That's it. The Media Bias For Kerry has Pushed Me Toward Bush

[Rileydog]

I was undecided but am now going with Bush, for perhaps a poor reason. The crap media bias is exemplified in the article below. At first, second and third glance, it misleads the reader into thinking that Ridge, Bush and the Republicans sat on old information and increased the terror alert for politicial gain. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591204/


First, the title: "Ridge defends higher terror alert as 'essential'
Homeland security chief reacts to news al-Qaida files are years old"

It could not be more stilted. It sounds like the Republicans are being defensive because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. But the fact is that the old information was just discovered. But the "newly discovered" element of the story is buried, buried cleverly so that many readers may never get to it and get misled. Frankly, some readers will just see the headlines and be deceived.

Second, the article: Look at the first section. Equally misleading. Am I naive to be this mad? Does this go on all the time? I mean crap, if Kerry can't get his own bounce, does the media have to get it for him? I was ready to listen to him but am now furiousoff.

"WASHINGTON - U.S. officials say the detailed surveillance photos and documents that prompted higher terror warnings dated from as far back as 2000 and 2001, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday the government concluded “it was essential” to publicize it and raise the terror alert. Speaking at a news conference in New York, Ridge said that because of the heightened security steps, “We have made it much more difficult for the terrorists to achieve their broad objectives. ... We will not become fortress America.”

Officials had said earlier that it wasn’t clear whether the individuals who amassed the information, principally on financial institutions in New York, Newark and Washington, D.C., are still in the country or plotting.

Top Bush administration officials said some of the surveillance was apparently updated as recently as January of this year. And they denied any allegations that the public release of the information now, and the raising of the terror alert, were politically motivated.

Finally: Buried in a paragraph is this one sentence that sorta sets the record straight. "They said the information was released now because it was just uncovered in Pakistan."



Perhaps I am an idealist but this is ridiculous. I guess this is why I generally tune out of politics. Everything is stilted to cajole, deceive and mislead. It becomes increasingly difficult to determine what is real and what is memorex.

[RocketMan Tex]

:D

[Rocketman95]

I'd have to agree...it's a poor reason.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
I'd have to agree...it's a poor reason.


well, I'm a "swing voter" that rarely cares about politics. I seem be paying more attention this year and each candidate has his flaws. There appears to be no good home for a social moderate and fiscal conservative.

But the media is a powerful thing and certainly proKerry. I guess I'm just raging against the machine that has ticked me off the most. With the candidates being roughly equal in appeal, stuff like this does serve as the tiebreaker. Kerrry benefits from media bias, so he must suffer from it too.

[mc mark]

Rileydog are you sure that's the reason your voting Bush? The media?

[IROC it]

Are you sure you're voting Kerry because you like him better? Or is it just Bush hate?

I for one am not 100% pro-choice, but wouldn't say that 100% of abortion is necessarily murder.

So Bush lines up more with that for me.

I also wouldn't say that guns are the problem as much as the criminals who use them.

So Bush lines up more with that for me.

And I agree that the "Oval Office" needed "one heck of a scrubbin'" after the previous president left it.

So Bush lines up more with that for me.

Plus, I think W is funnier than JFK, and Laura is purtier than Ketchup. Guffah, guffah, yuck, yuck... :rolleyes:

[Oski2005]

That is pretty weak, shouldn't you just go to the candidate's websites and find out where they stand on the issues that matter to you?


On top of that, I don't get what you are accusing the AP of doing.

[SamFisher]

That's it, the ham sandwich I just ate has pushed me towards voting for Kimbo.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by IROC it
Are you sure you're voting Kerry because you like him better? Or is it just Bush hate?

I don't hate Bush. I won't vote for him because he's scary stupid.

[Rocketman95]

I was just giving you a hard time with the poor reason comment.

I guess I just don't find the media all that pro-Kerry. I don't think they're anti-Bush by any means. To me, if something was going to change my vote if I was a swing voter, it'd be the politicizing of the announcement by Ridge rather than the media's coverage of it.

[Mulder]

Just watch Fox News awhile and maybe you will switch back.

Seriously, you list your occupation as an Attorney. You must be a very bright guy. I find it hard to believe you could be pushed into voting for this guy for that reason.

[mc mark]

IROC it yes I'm voting for Kerry because I think he'll make a much better president than Jr. While I may not agree with everything Kerry stands for, it's got to be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.


And I have no problem admitting that I dislike the SOB Bush.

[rimrocker]

LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME

FOX CNN MSNBC
July 26 0:41 1:10 1:07
July 27 1:05 1:23 1:39
July 28 0:42 1:08 1:05
July 29 1:12 1:15 1:36

Totals... FOX: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
MSNBC: 5 hours, 27 minutes

Former President Jimmy Carter: FOX News Channel aired just over four minutes of Carter's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired almost 14 minutes.

Former Vice President Al Gore: FOX News Channel aired 45 seconds of Gore's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 13 minutes.

Senator Edward Kennedy: FOX News Channel aired a little more than four minutes of Kennedy's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 25 minutes of his speech.

