DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 31, 2007, 08:07:56 PM
-
But of course there's no media bas.
Notice the latest "examples" of this non-bias? We had a story documenting direct connection with terrorist/insurgent activity and their use of Iranian military hardware & weaponry. Did this get front page status? Did this get lead story yesterday? I think NBC led with the death of Barbaro, including the sad interview with the horse's owner. They eventually moved into the Iranian weapons story.
You had the Military analyst of the NYTimes "shown the error of his way" for daring to provide a military opinion that ran counter to the template of how the war is supposed to go, and how bad Bush really is.
And how about the ever so frequent stories running of how McCain's political career (read; presidential aspirations) literally "hinges on the success of the surge". So supposedly if it doesn't go well, he's toast as a presidential nominee, right? Notice how not once have you heard a story on how Obama's, Clinton's, Biden's, Edwards' or any Dem acutely critical of "the surge", political career could tank with a success of the surge? Not 1. Why's that? Why wouldn't their presidential bids be utterly ruined by a surge success? Why the focus on McCain & failure?
McCain can be set up for a fall, but let's not dare put any Dem in such a precarious political position, even if it's all simply based on perception. But, there's no media bias ::)
-
Hillary has actually straddled the fence on this one. She was for a surge back in the very beginning. She as well as McCain wanted a much larger ground force.
McCain (and let me go on record as saying i won't vote for him) as well as Hillary would be wise to criticize Bush for his management of the war, critiquing him for paying too much attention to political winds (and the elections of 2004 and 2006) instead of concentrating on the task at hand, which is doing everything within executive powe to complete the second part of the mission.
-
Hillary has actually straddled the fence on this one. She was for a surge back in the very beginning. She as well as McCain wanted a much larger ground force.
But is she now?
McCain as well as Hillary would be wise to criticize Bush for his management of the war, critiquing him for paying too much attention to political winds iinstead of concentrating on the task at hand, which is doing everything within executive powe to complete the second part of the mission.
You'll get that from McCain, but I think the crux of Hillary's critique will largely be against whatever Bush is for, thus the new tact at not favoring any "new surge". Or do we have something on record from her currently that parallels McCain?
-
To be honest i haven't paid much attention to anti-urge blather. It's gonna happen and time will tell whether it was effective.
I just think the only way for her to spin her vote for the war is to focus on the underlying principles behind it and if need be delineate specific areas she would have handled differently. People need to know she is willing to be tough if necessary.
That may not get her any votes in the primaries from the demanding petulant progressives in the crowd but it will probably gain her some respect from the mainstream in the middle who will decide '08.
-
To be honest i haven't paid much attention to anti-urge blather. It's gonna happen and time will tell whether it was effective.
Oh, agreed, but my point of the thread continues to be in regards to how the mainscream media paints it.
I just think the only way for her to spin her vote for the war is to focus on the underlying principles behind it and if need be delineate specific areas she would have handled differently. People need to know she is willing to be tough if necessary. That may not get her any votes in the primaries from the demanding petulant progressives in the crowd but it will probably gain her some respect from the mainstream in the middle who will decide '08.
She's gonna have a hard time pulling that off, since Obama, Edwards, & Biden are already far more left of her, on this topic, and likely to pull in far more votes in the primary. And you can't get to being an '08 option, unless you've secured the primary nomination. Personally, I think Edwards (Who's been the most consistent Dem, as it relates to being against the war), and Obama (All hype, and perfect PC Candidate) are by far the folks she's gonna have to defeat in the Dem primary. And personally, unless one of them completely lays an egg along the campaign trail, or her Clintonistas fire both barrels of dirt they find, I don't see her winning the primary
-
Sirs,
I disagree. I think the Clinton machine can pull in enough markers to negate any netroots appeal of more progressive candidates. I think Edwards has a shot but he is just as short on experience now as he was 4 years ago and i don't think the election will turn on domestic issues, where Edwards has appeal.
I think foreign affairs, the WOT and yes Iraq will still be very much on peoples minds. And even though Hillary is a lightning rod, she is also precieved as tough almost ruthless, and she should play to her strengths.
'08 will turn on electability. I disagree that Hillary is unelectable. I do agree she wouldn't win by a landslide. It really depends on who her GOP opponent is.
These are interesting times for political observers.
-
As a president, I predict that Hillary would be pretty much the same middle-of-the road quasi populist that Bill was, but less Monica and the scandal.
Certainly she is the most predictable candidate in the race.
Predictability is not all that bad a thing. The Clinton years were not bad: certainly more prosperous and less corrupt than the Reagan years, by any honest index.
He left no major shooting wars behind him, and the budget was headed in the right direction.
Rush made lots of money being annoying, thus amusing the ratwing, which gave them something to do, without doing much harm.
---------------------------------------------
As for the surge, I am pretty sure it will be allowed, and almost equally sure that it will not snatch victory from the jaws of monumental chaos for any significant amount of time.
The premise of the Juniorbushies is essentially dumb: "Give us this one chance; then we will let the Iraqis take responsibility."
If we don't give them their chance, and Iraq's civil war explodes into a huge regional sectarian feud, then we will blame the "Liberals".
