Mikesgirl1

Somebody did a survey and a majority of reporters called themselves liberals if that means anything to you. It was a pretty big difference between the percent that called themselves liberals and those that called themselves conservatives. Whereas in the general population more people call themselves conservatives. ahmmm Maybe the "reporters" are "liberal" but how about the people who actually run the media and make the decisions on what they can report? Now please run me a list of "liberal" anchors and reporters that are "liberal". I have a list of Neocon, Bush worshipers, want me to put it up and see how "liberal" your media is????

The greatest Bush ad, is The Kerry wanting to raise Oil Price ads. He supported that back in the 80's when Price's were not a problem to help solve some of our economic problems yet it's being used today. Are you talking about the 50 cent tax on gasoline? Yeah, he (Kerry) did some research on this back in the 70's but dropped it because it wasn't viable... Yet the Bushies say he "still" supports that... Go figure! Politics as usual! :mischief

Uh oh, the media isnt doing everything the Bush administration wants it to do. Time to label it as being "liberal." :lol Yeah... All those liberal assess in FAUX News! OMG we may actually hear the truth some time?

I do want fiscal conservatism, and a republican will always be better to reach that goal. In truth, the best recipe for fiscal conervatism is mixed government: where the presidency is held by one party and the congress by another. Clinton was not particularly conservative in fiscal terms, but his adminstration presided over a period of considerable conservatism because he had to work against a Congress of the opposite party. Same, too, for Reagan. The reason why this is true is palpalby clear: Two branches in partisan opposition are at loggerheads much of the time and do not get much done. When Congress and Presidency are of agreeing parties, then government bills (which always have dollar signs attached) are more easily passed. again, thank you mr. simpson However, if the democrats eventually take congress, I wonder how much of yoyu will be voting for a republican president. I'd vote McCain in heartbeat, Buchanan (if he ran for president), in essence any Republican moderate who can work in conjunction with Democrats for the good of the country and not the benefit of the few...

Coming from a liberal: War is sometimes justified. WWI, WWII, Gulf War I, Afghanistan... Were all justified causes in my eyes. Iraq is not a justified war to me. Bush said first we needed to go to Iraq because Saddam "financed" and had ties with Al-Qaeda, as well as possessed WMD's to "attack" America. Then he said (when no ties to Al-Qaeda were proven or WMD's were found) that it was to get rid of an evil dictator. Now this last sentence is what bothers us the most, not because we don't think it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and "free" the Iraqui people but because of the utter hypocrisy of such statement... We know he is lying to his teeth, he has no credibility. This is "WHY" we ask in contrast to it, "if it was to get rid of an evil dictator, why not N. Korea's dictator, Cuba's dictator, etc?", because we know the truth behind the real reason for invading Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam being a murderous dictator... If it was, why didn't we do something before, why in hell did we give him weapons of mass destruction (Rumsfeld did btw), why did we allow for so long for him to kill his own people with the weapons we provided him with???? This is what kills us, the blatant lies, the distortions of the truth and ultimately the manipulation of people like you who sincerely think this was a good cause and that we are doing a good thing... I wish the dream of peace in the middle east could be achieved, but the actions of this administration have squashed those hopes forever... We've created an army of billions that hate us and see us as invaders, murderers and now torturers and rapists.... :mad : For this and more I'm angry at Bush and his team or lying bastards.