Ret. General Wesley Clark: FOX News Channel aired none of Clark's speech; CNN aired about two minutes and MSNBC aired almost 11 minutes.

Reverend Al Sharpton: FOX News Channel aired two and a half minutes of Sharpton's speech live; CNN aired almost 20 minutes, and MSNBC aired almost 17 minutes.

Reverend Jesse Jackson: FOX News Channel aired none of Jackson's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 10 minutes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200408020002

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Cohen
I don't hate Bush. I won't vote for him because he's scary stupid.

My reason exactly. Well, that and the fact that Kerry has five letters in his last name while Bush only has four.:D

[IROC it]

So... a week after the RNC you'll be voting Kerry again?

Whew! I thought we had a convert. Scared me there.







Playing the advocate...


You realize that this....
Originally posted by rimrocker
LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME

FOX CNN MSNBC
July 26 0:41 1:10 1:07
July 27 1:05 1:23 1:39
July 28 0:42 1:08 1:05
July 29 1:12 1:15 1:36

Totals... FOX: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
MSNBC: 5 hours, 27 minutes

Former President Jimmy Carter: FOX News Channel aired just over four minutes of Carter's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired almost 14 minutes.

Former Vice President Al Gore: FOX News Channel aired 45 seconds of Gore's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 13 minutes.

Senator Edward Kennedy: FOX News Channel aired a little more than four minutes of Kennedy's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 25 minutes of his speech.

Ret. General Wesley Clark: FOX News Channel aired none of Clark's speech; CNN aired about two minutes and MSNBC aired almost 11 minutes.

Reverend Al Sharpton: FOX News Channel aired two and a half minutes of Sharpton's speech live; CNN aired almost 20 minutes, and MSNBC aired almost 17 minutes.

Reverend Jesse Jackson: FOX News Channel aired none of Jackson's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 10 minutes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200408020002
...proves Rileydogs point right? The majority of the media you listed caters to Kerry.

[Mulder]

Better yet, watch the convention speeches on CSPAN, if you must see them.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by Mulder
Better yet, watch the convention speeches on CSPAN, if you must see them.

Can I get an AMEN!!!

That’s all I watched during the convention

Well except for some of the CNN commentary on Kerry's speech the last night.

[nyquil82]

honestly, as much as I dislike bush, i'd rather you vote for bush than not vote at all. I would also like everyone to make rational decisions when they vote (and there are rational reasons for voting for either), but that's asking for too much icing.

[mc mark]

Rileydog I noticed on your Bio that you're from Taiwan. Are you a naturalized citizen? Is this your first election?

[IROC it]

Originally posted by mc mark
Rileydog I noticed on your Bio that you're from Taiwan. Are you a naturalized citizen? Is this your first election?

I thought only "neo-cons" dug into people's private lives?

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by IROC it


...proves Rileydogs point right? The majority of the media you listed caters to Kerry.

I thought this would be a good place to post the info regardless of Riley's position or not... and your last point is debatable.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by rimrocker
I thought this would be a good place to post the info regardless of Riley's position or not... and your last point is debatable.

Isn't it all debatable? That's the beauty of it all. It's all the POV you have.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by IROC it
Are you sure you're voting Kerry because you like him better? Or is it just Bush hate?


This is getting boring. How did this become an issue? If you don't believe in Kerry 100% are you just supposed to not vote? Is that what you are trying to tell us? "Just cause you disagree with everything Bush does doesn't mean you have to vote for Kerry, just stay home on election day." We get it already. Also, who in this country believes in all the same things as a politician 100%? You'd have to be a blind sheep to think you need to 100% agree with everything about a candidate to vote for them.

We have only 2 real choices this election. On a scale of 1 to 10, Kerry is a 7 and Bush is a 1 imho. I know there are plenty of others who feel the same way, about 51 million voters from 2000 for starters. And people like you IROC know damn well that this question you guys keep bringing up is ridiculous and stupid. The only reason you bring it up time and again is because you can't sell Bush to us and others. Please, sell him, just try it, I dare you. Prove to me we are better off now than we were 4 years ago.


Also, wait til the Repub convention. I can predict what we'll see already. CNN and MSNBC will have about the same amount of live airtime to the RNC as they did to the DNC. Care to guess how much more of the RNC Fox will show than they did the DNC? When the RNC is on, people will confuse Fox with C-SPAN, bank on it.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by IROC it
I thought only "neo-cons" dug into people's private lives?

So clicking on a link is "digging" now? And it's not private when you offer information.

But you knew that.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by mc mark
Rileydog are you sure that's the reason your voting Bush? The media?

no, that's overstating it a little (but that's what it sounded like from my rant above). i'm just kinda ticked off at the moment, and am naturally curious about whether peopel feel the same as do I (because I'm egocentric like most attorneys).

i'm not decided yet, but this does push me a little to bush. Like I said, I'm a social moderate and fiscal conservative, so I'm politically homeless. I am an idealist so this type of blatant media bias really pisses me off.