On the other hand, if they have their surge and it fails, and explodes into a huge regional sectarian feud, then we can blame the Iraqis.
But what, then, about the problems that stem from the huge regional sectarian feud?
Is this all about sticking BLAME, then?
In any case, 21,500 troops is all we got. If they don't do the trick, we have shot our wad and everyone will know that after that, our actions will be limp-dicked and post coital. Then what?
I tend to think that Iran will eventually have a greater impact on Iraq than the US ever was. Cheney can say that our carrier indicates that "we are here to stay", but no one can question that Iran and Syria (and for that matter, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are all definitely there to stay for longer than any damned US carriers.
-
'08 will turn on electability. I disagree that Hillary is unelectable. I do agree she wouldn't win by a landslide. It really depends on who her GOP opponent is.
I think that is a fair assessment.
Right now we have candidates who are ahead in polls based only on their name recognition. Remember that Lieberman led all the Democratic polls in the run-up to the 2004 primaries. When the primaries took place "Joe-mentum" was a 2-cycle engine badly in need of repair.
Giuliani is a good example. Here is a guy who is remembered very fondly for his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Yet, he has rather consistently been on the side of gay rights, to the point of living with a gay couple after his wife threw him out. His infidelity to his second wife is well known and he has been married three (or is it four?) times. He is pro-choice and even said he wouldn't support a ban on partial birth abortions.
I'm not saying these things to berate the man at all. My point is that such a stand won't hurt him in New York or New Hampshire. Yet, can he win the closed primary in South Carolina? Can he win Texas? Tennessee? North Carolina? Kansas? Virginia?
And of course the Democrats face the same problem, except that they have been out of office so long that I think they are likely to be more willing to compromise on whomever they see as "electable" (whatever the hell that means).
An interesting group for Republicans will be the Evangelicals that showed a definite apathy in the 2006 midterms. Will the same 33% show up for a Democrat? Will a large number simply not vote at all? Will they turn out for someone like Senator Brownback?
Also, the independents and centrists will be an interesting group to watch as will the Hispanic voters, who decidedly fled from the Republicans in 2006 and voted strongly with the Democrats. In that sense, states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California will be interesting to watch as well as the candidacy of Governor Richardson.
It will be a good race, I imagine. I wonder how many Republicans will show a great distance from President Bush as a positive.
-
Interesting tangent this thread has gone into. NOT complaining. Just an observation 8)
-
But of course there's no media bas.
Dude, I get so tired of hearing this from the right. I've come around that there is bias among most reporters and those that aren't biased don't make the big time. Did FOX put your precious story front and center? Or were they having round table discussions with Hooters girls again?
Notice the latest "examples" of this non-bias? We had a story documenting direct connection with terrorist/insurgent activity and their use of Iranian military hardware & weaponry. Did this get front page status? Did this get lead story yesterday? I think NBC led with the death of Barbaro, including the sad interview with the horse's owner. They eventually moved into the Iranian weapons story.
The fact that "insurgents" were using Iranian military equipment is moot. The insurgents use AMERICAN equipment all the time. Does that mean the US is supporting them? ( I would be inclined to say yes, because a grenade used is a grenade sold to the MIC.)
You had the Military analyst of the NYTimes "shown the error of his way" for daring to provide a military opinion that ran counter to the template of how the war is supposed to go, and how bad Bush really is.
?
And how about the ever so frequent stories running of how McCain's political career (read; presidential aspirations) literally "hinges on the success of the surge". So supposedly if it doesn't go well, he's toast as a presidential nominee, right? Notice how not once have you heard a story on how Obama's, Clinton's, Biden's, Edwards' or any Dem acutely critical of "the surge", political career could tank with a success of the surge? Not 1. Why's that? Why wouldn't their presidential bids be utterly ruined by a surge success? Why the focus on McCain & failure?
I don't think that McCain's failure hinges on the Iraq "war". McCain is already a failure. He is carrying the baggage of the all the losers on the right who voted for the "war" and who have supported Bush ad nauseam. McCain is toast for the nomination. And if he does win the nomination, he will certainly lose. As a supporter for a failed military action such as what we have in Iraq. No supporter of the Iraq "war" can win the presidency without stealing it.
McCain can be set up for a fall, but let's not dare put any Dem in such a precarious political position, even if it's all simply based on perception. But, there's no media bias ::)
Now you know what it was like for me as a Dean supporter hearing report after report of Dean being "unhinged". The bias was against Dean.
-
But of course there's no media bas.
Dude, I get so tired of hearing this from the right.
Well of course. Since you're side's reaping the rewards, hearing of such is obviously going to be annoying. So long as the status quo remains of course, which of course you're not going to have to worry about, as there's no sign of that trend changing
I've come around that there is bias among most reporters and those that aren't biased don't make the big time.
Honesty. Good
Did FOX put your precious story front and center? Or were they having round table discussions with Hooters girls again?
You seem to be under the impression I watch Fox News. Wrong again
The fact that "insurgents" were using Iranian military equipment is moot.
