Where's the outrage?

[FishForLunch]

The Left is outraged that the Vietnam era protest have not started yet. I guess Liberals and the democrats are the only ones that still do not believe that the Islamists have declared war against the US.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex A. Vardamis
Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Coffins, draped with the American flag, make the long flight from Baghdad to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Amputees fill the wards at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Meanwhile, jingoistic voices dominate the airwaves. Anyone with the temerity to question the Iraq war is accused of giving comfort to the enemy and undermining troop morale. In the midst of the carnage and bombast, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that tours of duty in Iraq, yet again, will be extended. The soldiers and their families salute and obey.

Where's the outrage? Why do only a few wives and parents raise a whisper of protest when the nation breaks its promises to the troops? Why are Americans reconciled to losses? Why is Congress compliant? Where are the protesters who filled the streets of America during the war in Vietnam? What has changed? Why aren't Baby Boomers and their children bringing the government to a halt?

The draft. That's what's different. In the days of conscription, most Americans were directly affected by our wars. A tour in the military included, like as not, a year in a war zone. College students could avoid the draft for awhile, but inevitably, Selective Service tracked them down. Some fled to Sweden or Canada. Others found refuge in the Texas National Guard or the University of Arkansas ROTC. The less fortunate, when called, were trapped in a deadly quagmire. Men of draft age, and their families and friends, raised holy hell. They brought that generation's "war of choice" to an end. The will of the people prevailed. Had citizens been silent, the Memorial Wall might now encircle the nation's Capitol.

Today, however, our soldiers are volunteers. They are as obedient as children. They voice no gripe with their commander in chief who sends them on his crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they do complain, they are sternly reminded that they had a choice. They were not drafted. They should have realized when they enlisted that they might be killed to enforce the Pax Americana across the globe. They are professional soldiers, aren't they? Hardly -- note how many of our dead are teenagers, scarcely out of high school. Many of them joined up for practical reasons: to find employment, to earn money for college tuition and, even, to win a chance at American citizenship. But at what price? Are the benefits worth a leg or an arm or a life?

In privileged circles, service in the military is a job for the "other" Americans. The architects of this war, led by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have none of their children in uniform. The possibility doesn't even cross their minds. Their daughters will never wear combat boots. The "war party" elite of America can afford to hang tough. They shift the military about like little pawns in a game of chess. Their sons and daughters will not be buried in Arlington National Cemetery or lie limbless in Walter Reed.

The disparity between the elite and the people is simply un-American. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized the inherent danger in states with professional armies obedient to no one but the princes who paid the salaries. The Founding Fathers understood that military service -- the right and responsibility of every citizen of a free nation to bear arms in defense of the country -- is the surest safeguard of democracy. If power is truly to reside with the people, then a citizen Army, a conscript military, is essential. If rulers are not personally involved, if the lives of their own family and friends are not at risk, they are apt to be careless in spilling blood.

If "taking out" an enemy pre-emptively has become, for the United States, a first and not a last resort, perhaps the best corrective is a draft. A citizen Army would make America less belligerent. Equitable and universal national conscription would provide the United States with a dependable military in time of genuine national emergency. The benefits to our young people would outweigh the sacrifices if active duty becomes, without exception, a rite of passage, entered into immediately after high school by every American, rich and poor, brilliant and average, straight and gay, male and female. After tough basic training and a year of active duty, America's youth would approach the university, technical college or workplace with new skills and with mature social and political consciousness.

National conscription would bind the nation. Young men and women from Sausalito to Salinas, the favored of Carmel to the disadvantaged of East Palo Alto, would have a shared experience and a common understanding of the duties and privileges of citizenship.

But perhaps, more important, these young people would serve as hostages for peace. The president would be less apt to deploy a national force if the "boots on the ground" were worn by Jenna and Barbara Bush.

Alex A. Vardamis is a retired professor of American literature from West Point and the University of Vermont who lives in Carmel.

[FishForLunch]

Here are more quotes from liberal Democrat crazies, they really do hate the US
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link (Contain video footage of the AC 130 in action)