[underoverup]

Originally posted by Rileydog
Perhaps I am an idealist but this is ridiculous. I guess this is why I generally tune out of politics. Everything is stilted to cajole, deceive and mislead. It becomes increasingly difficult to determine what is real and what is memorex.

Perhaps you missed during Ridge's latest terror speech when he basically gave credit to Bush for this latest terror alert --- even though the info was 3-4 years old. Politics indeed.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by rimrocker
LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME

FOX CNN MSNBC
July 26 0:41 1:10 1:07
July 27 1:05 1:23 1:39
July 28 0:42 1:08 1:05
July 29 1:12 1:15 1:36

Totals... FOX: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
MSNBC: 5 hours, 27 minutes

Former President Jimmy Carter: FOX News Channel aired just over four minutes of Carter's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired almost 14 minutes.

Former Vice President Al Gore: FOX News Channel aired 45 seconds of Gore's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 13 minutes.

Senator Edward Kennedy: FOX News Channel aired a little more than four minutes of Kennedy's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 25 minutes of his speech.

Ret. General Wesley Clark: FOX News Channel aired none of Clark's speech; CNN aired about two minutes and MSNBC aired almost 11 minutes.

Reverend Al Sharpton: FOX News Channel aired two and a half minutes of Sharpton's speech live; CNN aired almost 20 minutes, and MSNBC aired almost 17 minutes.

Reverend Jesse Jackson: FOX News Channel aired none of Jackson's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 10 minutes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200408020002

I would be interested to see how much of the speeches were aired by PBS. That is what I watched almost exclusively with the exception of the time that they had an audio glitch during Clinton's speech.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by Oski2005
That is pretty weak, shouldn't you just go to the candidate's websites and find out where they stand on the issues that matter to you?


On top of that, I don't get what you are accusing the AP of doing.

I did look at their websites. again, without going issue by issue, i am socially moderate and fiscally conservartive. I am politically homeless.

the way that story was constructed and worded misleads the reader into thinking that the Republicans sat on information that was discovered in 2000 and 2001, and waited until just recently to disclose it, wratchet up the terror alert, all for political gain.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by Rileydog

i'm not decided yet, but this does push me a little to bush. Like I said, I'm a social moderate and fiscal conservative, so I'm politically homeless. I am an idealist so this type of blatant media bias really pisses me off.

I would hazard to say there are a lot of folks here on the BBS like that. More than you know...

:)

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by Mulder
Just watch Fox News awhile and maybe you will switch back.

Seriously, you list your occupation as an Attorney. You must be a very bright guy. I find it hard to believe you could be pushed into voting for this guy for that reason.

There are many idiot attorneys. I am not one of them, but they are out there, so dont' call all of us very bright.

see my above responses. I'm not really deciding based on this. it just royally ticks me off b/c the article is totally deceptive.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by mc mark
Rileydog I noticed on your Bio that you're from Taiwan. Are you a naturalized citizen? Is this your first election?


am citizen, not first election. i just usually get bored or don't care about politics here. funny, the euros think our politics are somewhat absurd b/c our left and right are basically center to them. their left and right are totally out of whack. I'm not agreeing with them. i'm just noting the point. and americans are usually too america centric with little regard or knowledge of what else is going on in the world. damn that sounded elitist.

[mc mark]

but true...

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by underoverup
Perhaps you missed during Ridge's latest terror speech when he basically gave credit to Bush for this latest terror alert --- even though the info was 3-4 years old. Politics indeed.

Regretably, I do expect politics from the incumbent party. So Ridge did not surprise me.

I just dislike FLAT OUT DECEPTION from the media. As someone who makes a living by paying attention to how things are written, that's what I call the article from msn. deception.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Rileydog
i'm not decided yet, but this does push me a little to bush. Like I said, I'm a social moderate and fiscal conservative, so I'm politically homeless. I am an idealist so this type of blatant media bias really pisses me off.

I agree with you and lean exactly the way you do. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. The way I define it, I am a fiscal conservative with a sense of social justice. I agree with you that neither one of these candidates is ideal, in fact they are really just different sides of the same coin (the one owned by the corporations, unions, NRA, Hollywood, defense contractors, trial lawyers, and the other special interests).

It is far past time for a popular third party to make an impact on the way the majors do business, but IMO, there is something more important to accomplish in this election. I think that GWB, after beginning the War on Terror in a brilliant, positive way, has flubbed it so badly in the last year and a half that we need new leadership.

On social issues, I was rarely on the same page with Bush, but the War on Terror is too important to allow GWB to continue waging it the way he has. Add that to the unending spending increases and Bush is on the wrong side in both fiscal AND social issues, something I NEVER thought would be the case for me. I always thought that the GOP was the party for fiscal conservatives, but it appears that only the Libertarians lean that way these days (and the Libs go WAY too far in several areas for me).