But of course ::)
The insurgents use AMERICAN equipment all the time. Does that mean the US is supporting them? ( I would be inclined to say yes, because a grenade used is a grenade sold to the MIC.)
They either buy or simply are given the Iranian weapons. Any American weapons are stolen or taken from dead or injured soldiers
I don't think that McCain's failure hinges on the Iraq "war". McCain is already a failure.
Well, that's one far left opinion. Point being you're not writing those stories. Mainscream media reporters are, with pundits echoing the mantra. Not that I'd support McCain in any way shape or form. Just noting the continued blatant double standard, is all
Now you know what it was like for me as a Dean supporter hearing report after report of Dean being "unhinged". The bias was against Dean.
As facilitated by the Media's favorite poster children, Bill & Hill. The lean is still there, I'm afraid
-
Bt & Sirs,
Why would neither of you support McCain? I assume you'd support him in the general election, correct?
In theory he'd support the continued war effort, would he not?
-
(http://bp1.blogger.com/_ZxKAf8oOwtI/RcM2MJwICfI/AAAAAAAAAUk/UCScJm9cEfU/s400/r2415386112.jpg)
-
Bt & Sirs, Why would neither of you support McCain? I assume you'd support him in the general election, correct?
Speaking only for myself, outside of the war support, many of his domestic positions, especially that of tax reform, are much worse than Bush's. He has no plan, that I'm aware of for dealing with the SS/Medicare disaster heading our way. Appears to support bigger government, and obviously supports an erosion of the 1st amendment via McCain/Feingold's Incumbant Protection Act, better known as CFR. He is no Reagan Conservative, as he proports to be. He's barely a Conservative, if he even is one.
In theory he'd support the continued war effort, would he not?
Yea, ................and? Am I to base my support on 1 issue?
-
Yea, ................and? Am I to base my support on 1 issue?
As a matter of fact, yes. On this particular issue, if it is as vital as you and Bt have claimed, I would have thought that it would be the sole focus of the 2008 race.
-
Yea, ................and? Am I to base my support on 1 issue?
As a matter of fact, yes. On this particular issue, if it is as vital as you and Bt have claimed, I would have thought that it would be the sole focus of the 2008 race.
Well, then you'd be wrong. If there's a Conservative in the primary with a majority of issues I support, including the war on Iraq, that's who gets my vote. If it's McCain vs some staunch Anti-war leftist running as the Presidential candidates, then maybe I support McCain. Maybe
-
Well, then you'd be wrong. If there's a Conservative in the primary with a majority of issues I support, including the war on Iraq, that's who gets my vote. If it's McCain vs some staunch Anti-war leftist running as the Presidential candidates, then maybe I support McCain. Maybe
For me, as I've said many times, there are only two candidates who I would support unequivocably. Howard Dean running in '08 is about as likely as sirs saying that Bush lied so he's a dream candidate as one of my two. The other just got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.
Al Gore is the only candidate I would spend time advocating and supporting and working for.
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
-
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
I'll answer for myself; my "dream candidate" is Michael Badnarik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik).
-
Why would neither of you support McCain? I assume you'd support him in the general election, correct?
No i would not vote for him in the general election. Fact is, I don't trust him.
-
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
I'll answer for myself; my "dream candidate" is Michael Badnarik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik).
I saw a bumpersticker for him not too long ago.
-
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
There's a couple. Lemme get back to you on that, k?
-
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
There's a couple. Lemme get back to you on that, k?
Sure, we've got something like 21 months. Take your time.
-
MY question to sirs is: "Is there a 'Gore' out there for you and if so, who is it?"
There's a couple. Lemme get back to you on that, k?
Sure, we've got something like 21 months. Take your time.
Cool, thanks
-
As facilitated by the Media's favorite poster children, Bill & Hill. The lean is still there, I'm afraid
FYI, supporting Bill and Hill does not mean the media is biased for the left. And hang on to your socks and garters, but I agree with your stance that the media did B&H's bidding in undermining anyone the Dems were supporting. From Dean to Clark to Edwards to Kerry (even post-nomination), the Clinton's undermined the Dems just enough to make sure they lost by a nose.
-
As facilitated by the Media's favorite poster children, Bill & Hill. The lean is still there, I'm afraid
FYI, supporting Bill and Hill does not mean the media is biased for the left.
No, just another in an endless parade in examples of such
-
I submit that the media's bias towards B&H is the same as the one afforded Bush and his cult.
-
I submit that the media's bias towards B&H is the same as the one afforded Bush and his cult.
LOL......too bad reality doesn't mimic your submission
-
I submit that the media's bias towards B&H is the same as the one afforded Bush and his cult.
LOL......too bad reality doesn't mimic your submission
Oh really? For the last few years, since 9.11, the Bush "administration" and the DLC types have had free reign and nothing but love from the media. I feel that if Hillary becomes the first woman US "president", it will be a sign that the DLC and the Neo-cons have been in cahoots for decades and are merely agents of some group, perhaps the Bildebergers or something similar and nameless, merely a group of likeminded people who have taken it upon themselves to choose the direction of humanity.
