrogen motors LONG before the hybrids came out.

- BombJames Bomb

Stop believing, start thinking.

A comment on this thread:

IMO, there are some good reasons that this thread has endured.

It is that it started with criticism of an ad campaign. It continued, and continues, to break down the spin of campaign issues, and presentations by the parties.

This is thinking, not just believing.

I love the commonly quoted words of Thomas Jefferson about freedom of the press/speech:

However, the best parts of this passage are usually not quoted:

If this thread had been just about political affiliations, given the present dividedness of ideologies, it might have ended fast.

I dont mind exchanging views and investigating issues -- Jefferson's "best army" -- but spins and slams, except in jest or lampooning...

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 7:33:35 PM

Already in the works my man.

Let's try to not to make Bush something he isn't. He isn't a long term legacy type of dude. This is a SaudiTexan who's only agenda is short term profit for himself and his owners. When he speaks you can instantly know if he is lying or not by utilizing this rule; wants it to happen now = true, wants it to happen in the future = lie.

WARNING! WARNING!... Just because he wants it to happen now, i.e. TRUE, doesn't mean it's a good thing. Hey, even cobra venom is organic.

Could you move a little to the left? Your "wit" is digging into my hip. ;)

Well, I don't know if this is correct, but I once read that using the proper math you could indeed prove that Earth resides in the middle of the universe and everything else spins around IT. So I suppose the definition of right or left depends on where one is seated.

@Rabban: Heh, I like the CO2 fogging box. Now that was a good movie series!
- BombJames Bomb

"Trust me, if altering the gas-station infrastructure wasn't such a pain, you would have seen hydrogen motors LONG before the hybrids came out."
Aye, I have just learned of the old gas station phenomenon: less value than they would cost to purge. Gives me sniffles.

Nice one Rabby, or should I call you McFly? ;)

Rabban...two members of the faculty of standford and the u of chi don't institutions make...that the study was on a blog that leaned heavily to the left and contains links that were openly antagonistic to democrats, suggests bias. Find me something else. OM is right: the methodology isn't even remotely valid.

Beyond this more respected, more academically vigorous, more reputable media watch groups have been sounding the alarm on fox for years....making all these recent claims of fox's objectivity seem like more republican revisionism.

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 8:15:35 PM

Now hear this:
Texans for Truth is offering a $50,000 reward for anyone that can show proof that Bush completed his service in the Air National Guard.

Why do I get the feeling no-one will be collecting that reward? 8o B)

I'll throw in a dollar.
Chief, have you reevaluated my comment?

Just simple facts...make of it what you will...

From facts-index.com

Some stuff on soft money contributions softmoney

Note fox's contributions to the republican party (over 300,000 dollars) vs to the democrats (30,000). Does anyone still belive this fair and balanced crap? Can we put this to rest and move on? Or has the mantra sunk in too deeply?

Take a breath, stop believing, and start thinking...

Last edited: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 10:43:53 PM

=

Hey, at least my state can do the math...

First source oregonlive.com, second zogby.com

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 12:16:28 AM

Ouch. If that doesn't clearly spell out Fox networks leanings, I don't know what does. Centrist my @ss! You guys are gonna have to come up with something better to convince us otherwise.

Are you serious rabban? How many of your neighbors had met this fate? Reading about this in the papers? Seeing it on tv? How rational is this stance...given that we have the world's most powerful armed forces, great police forces, and miles and miles of oceans between us and "them"?

So your paranoia cause you to rationalize the sale of assault weapons to the populace, some of whom will, as they have in the past, kill co-workers, children, passer-bys and so on?

How far do you extend this logic: "it should be my decision as to what sort I buy and use"?

Fear is a powerful motivator, but it clouds judgement.

Wwjd?

Buy the ak-47 or the M-14?

Good god! No wonder bush is ahead in the polls...

Or e gun stinky? Where?

Did you actually say that, Rabban, or did someone snag your account? Take your average U.S. Citizen and tell me what will be more common amongst the type who will purchase and carry an assault rifle:
(1) Stop a kidnapping that he just happened to be witness too (without accidentally blowing the head off the captive).
(2) Redefine road rage.

I'm not saying that the assault rifle may not have its rare uses, but its more probable and common uses give good reason to keep them out of the hands of your average Joe. Soldiers go through weeks of training on how to properly operate, aim, and avoid friendly fire, and then those weapons are locked up by an armorer when not in use. Such control measures are not in place when these weapons are sold to the public.

Me, personally, I see only one proper use of supplying these to the streets: for the day we have to revolt against our government.

- BombJames Bomb

Flea...portland (but I'm currently living in exile in japan). Coming back next year.

what the hell are we doing?

The fact is that those who are continuing to support Bush in the face of explosive government growth, deficit spending, fighting the wrong enemy and losing the war on terror are symptomatic of the "dumbing" of the American electorate. They have chosen their president based on 5-second soundbites and superficial information disguised as "knowledge" that has replaced actual voter education and participation. In other words they are too facking stupid or lazy to learn the real truth and so choose to accept the spoon-fed bullshit that King George tells them is the truth. They will be the downfall of our once-great republic.

HEADLINE, Tomorrow's Dallas Star/Telegram:
UNUSUAL SPIKE IN NUMBER OF TEXANS DYING IN BOTCHED KIDNAPPINGS ATTEMPTS
FINAL WORDS: "DON'T OJ ME."