I am and always have been patriotic. I love my country very much, and I am therefore saddened by the lack of intelligence and understanding in the remarks posted on this page. I am embarrassed to be an American these days, because the majority of America, it seems, is full of ignorance and blind hatred and racism–things we fought against in WWII, but now, the similarities are apparent: The American people have been filled with hatred and resentment towards Arabs and Muslims, just as Germans despised Jews and other
“undesired” peoples 50-some years ago.
I am not anti-war, but that does not make me a trigger-happy racist, either. I am going into the US Army soon, a dream of mine since childhood…I love my country and I want to fight for change. If this country does not change soon, it will collapse as the USSR did. I do not hate Arabs or Muslims–I have Arab/Muslim friends and I wouldn’t trade them for anything. The racist attitudes presented on this page disgust me, and if you are joining the US military to kill
“rag-heads", then I hope we meet up on the battlefield someday, so I can shoot you and rid the world of another racist bastard. I’ll do it with an Ak-47, so if the Army even suspects me of foul play, the 7.62x39 rounds in your corpse won’t match the 5.56mm NATO rounds in my M4A1, and the findings of the Board of Inquiry will prove “inconclusive", and they’ll send a flag to your mommy and call you a hero, but I know you’re just another hate-filled racist. Am I sick? Maybe…or maybe I just love my country to the point that I would kill you to make the world a better place. Meet me on the battlefield and find out. I believe war is necessary when 3000+ Americans are slaughtered, but to allow emotion and hate to cloud your judgement is folly.
I also think the Iraq war is bullshit… Saddam was no more of a threat this year than he was on Sep. 10 2001…it’s the post 9-11 paranoia that has Americans feeling that they have to blast anything that moves to keep the USA safe…It’s obvious that our president suffers from this paranoia, because now he wants to go to Liberia and start shit there…I’m sick of the USA being the political policeman of the world and shaping the destinies of others. We need
to find peace with those who would do us harm, and we need to stop racism and blind loyalty to the state…otherwise, the USA will soon resemble Hitler’s Europe. Do you want that? I don’t, but if YOU do,
then I hope your existence on this planet will soon cease. Your words and actions put the rest of us in jeopardy of becoming the victims of such a dictatorship.

[EricaLubarsky]

no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.

I wondered where those that confused the war with iraq and the war on terror went to. I guess we now know.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

[dude1394]

This isn't even the craziest stuff. Go to democraticunderground.com if you want to see the real fringe element.

[FishForLunch]

Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

It may come as a suprise to you but people can come to a different conclusions, not everybody has to trust the editorial crap that is put out by NY times, WP and Newsweek. You may have studied politics, history and philosophy but that does not mean your conclusion(s) is right. I have seen first hand how the Islamists behave, and I understand that Bush is doing all he can to counter the Islamists. I clearly understand we cannot wait for the proof to hit us in the face before we react, you may think so but not me.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.

I wondered where those that confused the war with iraq and the war on terror went to. I guess we now know.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

[EricaLubarsky]

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

please point out where I said I was smarter than most people? and where did I insult anyone.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch

It may come as a suprise to you but people can come to a different conclusions, not everybody has to trust the editorial crap that is put out by NY times, WP and Newsweek. You may have studied politics, history and philosophy but that does not mean your conclusion(s) is right. I have seen first hand how the Islamists behave, and I understand that Bush is doing all he can to counter the Islamists. I clearly understand we cannot wait for the proof to hit us in the face before we react, you may think so but not me.

If you distrust all traditional media sources and only trust fringe media then we will never find any common ground. The New York Times is a prestigious institution and one of their Middle Eastern correspondents has just won the Pulitzer prize. I would rather get my "editorial crap" from them than from Ollie "Iran-Contra" North and the irresponsible journalists at Fox News.

You also create the false dicotomy between supporting Bush and not doing anything against terror. I would like to strengthen world connections and use preventative measures to ensure that nothing else will happen. Bush is philosophically doing a wonderful thing by taking the fight to the terrorists, but in reality he is stirring up the hornet's nest. Give me an international police force and full funding of our national defenses and I would be happy.

[Usually Lurkin]

cool.

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.

a right-wing conspricy theory . . .

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here.

an accusation without follow-through (find some fringe for balance, then). . .

Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

an emotional reply as an accusation of emotional pandering
along with the "I'm so smart" side of intellectual elitism . . .

That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

more hypocritic definitionalism (uh, vilifying vilification, while defending a position that threatens to kill US troops)

I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

the "others are so dumb" side of intellectual elitism, and attempted self-martyrdom. . . .

and you call Reeds the lone voice of liberalism on this forum. Come on, Erica - give yourself a little more credit. You summed up a good portion of the liberal approach right here.

[FishForLunch]

If you distrust all traditional media sources and only trust fringe media then we will never find any common ground. The New York Times is a prestigious institution and one of their Middle Eastern correspondents has just won the Pulitzer prize. I would rather get my "editorial crap" from them than from Ollie "Iran-Contra" North and the irresponsible journalists at Fox News.