-
For the last few years, since 9.11, the Bush "administration" and the DLC types have had free reign and nothing but love from the media.
ROFLMAO
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_19.gif)
-
For the last few years, since 9.11, the Bush "administration" and the DLC types have had free reign and nothing but love from the media.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_20.gif)
As I said, completely disconnected from reality.
I realize Brass, that to you, unless a paper is openly calling for Bush's Impeachement, they must be then by design in love with Bush and his policies. But here in the real world, where it's 24/7 doom and gloom reporting about Bush and his apparent endless failures, be it Iraq, the War on Terror, the nefarious cloak of secrecy and attacks on the Constitution, or Domestic issues like the economy, energy, & education abounding, your "submission" remains completely depolarized from current reality. The few successes that are reported are frequently twisted to make even those negative. But thank you for the confirmation though.
-
I submit that the media's bias towards B&H is the same as the one afforded Bush and his cult.
LOL......too bad reality doesn't mimic your submission
the Bush "administration" and the DLC types have had free reign and nothing but love from the media.
Oh man!
The media loved Cliton and ballyhooed hs unessacery wars , marvelled a his wonderfull economy , gave short shrift to most of his accusers.
Bush is really doing a better job in all three of these areas in a one for one comparison but who repeats this?
-
Interesting that the "real world" is completely in line with how Sirs, Ami, and Plane see it, but not how Brass views it.
The "real world" conforms perfectly to Sirs very complex notions of media bias against the right wing. The "real world" amazingly defies Occam's Razor and instead goes about a troubling, yet unwitting conspiracy of raging media bias towards (coincidentally of course!) the political philosophies of Sirs, Ami, and Plane.
The pure probability of that taking place is astounding.
In fact what we have here is argumentum ad consequentiam. Slapping the label of "reality" or "the real world" doesn't make it so. More than that it has become a nice example of Groupthink in America.
Your version of reality is no more credible than Brass' ,Sirs. Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed. There's nothing even pseudoscientific here. You have an outcome you desire (left-wing media bias) and you are going to see it whether it exists or not and you'll seek proof of its existence only.
argumentum ad consequentiam
Honestly, find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this.
-
Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed.
I made no claim of media bias to the left or right; I only laughed at the supposed "love fest" between the media and Bush. Therefore, I have no obligation to supply any evidence. Though if you want evidence of a "love fest" (or more accurately the lack of one) between the media and Bush, I would be happy to supply scads of articles from any number of countries to demonstrate. Heck, there are plenty of 'em posted here.
I understand that every media outlet has a bias, and those bias' apply in different directions depending on the media outlet. This is why I read a variety of media reports on each subject, to come to a more truthful and thorough understanding. I'm not one to rely on NBC nearly exclusively, or Vanity Fair nearly exclusively, etc.
-
Interesting that the "real world" is completely in line with how Sirs, Ami, and Plane see it, but not how Brass views it. ... Your version of reality is no more credible than Brass' ,Sirs. Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed. There's nothing even pseudoscientific here. You have an outcome you desire (left-wing media bias) and you are going to see it whether it exists or not and you'll seek proof of its existence only. Honestly, find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this.
With all due respect Js, "reality" does demonstrate an overt bias to the left, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I can't count how many times I've referenced that it's not some back room round table conspiracy. Simply the apparent repercussions of a vast number of like minded folks, unfortunately allowing their predisposed ideologies seep into what's supposed to be objective news reporting. And it happens in both ideological directions, just predomnantly more left. And the proof is in the daily headlines and stories presented (and more so NOT presented) by most of the mainscream media folk.
So, if you want to stick your head into the sand at that reality, fine. Just don't stand their and demand it not be discussed because you personally don't find it worthwhile. If you don't, then don't respond
-
Regardless of you sirs' and ami's non-responses, I still hold that Bill and Hillary Clinton with their think tank, the DLC, have shown signs that they are of like mind with Bush and the neo-cons.
I could even put forth the idea that the "attacks" on Bush and the GOP implosion are nothing but pre-planned campaigns to put the Dems in a good light in order to set up a Hillary presidency.
-
I could even put forth the idea that the "attacks" on Bush and the GOP implosion are nothing but pre-planned campaigns to put the Dems in a good light in order to set up a Hillary presidency.
You could, but it would have no more credence than no plane hitting the pentagon. And of course, that favors/loves Bush, how again? Strangely it seems to reinforce precisely what I've been saying
-
Regardless of you sirs' and ami's non-responses, I still hold that Bill and Hillary Clinton with their think tank, the DLC, have shown signs that they are of like mind with Bush and the neo-cons.
I've said this for years: The Democrats and the Republicans both want to take away your rights. They only disagree on the order in which to remove them.
-
That was unfair of me to lump you in there Ami. My apologies.
-
So, if you want to stick your head into the sand at that reality, fine. Just don't stand their and demand it not be discussed because you personally don't find it worthwhile. If you don't, then don't respond
I make no such demands Sirs. You are free to discuss what you wish, of course. It is only that I see it as a waste of intellectual capacity and time. You don't even see that you are making an argumentum ad consequentiam?
You can see anything if you look long and hard enough Sirs. But don't let me stop you.