The media may be biased one way or the other (depending on your choice of channels), but that is why you should stop listening to the media, not why you should choose one candidate or the other. As someone mentioned earlier, watch Fox News for a while and see if you can pick out THEIR bias. There is (and probably always will be) bias in every media outlet. Your job is to find the truth hidden in the spin.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by mc mark
I would hazard to say there are a lot of folks here on the BBS like that. More than you know...

:)

I guess I really wouldn't know. It's hard for me to get through some of the "heated" threads because some people find it impossible to discuss politics, much less basketball, without lobbing personal insults and speaking from the hand of god on issues.

but glad to hear you say it. heck, i have no idea what your policial views are. i only remember that you're a orlando magic fan that was hoping for something better than what ya'll got. or at least that's what I think i remember.

[Francis3422]

Thank god that the internet came along for liberals to gang up on republicans like a street gang in a dark alley. One poster has a "pro-bush" thread and he gets worked. Who cares if Ridge gave Bush a little props anyway. If ya'll are gonna focus on his mistakes so much, why not give credit where credit is due.

[IROC it]

Well... not that it matters to most here as I am insignificant plankton to them... but...

I took Ridge to mean that while the majority of the evidence is older, the system that helped find the correlation is thanks, in part at least, to the President's help in steering us toward that Dept. of HS being formed...

Now, I know it has been said that Dubya originally was not all for the DHS, but he did come to see the merit and need for it.

This is really what I feel Ridge was pointing out... that it was needed (the system in place) to figure out the info, and put the 2 and 2 together, so to speak... given this recent intel in Pakistan.

But again, I humbly bow in fealty to the Lords of Liberal...

http://giganspecies.homestead.com/files/plico.gif
"I went to COLLEGE!!!"

[mc mark]

Originally posted by Rileydog

i only remember that you're a orlando magic fan that was hoping for something better than what ya'll got. or at least that's what I think i remember.

I think you're thinking of someone else! I'm very happy with TMAC!


:D

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Francis3422
Thank god that the internet came along for liberals to gang up on republicans like a street gang in a dark alley. One poster has a "pro-bush" thread and he gets worked. Who cares if Ridge gave Bush a little props anyway. If ya'll are gonna focus on his mistakes so much, why not give credit where credit is due.

I DO give Bush credit wher it is due. He began the War on Terror brilliantly, invading Afghanistan (with the support of the world) and kicking Taliban a$$es.

I just have a problem with the way he has handled things since.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by andymoon
[B . . . . [/B]

On media bias, I just happen to look at msnbc a lot b/c of hotmail. so i guess it's my own fault. i'll check out coverage by other news sources and see for myself.

on a different point - I have not heard anyone disagree with me that the article is utterly deceptive. that issue may have gotten lost in everyone's immediate and kneejerk attempt to begin debating the merits of bush v. kerry. I'd be curious to hear if someone disagrees with me on this.

as for fiscal policy, I think the republican party will put sufficient pressure on Bush and the congress to stay reasonably conservative, recent performance not withstanding. all things being equal, republicans will be more in line with my fiscal position.

social policy is impossible. both sides have butchered it so badly that this is almost moot.

as for the war on terror, I'll keep my opinions on it to myself for now. suffice it to say that I would have a slight lean toward Kerry on this if I had more confidence in his team. I am troubled by the lack of experience on the kerry/edwards ticket. like him or not, if i'm a foreign leader, i respect/fear dick cheney. he'll crap down your throat and then have halliburton bill the government a couple of million for it, but he'll definitely crap down your throat.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Rileydog

on a different point - I have not heard anyone disagree with me that the article is utterly deceptive. that issue may have gotten lost in everyone's immediate and kneejerk attempt to begin debating the merits of bush v. kerry. I'd be curious to hear if someone disagrees with me on this.


I will agree with you that the truth was buried in a lot of spin, but I will again remind you that this is common for MOST media outlets and should be seen as the rule rather than the exception.

Originally posted by Rileydog

as for fiscal policy, I think the republican party will put sufficient pressure on Bush and the congress to stay reasonably conservative, recent performance not withstanding. all things being equal, republicans will be more in line with my fiscal position.

Just out of curiosity, what gives you this impression? The Congress are the people who have been spending all that money, Bush just signed off on all the spending bills. Do you have anything that points to a new direction in fiscal policy?

[SamFisher]

I read the whole article and didn't find it that deceptive.

It prominently featured the Bush administration's denials that it was politically motivated in several paragraphs, and I was fairly clear that the information was discovered recently, though I knew that going in, as did most people, I thought.

Under the paragraph "democrats cry foul", it features one throwaway quote, from a lowly D.C. City Council member. That's it.

I could just as easily argue that the article is biased against democrats from that perspective.

Anyway, it was your garden variety disjointed wire service article, typical, and not worthy of much comment IMO.

[nyquil82]

Originally posted by Rileydog
on a different point - I have not heard anyone disagree with me that the article is utterly deceptive. that issue may have gotten lost in everyone's immediate and kneejerk attempt to begin debating the merits of bush v. kerry. I'd be curious to hear if someone disagrees with me on this.