Did I say I dont read the WP, NY Times and Newsweek, I said I dont read the editorial section, because I want to form my own conclusions. I am a news junkie and I read from a large choice of news outlets, as well as liberal and Conservative Blogs. I watch CNN, FOX news and MSNBC so that I can get all sides of the issue, so to accuse people who are not liberal as unable to reach the right (your) conclusion is arrogant.

Please point out what the "irresponsible journalists" at Fox News are doing to upset you. Just dont throw around accusations.

[FishForLunch]

If the WP and NY Times were so fair how come they have never presented the other side of the story. I guess if it comes from the people who are actually on the ground in Iraq, the tradition media considers them as propoganda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Commanding Officer at MWSS-171 to his Marines
Marines and Sailors,

As we approach the end of the year I think it is important to share a
few thoughts about what you've accomplished directly, in some cases,
and indirectly in many others. I am speaking about what the Bush
Administration and each of you has contributed by wearing the uniform,
because the fact that you wear the uniform contributes100% to the
capability of the nation to send a few onto the field to execute
national policy. As you read about these achievements you are a part
of I would call your attention to two things:

1. This is good news that hasn't been fit to print or report on TV.

2. It is much easier to point out the errors a man makes when he makes the tough decisions, rarely is the positive as aggressively pursued.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...

.. the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on
active duty.

.. over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

.. nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

.. the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

.. on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

.. all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are
open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

.. by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools -
500 more than scheduled.

.. teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

.. all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

.. doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under
Saddam.

.. pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to
700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

.. the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.

.. a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's
27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of
thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than
100,000 Iraqi men and women.

.. we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services
and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

.. there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect
50,000 by year-end.

.. the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite
dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major
cities and towns.

.. 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time
customers are opening accounts daily.

.. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

.. the central bank is fully independent.

.. Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and
banking laws.

.. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

.. satellite TV dishes are legal.

.. foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and
extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and
other government spies.

.. there is no Ministry of Information.

.. there are more than 170 newspapers.

.. you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street
corner.

.. foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

.. a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

.. in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils.

..Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened
when the city council elected its new chairman.

.. today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and
professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the
country.

.. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

.. the Iraqi government regularly participates in international
events.

..since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two
dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General
Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the
Islamic Conference Summit.

..the Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening
over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

.. Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

.. for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites
celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

.. the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects,
large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of
Iraq.

.. Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to
the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force
cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or
murdering critics.

.. children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree
with the government.

.. political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed,
or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

.. millions of long suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual
terror.

.. Saudis will hold municipal elections.

.. Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

.. Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

.. the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian
-- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for
democracy and for peace.

.. Saddam is gone.

.. Iraq is free.

President Bush has not faltered or failed.

Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the Press corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that's important.

Iraq under US lead control has come further in six months than Germany
did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's, and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared.

..it took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris,
let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

..now, take into account that Congress fought President Bush on every
aspect of his handling of this country's war and the post-war
reconstruction; and that they continue to claim on a daily basis on
national TV that this conflict has been a failure.

Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our
brothers and sisters in this conflict, do you think anyone else in the
world could have accomplished as much as the United States and the Bush administration in so short a period of time?

These are things worth writing about. Get the word out. Write to
someone you think may be able to influence our Congress or the press to tell the story.

Above all, be proud that you are a part of this historical precedent.

God Bless you all. Have a great Holiday.

Semper Fidelis,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what do we here everyday, how many "innocent" Iraqi and US soilders were killed, and how the country is on the verge of a civil war.

[dude1394]

I think that Rumsfeld pretty much summed up the main-stream media's "objectivity".

Note the stinging pointed barb aimed squarely at the Los Angeles Times by Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday.

There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks.

One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.

Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.

Well done, Sir.

More of us need to be calling them on the carpet.

[Mavdog]

It's amazing what $80 Billion can do...don't you wonder what that amount of money have accomplished domestically?

although to include the 2003 Nobel prize awarded Shirin Ebadi certainly isn't a part of the Iraq invasion.

Nor is the fact that the Saudis will hold municipal elections a part of the Iraq equation.

The War in Iraq prompted Qatar to "reform education to give more choices to parents."?

or "Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms"?

[EricaLubarsky]

if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It's amazing what $80 Billion can do...don't you wonder what that amount of money have accomplished domestically?

although to include the 2003 Nobel prize awarded Shirin Ebadi certainly isn't a part of the Iraq invasion.

Nor is the fact that the Saudis will hold municipal elections a part of the Iraq equation.

The War in Iraq prompted Qatar to "reform education to give more choices to parents."?

or "Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms"?

Add to that list Libya. Economics and UN talks managed to get him to "disarm" and pay lip service to a pro-western POV, but Al-Qaddafi is still a tyrant with a human rights record that could be confused with Saddam Hussein's.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.