-
I make no such demands Sirs. You are free to discuss what you wish, of course.
Well, "find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this" sure seemed like a commad, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
It is only that I see it as a waste of intellectual capacity and time.....You can see anything if you look long and hard enough Sirs.
[/quote]
So says you, which given how the current media disposition favors your ideological bend, not surprising either. And with the current reality, one need not look long or hard to find such a skewing of reporting. But don't let me stop you from keeping the blinders on
-
So says you, which given how the current media disposition favors your ideological bend, not surprising either.
Yes, socialism has gotten wonderful media love over the decades in the United States. That's why we have all of these wonderful socialist institutions in the United States like...erm...
And we have a dominant Socialist Party like...umm...
And we've elected great Socialist leaders like...uhhh...
Well, there is one Socialist Senator now. I guess all these years of media bias have finally paid off Sirs. ;)
-
Yes, socialism has gotten wonderful media love over the decades in the United States. That's why we have all of these wonderful socialist institutions in the United States like...And we have a dominant Socialist Party like..And we've elected great Socialist leaders like...
Apparently you missed the part where I clearly statied the mainscream media predominantly leaned left. I don't recall ever claiming or even implying the media were all hard core socialist commies with an agenda of imposing socialism. Or perhaps you can show me where I did. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? :-\
-
You said they favor my ideology.
Clearly that isn't the case. I don't recall reading anything in the paper about nationalising any industries, do you? I can't remember the last time I read anything coming close to supporting labor unions.
So no, I haven't seen much at all supporting my ideology. You're confusing me for your own view of what "leftists" are.
-
Seriously, though.
I know I've posted numerous times where I felt the media was mistreating someone on the left and the right was getting away with murder.
I would say that the serious lack of coverage of the Libby trial is indicative of the media's bias FOR Bush and the gang.
There have been several bombshells during the trial and none have been reported in the first five minutes on the CBS Evening News.
Libby won't take the stand in his own defence which I feel is an indication he fears being charged with still more perjury.
An assistant to Mary Matalin basically said that if they wanted to control the message on something, they would simply "MTP-VP" meaning put Cheney (the VP) on Meet The Press insinuating that Russert was their guy.
Libby's claim that he was told by Tim Russert on a certain date was blown away over and over again by presentation of notes showing he and Cheney had discussed it days prior.
Even Ari Fleischer (who bargained for immunity in exchange for testimony) said that Libby and told him that Plame was CIA prior to the date Libby claimed Russert had told him.
All of this, I've had to read about via DailyKos links to articles.
This case cuts to the heart of the lead up to the "war" in Iraq and is exemplary of how the current "administration" has handled themselves. But not a peep from the mainscream (or as some's hero, Rush calls it, "the drive-by media") media.
-
You said they favor my ideology.
OK, lean towards your ideology. Better now?
-
You said they favor my ideology.
OK, lean towards your ideology. Better now?
Can you give us an instance of the media overwhelmingly leaning left in its presentation of a certain story?
-
You said they favor my ideology.
OK, lean towards your ideology. Better now?
Can you give us an instance of the media overwhelmingly leaning left in its presentation of a certain story?
Where's the media outrage of the mere slap on the wrist probation sentensces for the teens convicted for hate crimes in brutally attacking 3 white women in Long Beach? When's the last time you heard a story of a military success in Iraq? When's the last time you read a headline story of some of the successes we've had in Iraq? When's the last time you heard a story of how good the economy is running "period", no caveats about inflation concerns, homeless concerns, unemployment concerns?
As I said, a huge throng of the bias is in what's NOT reported
-
Ok, fine, then we agree that the media is NOT covering everything. That's more important to me.
I hadn't heard of any hate crime thing though. No clue what you're talking about.
Have there been any military successes in Iraq? Tell me about them.
I understand what you're saying about the "successes in Iraq". I'm sure there have been some school openings and electricity has increased to an average 4.2 hours a day from 4 hours a day but, I can't say that those sorts of "successes" offset the horrors that are happening DAILY over there. As I've said before, we are to blame for the mess that has been made over there. It can easily be said that we should have left Saddam in power because NONE of this would be happening now. If Saddam absolutely had to be taken out, I overwhelmingly would have supported them just snipering his ass and installing another more controllable strongman. That's how strongly I feel about how bad things are over there. Even if there were pockets of paradise over there that aren't being reported, overall, the place is a charnel house anyway.
Let me meet you halfway on the economy, ok? Yes, things are going swimmingly and the market is going up every day and things are cheery. That's halfway. But the caveat I would add is that statement is only true if you own a corporation, run a corporation as a CEO or are an investor or stockholder.
For people making less than $60,000 a year, things are kind of sucking ass. There is no trickle down. Wages have stagnated. Prices are rising on health care, insurance, food, rents, day care, education, gas, heating oil and on and on. We're all working harder but getting less. And FYI, the numbers came out yesterday or Friday and unemplyment ROSE a bit to something like 4.6. I think some people decided it just wasn't worth the gas money to drive to work at McDonalds.
These are not caveats. They are facts. The rising tide is not lifting all boats here, sirs.