Media Vows to Pry Open Closed Doors in Washington By Joe Strupp Published: June 03, 2004 12:01 AM EST NEW YORK Press efforts to thwart government secrecy are moving forward on two fronts as Washington bureau chiefs unite to more aggressively cover federal government attempts to hide information and the head of Associated Press offers plans for a new open government lobbying center in Washington, D.C. "We wanted to raise awareness that this is a growing problem for us," says Andy Alexander, D.C. bureau chief for Cox Newspapers and new chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editors' FOI Committee, who is leading the bureau chiefs' effort. "We have a special obligation to be more aware of threats to public information." Alexander's comments followed his participation in a May 3 luncheon at the National Press Club that included speakers from the First Amendment Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the new Coalition of Journalists for Open Government. Nineteen Washington bureau chiefs attended and agreed to boost their efforts to cover more issues related to government secrecy. "It was an interesting discussion and out of it was an agreement that we all need to write more about secrecy," says Alexander, who created a new government secrecy beat in his office three months ago. "We have two people writing about it as part of their responsibilities." While the bureau chiefs did not formulate a specific plan or agenda, the group agreed to put more resources on coverage of federal government attempts to keep information from the public, with an emphasis on how that affects readers, not just the press. "The real issue is telling our readers what it is they are not getting," says Vickie Walton-James, Chicago Tribune Washington bureau chief. "We need to pay attention to this, and not just when a big case pops up." For Tom DeFrank, who began covering Washington as a Newsweek correspondent 36 years ago and now heads the New York Daily News bureau, the need for prying open government doors has never been greater. "This administration is the most aggressively unhelpful that I have ever covered, and that goes back to Nixon," he says. "This White House and administration are far more secretive than the Nixon crowd." Peter Copeland, Washington bureau chief of Scripps Howard News Service, says he plans to ratchet up the privacy beat even more. "It started as a beat concerning privacy aspects of the Internet, but has evolved into secrecy related to terrorism," he explains. Bureau chiefs also are urging their reporters to get more information on the record and stop allowing federal officials to hide behind the mask of anonymity. "We need to push for more transparency," says Alexander, adding that reporters too often will allow a high-ranking official, like National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice or a cabinet member, to brief them behind the mask of a vague attribution. Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times bureau chief since 1983, said such a practice must be challenged more. "It is happening more frequently in this administration," he said. "They speak less on the record than their predecessors." [ :anon ] Copeland is pushing his staff to get more information through public records instead of nameless sources. "Get documents or letters or testimony on the record," he says. At the same time, reporters are being trained to look for secrecy abuses in government and bring any denial of access to their bosses for review. "Staffers must let us know when they run into efforts to make things secret that shouldn't be," says David Cook, bureau chief for The Christian Science Monitor. "We can find ways to cover that." AP President and CEO Tom Curley, meanwhile, unveiled a plan on May 7 for a "media advocacy center" to lobby for open government in Washington. "The government is pushing hard for secrecy," Curley said in a speech announcing the plan. "We must push back equally hard for openness. I think it is time to consider establishment of a focused lobbying effort in Washington ... The essence of the FOI Act is that government information is open and accessible to the public unless there is a very good reason to keep it secret." But in a conversation with E&P, the AP chief stopped short of offering any detailed plans for the center, saying he wanted to bring together various journalism advocacy groups first to discuss the need. Among the center's efforts, however, may be to push for a federal reporters' shield law. LINK I hope they keep it up and never forget to do it under any presidency.

"But there is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators." I agree with this assertion though. :confused

The people considered "liberal" on this board generally seem to have a much less leftist foreign policy perspective as opposed to people outside of the US. Its interesting because Ive gotten into pretty vicious arguments with people from other countries in which Ive defended the US policies and its general populace. OMG me too! I've had ferocious arguments with some people from other countries that see the US and its entire population as a nation of fascists. It gets worse when this people start telling me how great Cuba is because of Castro... If I could strangle someone through the computer. :plain This is the mistake many conservatives make, they think that all liberals want a communist country and redistribution of property. I do not want that. I want re-distribution of wealth through social programs created with a capitalist economy; there is a huge difference. As long as I can kick out my president through my vote, I'm a happy camper.

agreed, we need mixed government... But I see it very difficult since this country is so polarized, comes November and may either have a Completely Republican Congress and Bush re-elected or a Democrat Congress and Kerry as president... :mischief I have my fingers crossed that if it comes to it... the latter will be the case. Don't blame me for hating this admins. policies to that extent. :hat

I don't agree with his comparisson and I understand why it may seem so offensive. Please don't lump as all liberals in the same "rabid liberal" category. I try (really hard) not to lump all conservatives in the "pseudo-con Right wing nut" category.

Oh wait now the president is responsible for the economy? FishfanPR, you go to Wharton. You should no better. Bush 1 wasnt responsible the 1990 recession. Clinton wasnt responsible for the recovery. Bush 2 wasnt responsible for the second recession just as he isnt responsible for the cyclical nature of the economy. But what is he responsible for? The enormous deficit. Spin that. :rofl :lol Good one Flying Mollusk! :thumbup I've seen many people here claiming in several instances that Bush or any president is not responsible for the economy. Of course this only applies when the economy is bad and the President is Republican or the economy is good and the President is Democrat... :blink:

Cutting taxes is just as bad as raising them. No one wants their taxes raised, but yet everyone wants their taxes cut... You have to compromise. Rich people should not get tax cuts, nor should the poor. Taxes are there for a reason... Please remind me why do we pay taxes for? :mischief Just curious.

:whistle :notworthy All Heil John Stewart!