I'll agree that the article is deceptive, but as a PoliSci major, its hard to find an article that doesn't have some degree of inherant opinion, especially in our current day and age. I think, as an attorney, you should realize the flaws in the use of the English language when trying to convey specific points. As many others in this thread have mentioned, educated readers should be able to bypass the everday BS in the papers and look for the facts. If you've read Taiwan papers, this type of act should be obvious. If your're looking for unbiased media reporting, you won't find much in this country, let alone any others.

Honestly, i think you're putting too much weight on crap that is plentiful and ubiquitous in newsland. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean the opposite is right.

[Rileydog]

to the contrary, as an attorney, i know how people word things, phrase things in certain order, so as to mislead and decieve, yet be factually accurate.

and that is exactly what this article is. and it is skillfully done. that's why it caught my eye.

re the rest of your points, I agree about the rampant media spin. but the idealist in me just hates it. this was vastly more egregious than most.

[glynch]

Riley, did you get totally pissed off when Bush and gang deceived you on the wmd?, the imminent threat from Iraq?, that it would cost us nothing as their oil would fund it all?, that the people would greet us with flowers and candy?, that the NYT quoted indiscriminately from biased sources like Ahmad Chalabi who hoped to become the leader of Iraq?

Were you not equalled pissed when the threat was initially broadcast WITHOUT TELLING PEOPLE IT WAS BASED ON TALK BEFORE 911.

If not you, really are a Bush voter and should vote for him.

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by glynch
Riley, did you get totally pissed off when Bush and gang deceived you on the wmd?, the imminent threat from Iraq?, that it would cost us nothing as their oil would fund it all?, that the people would greet us with flowers and candy?, that the NYT quoted indiscriminately from biased sources like Ahmad Chalabi who hoped to become the leader of Iraq?

Were you not equalled pissed when the threat was initially broadcast WITHOUT TELLING PEOPLE IT WAS BASED ON TALK BEFORE 911.

If not you, really are a Bush voter and should vote for him.

objection, argumentative. Subject to that objection, yeah, it ticks me off that the republican party lies. it ticks me off when other news sources lie.

the fact that the initial broadcast did not tell everyone that it was based on evidence that may have existed before 911 did not bother me that much. even in retrospect, it does not appear as plainly calculated to deceive as does this particular article.

finally, i can do without the inflammatory tone, the rabid advocacy, and frankly, the insinuation that i am a dumb farm animal that can be led around by the nose. As I said about the article, the manner in which things are written are just as important as its content. by the way, your style is doing a disservice to your party. Most swing vote types get turned off by this kinda stuff.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Rileydog
finally, i can do without the inflammatory tone, the rabid advocacy, and frankly, the insinuation that i am a dumb farm animal that can be led around by the nose.
Welcome to the D&D, fellow Bush voter...

[Rileydog]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Welcome to the D&D, fellow Bush voter...

[edit - imadrummer, i totally goofed in my response to you. my "this" (below) is vague. it's a reference to what I was ticked about before, not to you. i didin't mean for it to sound like your post was "ridiculous." again, I was refering to the prior post response.)

i guess i'm fairly new to this forum but this is just ridiculous. and if it gets directed at me, well, i'll respond. maybe some people will finally calm down and learn some manners. it's so damn easy to sit behind a keyboard and act all clever.

(imadrummer, this is to clarify in response to your point. )
"fellow bush voter?" i'm probably going to remain uncommitted until the 11th hour but the whole point of this thread was to note the complete deception in the msnbc article. it's impact on me may not last, but it has ticked me off for 1 afternoon.

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Rileydog
There are many idiot attorneys. I am not one of them, but they are out there, so dont' call all of us very bright.

see my above responses. I'm not really deciding based on this. it just royally ticks me off b/c the article is totally deceptive.

OK let me put it another way...

skip past the bullcrap, figure out your most important issue (environment, war on iraq, economy, tax cuts, stem cell research) for which the two candidates have made a stand and cast your vote accordingly.

[mc mark]

Rileydog seriously! Welcome to the D&D! It'll be nice to have the perspective of a true independent on the board. We don’t have very many.

[thadeus]

Isn't voting for Bush because you don't like the "liberal" media remarkably similar to invading Iraq because some Saudis/Afghans attacked you?

;)

[Rocket104]

Rileydog - How do you feel about the media portrayal of Bush appointing an "intelligence czar"? Do you agree with the way headlines seem to indicate he is following the 9/11 commission's recommendations, when in reality he is not?

And - perhaps the statistics about DNC airtime show that ALL THE F'ING NETWORKS SUCK. Why not show ALL of the speeches? It IS news, you know. Not the pundit reactions, but the news itself.

Just because Fox is conservative doesn't mean that more airtime than Fox indicates the network/issue is liberal.

PBS all the way.

[glynch]

Riley you do realize that the title of your own post is infammatory and makes a charge that is highly doubtful? "That's it. The media's bias toward Kerry...."

I don't think you have explained either why you take no offense at the releasing of the threat, with all the manpower expended, without explaining that the documents were several years old. Do you think that level of alert should be maintained indefinitely based on those old documents.