-
Ok, fine, then we agree that the media is NOT covering everything. That's more important to me. I hadn't heard of any hate crime thing though. No clue what you're talking about.
Precisely my point. If it were 3 black women attacked by a throng of white kids, it'd be wall to wall coverave, with how racist America still is. JJ and Sharpton would be leading the marches of how outrageous the Judge was, in sentencing these youths to mere probation. Or how about a Black woman accusing a bunch of supposed white boys of raping her. Wall to wall national coverage. But because this was black on white racism, not a peep. That's called bias, or if you prefer a more technical term, blatant media double standard.
Have there been any military successes in Iraq? Tell me about them.
Have been told, many a time, ususally thru Soldiers' letters, BLOGS, and WH press releases when it doesn't jeapordize ongoing intel and soldiers' lives. Most recently was that attack on the Shiite/Suuni insurgents, which has been consistently been portrayed as some overt attack on innoncent heavily armed pilgrims. Never hear about how many terrorists and insurgents we've taken out, have you
Let me meet you halfway on the economy, ok? Yes, things are going swimmingly and the market is going up every day and things are cheery. That's halfway. But the caveat I would add is that statement is only true if you own a corporation, run a corporation as a CEO or are an investor or stockholder.
Or an employee, who now has a new job they've been hired for with the increased amount of job openings, while able to keep more of their money thru Bush's income tax cuts. When's the last time you heard postive news about the egregiously low unemployment #'s. Clinton in office, wall to wall glory of how great the economy is running, which INLCLUDES those SAME corporations, CEO's & stockholders. Bush in office, not a peep, and when there is a peep, always the negative angle to apply, either regarding wealth differences, the "quality" of the new jobs, housing bottoming out, etc., etc., etc.
All just simply reinforming the point of the bias. The fact that it mimics your mindset and agreement in what they're reporting should be a clue
-
I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately. I'm sure it happens but I hear more about massive layoffs of late than massive hirings.
As I said, unemployment grew this last check.
It might be interesting to see if anybody can find some numbers on which companies have massively expanded. Everything I hear says that "productivity" is up. That means that less people are doing more work. Leaner, meaner machines.
My opinion is that ManyHands make light work. It makes more sense to me for a society to hire a lot and keep pay scales closer. If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene. What's worse, that same CEO is defended as being a smart bargainer in the contract phase and the lowliest worker is threatened if he dares to organize with his fellow workers to use their combined power to bargain with the company for a higher wage.
So, by this example I would say that, yeah, the economy is great for some.
-
I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.
Define lately.
I was just hired this past August. Another guy was hired the same day as me. There have been several more hired since then.
-
As I said, unemployment grew this last check.
Actually, this is incorrect.
Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 111,000 in January, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 4.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Job growth continued in sev-
eral service-providing industries over the month, and construction employment
also rose.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
-
I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately.
Define lately.
I was just hired this past August. Another guy was hired the same day as me. There have been several more hired since then.
That was a pretty broad statement. I'll withdraw it.
I think I'm about to be hired permanently at the corporation that I'm contracting with now as a matter of fact.
-
"If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene. "
This is not obscene!
Not in any way at all!
If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .
Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.
Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .
-
This is not obscene!
Not in any way at all!
If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .
Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.
Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .
I'm sorry, Plane but I must disagree. I don't care how good the guy is, he's only one guy. When I see that kind of thing, I can only think of how it will be wasted on $6000 shower curtains when four of those shower curtains could be plenty to put a minimum wager's kid through college and give him some kind of foundation for a better life than his minimum wager parent.
Creating more jobs is a good thing but walking out with that much profit that could make so many more lives a lot better is obscene. Sure, there's no reason that the CEO shouldn't get a higher salary as an educated accomplished CEO than the minimum wager doing whatever job that anyone could do (in the current economic system) but, come on, in one year, why does anyone need a $50 million bonus? It's not like they cured cancer or found a way to make a city run on a handful of dirt.
-
This is not obscene!
Not in any way at all!
If a man is a very good CEO he is going to produce a lot of jobs , a lot of product and service amd prevent the demise of the company .
Guys capable of this are worthy of their hire , when the CEO job is held by an idiot or merly a less than maximally competant person ,the effect is a reduction in productivity , a reduction in jobs , a reduction in product and service to the consumor and potentially, the demise of the company.
Getting a company on top is like running a ball team , it might seem outragious to pay millions to a player or coach but if the diffrence is being in the playoffs or not it doesn't pay to scrimp. It pays to attract and keep the best talent .
I'm sorry, Plane but I must disagree. I don't care how good the guy is, he's only one guy. When I see that kind of thing, I can only think of how it will be wasted on $6000 shower curtains when four of those shower curtains could be plenty to put a minimum wager's kid through college and give him some kind of foundation for a better life than his minimum wager parent.
Creating more jobs is a good thing but walking out with that much profit that could make so many more lives a lot better is obscene. Sure, there's no reason that the CEO shouldn't get a higher salary as an educated accomplished CEO than the minimum wager doing whatever job that anyone could do (in the current economic system) but, come on, in one year, why does anyone need a $50 million bonus? It's not like they cured cancer or found a way to make a city run on a handful of dirt.