Bush vs. Bush :mischief

Alec Baldwin - Who said that he would leave the US if Bush was elected in 2000. (Unfortunately Baldwin is still here and making bad movies.) Bush wasn't elected though Yes, he was. He won all the recounts. No, he did not. The Florida recount was "stopped". Then the Supreme Court appointed Bush as President.

I am sorry to remind you that ... Uhmm no Ken Lay is still off the hook. Ken Lay may I also remind you is a very good friend of Mr. President. Also, please do not dismiss the issue. Did you see how Bush did exactly what those a**holes wanted with the price caps???????? :thumbdown Oh, for crying out loud. Once again to remind you: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY! Halliburton this, Enron that. It's all unfouded garbage. Do you think Enron was incorporated the minute after Bush was inaugerated? Enron pushed malicious pricing schemes for years while lobbying state, local and federal officials from both parties. I am not arguing Mr. President's involvement in the scam, I am questioning his lack of ethics by protecting his friends from being prosecuted. It is not conspiracy, it is fact that Ken Lay is a lying, scumbag, who stole millions... Yet he is free as a bird...

:mischief2 Interesting... Why is it that every time we speak about Bush's scandals and misshaps, Clinton's name is immediately mentioned???? Clinton is done, over with, impeached and no longer the President. Get over it! Bush is the president NOW and for that reason he needs to answer to the American people for everything they have been and still are covering up... Do not make me pull up a list of scandals, cover ups, corporate corruption and lies to which Bush is linked or heavily involved in... Use your F***ing common sense for once and see for yourselves. People, you need to learn to not trust politicians even if they are from your own party... One needs to question one's leaders, for it is the only way we can ensure they are held accountable for their actions and that the don't steal, cheat, lie and kill in our names! :mad : That goes for F***ing Clinton and Bush.

I am sorry to remind you that ... Uhmm no Ken Lay is still off the hook. Ken Lay may I also remind you is a very good friend of Mr. President. Also, please do not dismiss the issue. Did you see how Bush did exactly what those a**holes wanted with the price caps??????? :thumbdown

Just so you know, Casey is known to be a really cool, down-to-earth guy. Furthermore, yesterday before the game he was interviewed and he praised Mike's doubles. He said "Mike if you keep hitting these doubles you won't be able to stop at first to chat for a bit". :lol

Have you paid any attention whatsoever? :blink:

Some Kerry stuff...how sincere! Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.) In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ?George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03) Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03) Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04) question. Does the senate has the same access to our inteligence as the President? or can the President office filter what kind of information is told to the Senate? Oh and about Flip-floping... I don't think Bush and his buddies should talk so loud... Check the Flip-Flopper-in-chief: # Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it. # Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. # Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. # Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it. # Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. # Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. # Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again. # Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. # Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for a federal ammendment to change the constitution. # Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't and actually cuts their funds. # Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits # Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. # Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island. # Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding. # Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will # Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have. # Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote # Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team. # Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it and proposes to legalize them.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com Two documentaries that will rock my summer. I love documentaries, super size me is another great one I just saw. How was it?

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere. I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now? Under clinton most definitely. The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window. Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are. Indeed... I think Kerry will really bring some sense into the White House, plus I am sure he will be working with the last decent Republicans left in Congress... He can bring some unity to the country... That is if the Neocons want to work for the better of the country and not for themselves... :blink:

:blink: :mad : I can't believe these a**holes are going to get away with this!

Here's why I support Bush. You can look at all the facts and statistics you want, but in the end, I feel it's a push looking at it that way. Not only are most of these numbers are from partisan sources and therefore useless in an objective argument, they are usually taken "as is" and other factors are not taken into account (such as how many soldiers have died vs. how many American and European civilians have been saved from Bush's actions). I look at it more philosophically. I look at the situation today and see that America is under attack, both militarily and diplomatically. This has been happening before 9/11 and has merely increased since then. A lot of people hate America, period, be it Bush, Kerry, or Nader in the White House. So who is the best man to ultimately counter the attacks and help America become the shining beacon it was in the 1950s? I look at England in the 1940s, and how they were under siege (in a more direct way). I look at the man who led them, the man who weathered failure and controversy in his early political life to rise up and provide the steadfast temperament England required in its dark years: my favoritist leader of the past 100 years, Winston Churchill. I look at the temperament and leadership styles of the two men who seek the Presidency in 2005, and neither of them are at Churchill's level of resolution or leadership ability. But Bush is, moreso than Kerry. RippyO thanks for your heartfelt post... I too admire Churchill type leaders... But please do not put Bush and Churchill in the same sentence, it makes me ill.