I agree with Sam Fisher, the article is not that biased. Perhaps you should examine how perhaps your own bias that Bush gets a raw deal from the media might have effected your reading a text with political content.

[IROC it]

Rileydog, you're correct... the careless skim reader would be easily deceived.... but we are not to question the depth at which we must swim to find the nuggets of truth.

That would be patriotic of us. Just ask Michael Moore.

It hacked me off a little, but I expect it now. I am more amazed if a slightly right of center story pops up in the mainstream.

But, don't decide on the media alone. I concur on that point.

[cmiller]

Rileydog,

If you're curious and want a veteran's take on why you should vote for Kerry, send me an email. After all, it's not about the economy, etc., it's about folks I served with dying for absolutely nothing!!!

Thanks!

[Dubious]

In Texas atleast , we can vote for Nader as vote against the two party system that fails to allow for a range of views on different issues. You get all the republican platform or all the democratic platform no matter how you fall on abortion, defense, deficit spending, personal freedom, the environment, healthcare etc. etc. I don't know if you can even define a liberal view or conservative view on all the issues much less say either party is representative of your view on all of them or even the 5 most important ones.


And if Bush gets 51% of the texas vote, which he could even if he were filmed mooning down 6th. Street, all of the Texas electoral votes go to him anyway. It's kind goofy when you think about it, a 51% win has the same effect as a 100% win for a very large chunk of the total electoral votes. It gives a disproportionate view of the will of the people and renders moot any votes for Kerry in Texas.

The two party system with an electoral college guarantess power to the power brokers.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Mulder
skip past the bullcrap, figure out your most important issue (environment, war on iraq, economy, tax cuts, stem cell research) for which the two candidates have made a stand and cast your vote accordingly.
Are you really counseling that it is advisable to cast your single vote on a lone issue? Isn't voting more complex than that?

[mc mark]

Originally posted by Gene Peterson
In Texas atleast , we can vote for Nader as vote against the two party system that fails to allow for a range of views on different issues. You get all the republican platform or all the democratic platform no matter how you fall on abortion, defense, deficit spending, personal freedom, the environment, healthcare etc. etc. I don't know if you can even define a liberal view or conservative view on all the issues much less say either party is representative of your view on all of them or even the 5 most important ones.


And if Bush gets 51% of the texas vote, which he could even if he were filmed mooning down 6th. Street, all of the Texas electoral votes go to him anyway. It's kind goofy when you think about it, a 51% win has the same effect as a 100% win for a very large chunk of the total electoral votes. It gives a disproportionate view of the will of the people and renders moot any votes for Kerry in Texas.

The two party system with an electoral college guarantess power to the power brokers.

Gene that may be true on a national scale, but I think it would effect state and local levels. People would have to take notice and it's a start!

:)

[aghast]

Originally posted by Rileydog
On media bias, I just happen to look at msnbc a lot b/c of hotmail. so i guess it's my own fault. i'll check out coverage by other news sources and see for myself.

on a different point - I have not heard anyone disagree with me that the article is utterly deceptive. that issue may have gotten lost in everyone's immediate and kneejerk attempt to begin debating the merits of bush v. kerry. I'd be curious to hear if someone disagrees with me on this.

as for fiscal policy, I think the republican party will put sufficient pressure on Bush and the congress to stay reasonably conservative, recent performance not withstanding. all things being equal, republicans will be more in line with my fiscal position.

social policy is impossible. both sides have butchered it so badly that this is almost moot.

as for the war on terror, I'll keep my opinions on it to myself for now. suffice it to say that I would have a slight lean toward Kerry on this if I had more confidence in his team. I am troubled by the lack of experience on the kerry/edwards ticket. like him or not, if i'm a foreign leader, i respect/fear dick cheney. he'll crap down your throat and then have halliburton bill the government a couple of million for it, but he'll definitely crap down your throat.


If MSNBC is politically motivated, you've gotta admit they're trying like hell to balance themselves out. Remember Savage Nation? They hired the most homophobic, right-wing, hatred-spewing radio host in the nation to create a show, despite the protests and threats of boycott from many liberal groups. The dumped the liberal Donahue, but kept Weiner Savage on, spewing his filth, and only fired him after, on-air mind you, he told a gay man he hoped he caught AIDS and died.

This is your liberal media?

I've read many versions of the story you mentioned. Some suggest the information just discovered has been floating around for awhile, and the latest grab just confirmed it. Nevertheless, I will assume what you say is true, for the sake of argument. I would argue that the fact that the information is old, whether it was newly discovered or not, is the salient point here.

Why the heck wouldn't Ridge at the Sunday press conference mention that the information recovered was three-four years old? Why didn't our government inform us fully of the threat we faced? It's a good thing they held a press conference; it's good that they released this information to the public. But wouldn't you agree that the more they released, the better-informed the public is, the less we'd have to irrationally fear?