This is constantly beng tried out.
Your way does not work , my way does.
If you were to assemble a team of good players who would all work for a reasonable pay , you could not beat the Yankees where they pay well for talent.
The same principal works for Ben and Jrry as it does for Google peope have a right to be payed what they can earn , any attempt to prevent this is obscene.
The CEO who wastes his pay on shower curtains might get dumped by the shareholders if they think someone elese could do better , but while he is being so foolish i is at least good for shower curtain makers.
See below.....;
(http://www.biggercheese.com/comics/0667.png)
-
See below.....;
(http://www.biggercheese.com/comics/0667.png)
LOL....I'm sorry, I couldn't help but think of Tee, with that toon :D
-
I think you'd be hardpressed to find an "employee" who has been hired into a corporation lately. I'm sure it happens but I hear more about massive layoffs of late than massive hirings.
I'm not sure why you keep equating economy with corporations. I'm actually referring to all of America, especially middle America. I'm actually referring to medium businesses, small businesses, entrepreneurials, all of whom are finding more employment, and more money in their pockets. I think I know why you're trying to focus soley on big corporations, because on occasion, some have bad quarters, if not bad years, and have to lay off alot of folks. I'm actually looking at the forest, while you're focused on a few redwoods
As I said, unemployment grew this last check.
Even if it were true, which Ami has indicated it isn't, unemployment would have grown to what...? 4.8%? You do realize how low that is, right? What was the lowest rate under Clinton again? How about Carter. Precisely
makes more sense to me for a society to hire a lot and keep pay scales closer.
And no one is stopping you from doing precisely that. see how long you can keep your business prosperous and energized.
If there is a corporation where the lowliest worker makes minimum and a CEO is walking out with a $50 million bonus that year, that's obscene.
Perhaps. No more than Alex Rodriquez' or Alfonso Soriano's contract. No more than David Beckham's new contract. No more than what folks like Tom Cruise & Julia Roberts make for 1 movie. Where's the outrage there? Where's the wall to wall condemnation for their making what they're given??
So, by this example I would say that, yeah, the economy is great for some.
For most, actually
-
And no one is stopping you from doing precisely that. see how long you can keep your business prosperous and energized.
Are you saying that paying out $200 million bonuses is the best way to keep a company prosperous and energized?
Perhaps. No more than Alex Rodriquez' or Alfonso Soriano's contract. No more than David Beckham's new contract. No more than what folks like Tom Cruise & Julia Roberts make for 1 movie. Where's the outrage there? Where's the wall to wall condemnation for their making what they're given??
Consider them condemned! I fucking can't stand that a hack like Tom Cruise is paid what he's paid. David Beckham is not worth $250 million!!! I fucking hate that they are getting that money when they SUCK! We were talking about the economy and jobs and CEO's. I understand you trying to hit back with entertainment and sports figures getting exorbitant sums of money but I'm sorry, I find them repugnant as well.
For most, actually
Sorry, my understanding is that people are pissed at seeing companies make out like bandits and they aren't sharing that wealth.
-
We were talking about the economy and jobs and CEO's.
No, I'm talking about the economy and jobs, and how good BOTH are. You're the one adding the CEO red herring.
For most, actually
Sorry, my understanding is that people are pissed at seeing companies make out like bandits and they aren't sharing that wealth.
Can't help what people "feel", and what they "perceive" as unfair. My understanding is from an actual & practical sense, MOST folks are doing better economically now, than 10years ago
-
And no one is stopping you from doing precisely that. see how long you can keep your business prosperous and energized.
Are you saying that paying out $200 million bonuses is the best way to keep a company prosperous and energized?
Perhaps. No more than Alex Rodriquez' or Alfonso Soriano's contract. No more than David Beckham's new contract. No more than what folks like Tom Cruise & Julia Roberts make for 1 movie. Where's the outrage there? Where's the wall to wall condemnation for their making what they're given??
Consider them condemned! I fucking can't stand that a hack like Tom Cruise is paid what he's paid. David Beckham is not worth $250 million!!! I fucking hate that they are getting that money when they SUCK! We were talking about the economy and jobs and CEO's. I understand you trying to hit back with entertainment and sports figures getting exorbitant sums of money but I'm sorry, I find them repugnant as well.
For most, actually
Sorry, my understanding is that people are pissed at seeing companies make out like bandits and they aren't sharing that wealth.
Oz's Lion starrng Tom Hanks ,Johnny Depp , Brad Pitt , Jim Carey ,Barbra Striesand and Jessica Simpson.
Would not sell more tickets?
-
OK, lean towards your ideology. Better now?
How does the media "lean towards my ideology?"
-
OK, lean towards your ideology. Better now?
How does the media "lean towards my ideology?"