Just wondering Erica, how does that explain why the Los Angeles Times reported that the US targeted Mosques in Fallujah as a headline... giving the impression that we are over there blowing up all the Islamic temples?

I don't get where you are going with that statement?

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.
Just wondering Erica, how does that explain why the Los Angeles Times reported that the US targeted Mosques in Fallujah as a headline... giving the impression that we are over there blowing up all the Islamic temples?

I don't get where you are going with that statement?

This was the headline:

Mosque Targeted in Fallouja Fighting
By Tony Perry and Rick Loomis
FALLOUJA, Iraq — A fierce battle Monday in a rubble-strewn neighborhood of this Sunni Muslim stronghold left one Marine and at least eight insurgents dead, casting a new shadow over prospects for a peaceful solution to the military standoff here.

LA Times article

You tell me what is incorrect, inaccurate or not factual in the story. If neither of these are present, just what "explanation" is needed? none...

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

please point out where I said I was smarter than most people? and where did I insult anyone.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

You certainly implied here that only YOU have studied politics, history, and philosophy. I have studied those subjects as well and what scares me is when a country becomes too concerned with placating EVERY voice.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

Some positions ARE simple.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

Now you are again saying that MOST people don't know the issues. That is rather elitist.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.

The main stream media is concerned with making money and promoting liberals. The fact that you pan Fox News as "irresponsible" just highlights your own bias.

Anyone who has read Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd, or witnessed the Augusta Female Member affair with the NYTimes and not group them into the "irresponsible" journalists as well is not being nearly as open-minded as they think.

[EricaLubarsky]

I think Mavdog answered the question clearly. And for all the attacks on me its hard to defend against multiple people who quote minute parts and comment. You really think you are making a philosophical argument by teaming up?

[EricaLubarsky]

The main stream media is concerned with making money and promoting liberals.

And UsuallyLurkin said I was into conspiracy theory......

[Chiwas]

Glad to see Erica countering in this section.

348.5 rigthtists to 3.5 leftists now.

(Btw, thankfully the 10-8, 8-10 thread has not been converted in a Baseball section. Sarcastic comment pointing that at least 20 threads out of the last 22 in this section could have been piled up in just one thread)

Oh, well, politics....

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

And UsuallyLurkin said I was into conspiracy theory......

Who said anything about a "conspiracy" theory. It's an axiom called birds of a feather stick together. How can I honestly trust a profession where 90% of the journalists are admitted liberals. Hmm... who would think that their core beliefs would affect what they do/do not publish or the slant put upon it.

Let's see when the democrats accused bush of being AWOL it was front-page news. Hmm....When questions about the Kerry medal ridicuolous comes out the headline is "Kerry attacks Bush National Guard Record".

Or I wonder why the media isn't a little more insistent about Theresa Kerry's tax return. Or why they aren't insistent on getting kerry's medical records.

I don't know, I guess they are just being fair, but I doubt it.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Max Power

You certainly implied here that only YOU have studied politics, history, and philosophy. I have studied those subjects as well and what scares me is when a country becomes too concerned with placating EVERY voice.

I never assumed that I was more educated than anyone. I was only using history and political ideology as a basis for my argument. It seems you confuse silencing voices with placating every voice. I don't demand to be heard and I dont demand that my opinion be acted upon. I demand that my opinion be represented in the American democracy. It is the voice of millions and I demand that it not be silenced by people that think arguing against the President are outside the democracy. How is placating bad for the country anyway?

Some positions ARE simple.

unfortunately this one is not.

Now you are again saying that MOST people don't know the issues. That is rather elitist.

So be it. YOU say the issue is simple but I can bring in many articles from many people in Iraq, people in the educated community, and even people within the Bush administration who say that the situation is much more complex than most people think. You think it is simple? You are way off. Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

[dude1394]

Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

WOW!! just couldn't help it.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Who said anything about a "conspiracy" theory. It's an axiom called birds of a feather stick together. How can I honestly trust a profession where 90% of the journalists are admitted liberals. Hmm... who would think that their core beliefs would affect what they do/do not publish or the slant put upon it.

Let's see when the democrats accused bush of being AWOL it was front-page news. Hmm....When questions about the Kerry medal ridicuolous comes out the headline is "Kerry attacks Bush National Guard Record".

Or I wonder why the media isn't a little more insistent about Theresa Kerry's tax return. Or why they aren't insistent on getting kerry's medical records.

I don't know, I guess they are just being fair, but I doubt it.

I never read that poll? Can you find that for me, dude? If you are going to give me trouble about assumptions I make then you better find that or give it up.