So the MSNBC item buried the lede? Are there really idiots out there who only read the headline of such an important story? (Rhetorical point: of course there are, but I would argue they don't deserve the truth, nor do they apparently care.) My point: journalists shouldn't have to tell us the nature of the intelligence; the government should. Wouldn't you admit the fact that this is largely old, recovered evidence is pretty important, needed to be mentioned to help allay fears and further elucidate the threat we face?

If somebody shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I and the rest of the audience are going to go apes==t, running/trampling/screaming in all directions. But if a PA announcement sounds "Warning: There's a small conflagration in the southwest corridor, and it could spread to the southern entrance," and an usher points to the northern exit, "This way, everybody!" that widespread panic won't happen. There will still be a few paranoiacs out there who will, in their irrational fear, run right into the flames (or duct tape their windows and air ducts and suffocate themselves). But the majority of people will walk/run relatively calmly to the north fire escape, averting panic.

I want the government to tell us as much as possible, including the nature, relevance (and this info is relevant, no doubt about it), and in this case age of the threats we face. In short, I want a fire marshall.

To your other points: a Republican congress and Republican president were the ones that voted in these massive tax cuts and created such massive budget deficits. Sadly, the one area where I used to identify most with the Republican part, fiscal conservation, is no longer relevant. The best hope is in a divided government, a la Clinton, or, dare I say, a Democratic one. Certainly, if you look at their plans, Kerry is the more fiscally conservative of the two in this horse race. As for Cheney, do you really want the Madman theory to be back in force? Didn't work out so well for Nixon, as I recall. Kerry/Edwards has a heck of a lot more foreign policy experience than Bush when he was elected (and I would argue even today). Cheney's projected Hobbesian worldview, if it is real, is a heck of a lot scarier than any alternative. And Bush/Cheney pretty much abandoned Afghanistan to start a war with Iraq. That's not such great foreign policy, in my opinion. (Also, Cheney has had four heart attacks, the latest in 2000 as a result of the stress of the election. His first bypass surgery had a shelf life guarantee of twenty years; that expires in 2004. He has not sufficiently released his medical records in the past four plus years. Don't count too much on Cheney being the rock of experience for the entirety of a second term.)

Originally posted by SamFisher
That's it, the ham sandwich I just ate has pushed me towards voting for Kimbo.

My vote in 2008 has changed, based also upon MSNBC's scandalous coverage of what must now be called a bona fides Kimbo Slice Green Party movement, combined with the turkey sandwich I just ate.. It is now a vote for Slice/Obama 2008: "That's how [guys] gotta eat!"

[Francis3422]

My votes fer JEB.

lol

[Rokkit]

So, in a week or so where we get:

'Liberal' newspapers quoted as saying the DNC was ineffective
Much uproar over the 'Shove It' comment
and
Stories on two Marines who wanted nothing to do with Kerry in a restaurant

The media's 'pro-Kerry' bias has pushed your decision?


Each and every story is spun a different way; often our own pre-determined bias' will help us to color each news story we see/read.

If you really had no pro-Bush tendencies before, I'm not really sure how you come to this conclusion...

Or maybe you should just stay away from MSNBC? :confused: :)

[aghast]

Originally posted by Francis3422
My votes fer JEB.

lol

Clearly, as demonstrated succinctly by my signature, you do not understand Kimbo Slice's agenda for his first term compared to 2004's two "candidates."

See the following posts, and I promise you that the Kimbo Slice ticket will kick Jeb/Harris all over the place. You should get on the winning team now, Francis, while the cronyism line is now relatively short and the getting's good.


Hangout declaration of Kimbo Slice's candidacy (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81551)

Debate & Discussion of Kimbo's perfect suitability for the national stage (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81578)

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by aghast




My vote in 2008 has changed, based also upon MSNBC's scandalous coverage of what must now be called a bona fides Kimbo Slice Green Party movement, combined with the turkey sandwich I just ate.. It is now a vote for Slice/Obama 2008: "That's how [guys] gotta eat!"

Kimbo's popularity continues to surge!

http://www.thedesktopicons.com/kimbo3.jpg

[aghast]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Kimbo's popularity continues to surge!

http://www.thedesktopicons.com/kimbo3.jpg

NO!!!!!!!!!!! Say it ain't so, Kimbo! Will Kimbo Slice go Tiger Woods on us?

Henry Cisneros, Gary Hart, Marion Barry, now KIMBO SLICE??? All felled by the vile temptress, woman. All before reaching their rightfully deserved political destinies. 'Tis a dark day in American politics.

If J-Lo does to Kimbo's punching what she did to Ben Affleck's box office staying power, have we seen the last of Kimbo Slice? Drained and distracted by a double-sided-taped dress, can Kimbo Slice even survive the next four years of underground fighting brutality to reach the 2008 Boise convention nomination?

"B==ch set me up!" A dark day indeed.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by aghast
Henry Cisneros, Gary Hart, Marion Barry, now KIMBO SLICE??? All felled by the vile temptress, woman. All before reaching their rightfully deserved political destinies. 'Tis a dark day in American politics.
For some reason after reading this particular paragraph, I invision aghast looking something like this:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/p/bpd132/Pictures/web/Newman.jpg

Hello, aghast....