You're kidding, right? Perhaps you can point me to all the mainstream media stories referencing the negative impacts of increasing the minimum wage, and the impact it has the small busnessman....the negative impacts of raising taxes on "the rich"....the substantial negative impacts to our economy if a universal healthcare plane were adopted, or Kyoto were adopted....the positive impacts of reforming SS & medicare....the postive aspects of our war against Terror & in Iraq....etc., etc., etc. The stories I might add, NOT found in the likes of those few news services that do lean right
-
You're kidding, right? Perhaps you can point me to all the mainstream media stories referencing the negative impacts of increasing the minimum wage, and the impact it has the small busnessman....the negative impacts of raising taxes on "the rich"....the substantial negative impacts to our economy if a universal healthcare plane were adopted, or Kyoto were adopted....the positive impacts of reforming SS & medicare....the postive aspects of our war against Terror & in Iraq....etc., etc., etc. The stories I might add, NOT found in the likes of those few news services that do lean right
That's an interesting garbled response, but you never answered my question. You responded to my question by asking me to provide proof. You made the allegation that the media "leans towards my ideology." I don't see anything in your answer that shows that to be the case.
-
That's an interesting garbled response, but you never answered my question. You responded to my question by asking me to provide proof. You made the allegation that the media "leans towards my ideology." I don't see anything in your answer that shows that to be the case.
Ahhh, so you're not a left leaning lib. Funny, could have fooled me. I provided examples of their left leaning bias in reporting. If you've changed ideologies, my apologies
-
Ahhh, so you're not a left leaning lib. Funny, could have fooled me. I provided examples of their left leaning bias in reporting. If you've changed ideologies, my apologies
You provided nothing but a little rant. As a matter of fact the very first thing you asked me to do was to provide evidence for you.
And you know what the Wall Street Journal (2nd most distributed newspaper in the United States) will have had at least one article in recent times on the negative impact of increasing the minimum wage. So there you go. Rant refuted.
Now, can you back up your assertion or not?
-
Here you go:
Wall Street Journal (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/1203073251.html?dids=1203073251:1203073251&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+26%2C+2007&author=&pub=Wall+Street+Journal&edition=Eastern+edition&startpage=A.11&type=8_90&desc=How+to+Make+the+Poor+Poorer)
ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2798708&page=1)
The OC Register (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/editorials/article_1406144.php)
Florida Today (http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/BUSINESS/701300323/-1/archives) Interesting one where business people think it will have little effect
I don't see a problem with finding what you asked for Sirs.
-
Ahhh, so you're not a left leaning lib. Funny, could have fooled me. I provided examples of their left leaning bias in reporting. If you've changed ideologies, my apologies
You provided nothing but a little rant. As a matter of fact the very first thing you asked me to do was to provide evidence for you. And you know what the Wall Street Journal (2nd most distributed newspaper in the United States) will have had at least one article in recent times on the negative impact of increasing the minimum wage. So there you go. Rant refuted. Now, can you back up your assertion or not?
I did if you'd stop using news outlets that are already leaning right, as a supposed debuking the left leaning myth. The headlines and stories are limitless in painiting precisely the opposite picture I provided. To find a smatter of some reports, especially from either those news sources that already lean R, such as the WSJ & OC Register, or a token story from the likes of ABC hardly refutes anything I've posed.
Do you or do you not largely lean left in your ideology? If you do, my point's been made. If you don't, my apologies
-
Do you or do you not largely lean left in your ideology? If you do, my point's been made. If you don't, my apologies
How can you make a point with no evidence?
The Wall Street Journal is the second most distributed newspaper in the United States. You rant about the "mainscream media," but apparently that does not include one of the most popular newspapers printed in the entire nation. How does that make sense to you? Sirs, you are providing one of the most irrational discussions I've seen on these fora - and that is really saying something.
You are basically upset because media outlets you consider "left-leaning" (which you've still left very poorly defined) aren't printing enough "right-leaning" (again very poorly defined) material. That truly defies logic.
Moreover, minimum wage is not an issue that falls neatly into the left and right spectrum anyway. There have been many leftists (especially unionists) who opposed minimum wage laws and those one the right (especially clergy) who have supported it.
Again, this is just a completely irrational discussion. Now you can respond with some silly one-liner or less than witty remark (which is what I expect) or perhaps you can explain what you are on about.
-
The Wall Street Journal is the second most distributed newspaper in the United States. You rant about the "mainscream media," but apparently that does not include one of the most popular newspapers printed in the entire nation. How does that make sense to you?
I think this is a disingenuous claim. Many media companies publish under a variety of names. Tribune, for instance, publishes the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, the Los Angeles Times, Long Island Newsday, Orlando Sentinel, and a number of other newspapers. Taking Tribune's total circulation into account, the WSJ's circulation pales in comparison.
-
That's a fair point Ami.
Still, it is difficult to argue that the Wall Street Journal is not a popular, well-known, and well-established newspaper. Moreover, the Tribune Group may own all of those newspapers, but it is fair to say that they all have unique character to them.
-
That's a fair point Ami. Still, it is difficult to argue that the Wall Street Journal is not a popular, well-known, and well-established newspaper.
I must have missed where I claimed it wasn't. The claim is in that it's conceded that it leans a little to the right, especially in their editorial dept. 1 Publication, regardless of it's distribution, pales in comparision to the vast majority of all others. No?