Can you find actual examples of those texts? Mavdog found an article that shut U2 down. Im wondering if you can point to real empirical evidence of the media bias or if you are just devoted to the ideology that you don't need real evidence to keep the belief alive. If you go to respectable news organizations you will find good reporting. Period. You can quote the Sun which is obviously liberally slanted but find a piece of liberally slanted reporting on NPR, in the Washington Times or in another respectable, and in my opinion, neutral news media. Where was Bush going AWOL a front page article and why was it there? It seems obvious that the actions taken by the President of the United States and someone running against him is front page news to me. It's juicy and interesting. Not only is Kerry's wife's story less interesting, there isnt really news going on there. It's an investigative. It has nothing to do with a current event. The president's troubles are always juicier than an investigative report promoted by some journalist about a private citizen.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: dude1394

WOW!! just couldn't help it.

tremendous post, Dude. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

I spend half my time defending myself. I was kinda hoping the politics would be important here. PM me if you want to giggle at something I said.

[dude1394]

I never read that poll? Can you find that for me, dude?

Can you find actual examples of those texts?

You caught me. *sheep*. It's only 61% who are self-identified as "Democrat or Liberal" versus 15% Republican or leaning republican, in 1996. Now it's only 25% Liberal, 59% moderate and 6% conservative. I guess you could read this as the media is becoming MORE balanced, but unfortunately I don't buy it.

From the late Michael Kelly

As to the first, there is no question that journalists as a group are much more liberal than conservative and much more so than the general public. The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, ``the pattern of results is compelling.'' The percentage of journalists who were classified as ``liberals'' were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as ``conservative,'' survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes.
Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as ``Democrat or liberal`` or ``lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

The point he is trying to make here is that "liberal" has now become "moderate" in the eyes of the media. However only 6% are now "conservative".

Mike Kelly

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

tremendous post, Dude. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

I spend half my time defending myself. I was kinda hoping the politics would be important here. PM me if you want to giggle at something I said.

Sorry to dissapoint. But I thought it enlightening that you were defending yourself as NOT talking like you were more intelligent than others however you went and did it again, must be unconscious.

[EricaLubarsky]

take it to PM, dude.

[EricaLubarsky]

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
So be it. YOU say the issue is simple but I can bring in many articles from many people in Iraq, people in the educated community, and even people within the Bush administration who say that the situation is much more complex than most people think. You think it is simple? You are way off. Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

I wasn't trying to discuss politics with you, I was only pointing out that you can't expect people to have a rational discussion with you on a subject as emotional as politics when you start with a condensending post. Maybe you don't realize how insulting your posts are on this subject.

And as far as complexity, the simpliest plans usually work best. The more complex a plan is, the more chances for the plan to fail. But your mileage might vary.

[dude1394]

Dang, again off by 10%...

liberal bias

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the "media elite" were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article "Media and Business Elites." The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman's subsequent book, "The Media Elite," became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

Key Findings

* 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
* In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
* In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
* In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
* In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
* Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.

But hey after 16 years of bias, maybe the media has changed. NOT.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

Splitting hairs erica. If you can't believe michael kelly, there is not much hope for you.

[FishForLunch]

Please point out what the "irresponsible journalists" at Fox News are doing to upset you. Just dont throw around accusations

I am still wating for an answer why do you think Fox News is irresponsible? Is it because it also present the conservative side of the issues.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

You are too quick to type. The poll size for the 1996 poll was in the sentence above the one you quoted.

A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as ``Democrat or liberal`` or ``lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch

I am still wating for an answer why do you think Fox News is irresponsible? Is it because it also present the conservative side of the issues.

two words:

Rupert Murdoch

[FishForLunch]

I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

[dude1394]

He's the boogeyman.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

actually it explains everything.

"Murdoch uses his diverse holdings, which include newspapers, magazines, sports teams, a movie studio, and a book publisher, to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real newsgathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch."

Murdoch article

"Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, pointed out that Murdoch's New York Post had introduced the label "Axis of Weasels" for France and Germany, and that his Fox News had enthusiastically repeated and amplified the message."

another murdoch article

"Rupert Murdoch strikes out
With the Sandy Koufax gay rumor, the News Corp. synergy sewer finally overflows.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Keith Olbermann
Feb. 22, 2003 | Most of us have learned to simply accept the fact that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. exists in the world, just as we've come to accept that there are terrorists among us, as well as people who scam grandmothers out of their savings.

And then every once in a while the News Corp. will do something so rapacious, so pathetic, that one has to stand up and say no more, to call for legal and moral measures to stop it, even if all gestures prove futile. "

more murdoch article