Yes ween, yes.

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 5:50:26 AM

Ween...simply put, they are the "believers."

Once again, I quote myself:

Republicanism appears to be a quasi-secular religion. To support this president, you've got to want to believe. The facts don't support the case.

Bush supporters on this thread have done all kinds of backflips trying to demonstrate their case...unfortunately, they can't support their case with facts...go ahead, re-read the posts. All their sources are spurious. Yet their belief is unshaken.

It is belief. It is faith.

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 6:54:05 AM

I can't find a facts-index.com.

So then I searched for "media bias" using Google . I found a bunch of links, but at least the first page has links mainly to "conservative" websites, which for some reason automatically invalidates the link. So I have to find a liberal link that cites liberal bias? I don't think I can just because liberals aren't going to think the media is bias (except for Fox News, of course), since they're the ones who are really thinking and objective. But anyway, I'll try something else. I'll presume that most journalists have college degrees. I also presume most colleges are more liberal than conservative. So most journalists graduating from colleges and universities are going to be more liberal. So the work they produce is going to somewhat reflect their personal POV since I don't think anyone can be completely objective. As an example, an abortion story may key more on the woman's right to choose than her responsibility to prevent the pregnancy in the first place due to the reporter's personal opinion on the topic.

I'm just curious, does the gang consider NBC, CBS, ABC & PBS liberal or centrist news organizations?

And sure, maybe my example for owning an AK was extreme and I'd say I'd support JB's scenario of popular revolt as a better reason to have one, but for whatever reason I think I should be able to have one. If I had the cash, I could probably get one. Is that just automatically a bad thing? Rabban has an Uzi, watch out! For the most part I would argue that gun control laws only prohibit/hinder law abiding citizens. Thugs are still going to get weapons. I don't think the US is immune from terrorist attacks and I think things are going to get worse. I'm not walking around in fear, but I don't think our enemy is giving up that easily either. If we get some strategic hits in the right places or smallpox or "Capt Tripps" is set loose, we may be looking at things a bit differently. It would be nice to have that AK then. :)

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 11:30:26 AM

Oh, and can someone tell me how many terrorists have been killed in Iraq? I've heard of the US and civilian casualities and about the abused terrorists, but I can't seem the find a total for the number of terrorists killed. Is that on the NPR site?

I can't find any info on how many terrorists have been killed in Iraq, but I fear it is FAR less than the number of civilians so far.
Like those 47 killed near the police station car-bomb yesterday. Mostly civilians or Iraqi police officers. Does anyone truly still believe that the war is going well?

A chunk of Rabban's post has gone missing apparently.

*Edit: I got it, about a mile back up the road.*

@ OM

You fear or guessing?

@ Stink

You messing with those links again, bro?

@ JB

Extreme!

@ About Ween's post

They are "too stupid and lazy to learn the real truth" so "they continue to support Bush in the face of..."

And "they continue to support Bush in the face of..." because they are "too stupid and lazy to learn the real truth".

Circle those wagons, the Injuns are after us.

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 2:31:57 PM

@JJ- A little bit of both. If anyone can find information to the contrary I will gladly eat my words.

I reiterate: I don't relish in any of this. It doesn't make me happy that people are dying every day in Iraq and violence seems to get worse and worse. It doesn't make me happy that the Bush administration has made so many miscalculations in their war effort. It doesn't make me happy that the economy continues to be in the dumps, that joblessness continues to be such a big domestic issue, etc, etc, etc.
I wanted Bush to be a good president. It's too bad he let us down.

I challenge anybody to show some kind of proof that he's done something to really improve this country, beyond giving spies more power to peep on us, and lock away suspicious muslims for as long as they want.

Didn't we get a big tax break? Seems like the last time I changed a light bulb I upped the wattage. Next year I'll look for one still made in the US.

Hey, let me try this slipper-slope thingyahem
"If we permit people to have assault rifles, how much longer until they can picky up grenades and rocket launchers at the local gun shop?"

Nah, the slippery-slope method doesn't hold water in an argument. Never mind.

Personally, I think a handgun is all you ever need for self-defense. It's quicker to pull from a locked drawer and easier to aim, they have plenty of stopping power for ranges within your home, and you are less likely to have it knocked from your hand in a surprise confrontation (I'm serious...grabbing a long barrel as it comes around the corner takes no skill).

However, Rabban makes a popluar statement that gun-control means that only the law-abiders will be unarmed. This is like saying its pointless to lock your doors, because it only keeps out the friendly people. Gun-control is NOT an absolute solution, but it WILL reduce the situation. Only semi-intelligent criminals with a certain minimum of connections can obtain illegal weaponry. You're average Circle-K sacker won't have the means to get the weapons. On top of that, POSSESSION of the weapons will become illegal, so there is a higher chance of catching a criminal before the act if he is caught with the assault weapon at a security checkpoint or warrant search.

I think the law-abiding people want an assault rifle mainly for hobby use. Not a good enough reason for me. I think the scenes where a kid snags his Daddy's pistol or rifle and then goes to school with it are bad enough. Daddy does not need to be packing more heat when his kid or a criminal decide to steal a few useful items.

- BombJames Bomb