[aghast]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
For some reason after reading this particular paragraph, I invision aghast looking something like this:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/p/bpd132/Pictures/web/Newman.jpg

Hello, aghast....

Not unless I swallowed a clone of myself. Hair isn't curly. Don't wear glasses. And I haven't seen Sharon Stone's nether regions, live, that is. I'm still young though. Oh yeah, I'm also still young (comparatively). And my fingers don't look nearly that cool when I formulate my evil schemes.

But other than that, spot on drummer. March on.

[Refman]

Originally posted by Rileydog
There appears to be no good home for a social moderate and fiscal conservative.

I've been saying this for years.

[Mulder]

Originally posted by giddyup
Are you really counseling that it is advisable to cast your single vote on a lone issue? Isn't voting more complex than that?

Ideally, yes. But for some a candidates stance on a single issue is a deal breaker. If one can see an issue in the campaign that is like that for them, that's how they should vote. For most issues, people are lukewarm on a lot of issues, and part of that reason is because they are so complicated.
Both parties try to find niche issues and run on those.

[bnb]

Originally posted by Mulder
Ideally, yes. But for some a candidates stance on a single issue is a deal breaker.

Sometimes it's not even a single issue.
A single sound bite seals the deal.

[rockbox]

Originally posted by Rileydog
i'm not decided yet, but this does push me a little to bush. Like I said, I'm a social moderate and fiscal conservative, so I'm politically homeless.

So Bush is a social conservative, and a fiscal liberal (record deficit, record discretionary spending). So what seems to be the issue?

[Mulder]

Originally posted by bnb
Sometimes it's not even a single issue.
A single sound bite seals the deal.

Read my lips...

It's the economy stupid...

[blackfish1]

Come back to the flock--don't let the media biases (andthey swing both ways) deter you.

But if you just want to have one good reason why someone should vote for Kerry rather than Bush? Try the environment.

Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative has to be the most Orwellian oxymoron I've ever seen. Read all about it at his re-election website, then go to the Natural Resources Defence Council's website to find out what it actually means, and the lies it is based on. There's plenty of information there, and you can search Google if you don't want to believer NRDC. The "Clear Skies" initiative isn't the only black mark on Bush's environmental record-- he's done more to gut environmental policy than any other president in US history.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord>/

Or Reason 2: The sepaeration of Church and State

From "Faith Based Initiatives" to using churches as defacto campaign offices, George Bush has done a lot to damage the separation between church and state. Many people think that if you start spouting off about 'Separation of Church and State' you must be a Godless heathen-- not true! I say, if you value being able to worship God in the way you see fit, you should be fighting for that separation tooth and nail.

Even the Methodist Church, of which he is a member, has criticized Bush for blurring the line: http://www.umc.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=2&mid=5228&pagemode=print

For more on Bush and Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org

Kerry, on the other hand, has stated in his speeches that he respects the "beautiful line" between Church and State. From what I've gleaned off of Google, he did not support Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", and sided with the ACLU on the "under God" issue in the Pledge-- which leads me to believe he really does respect the separation of Church and State.

So if this is an issue of yours, there's Reason Two.

Reason 3: The Death Penalty

The death penalty is just as divisive an issue as abortion, gay marriage, etc., but you didn't mention it, so I'll go ahead.

If you look around the web you'll find all kinds of conservative and religious sites screaming about how John Kerry supports the killing of innocent unborn babies. Ironically, no one is screaming about Bush's undying support of the death penalty over the years. And if you've paid attention to the news at all since DNA evidence has been introduced, many death penalty convictions have been overturned, one governor stopped executions because so many convictions were turning out to be false, and it sure wasn't Bush...there's a very good chance our George killed some innocent people as the governor of TX. (Now he's just getting our soldiers killed, but that's another post)

As governor of TX, George Bush executed 152 people, including the mentally ill and first woman executed in the state of Texas since the 1860s (who he mocked in the media by impersonating her and saying 'Please, don't kill me.) More info: http://www.bushkills.com/index.html

Kerry, on the other hand, has always been against the death penalty, except for a post 9/11 opinion in favor of putting terrorists to death. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=226

Other than during his service in Vietnam, John Kerry hasn't killed anyone.

So, if the death penalty is an issue you care about, there's Reason Three.


Reason 4: Civil Liberties

When mild mannered librarians start complaining about civil liberties, you know something is wrong. http://librariansagainstbush.org/

When you have to sign a statement saying you are a Bush supporter in order to get a ticket to a Bush/Cheney campaign rally, you know something is wrong. Security concern, my ass. http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm

Or when you get arrested on public property for wearing an anti Bush T-Shirt? That's just really wrong. http://www.wvgazettemail.com/static/stories/2004071346.html

I could go on and on, but the ACLU has already compiled a neat sheet of Bush's record on civil liberties. Unfortunately, it looks like it hasn't been updated since Sept. 2002, so it isn't complete. http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html

Kerry, on the other hand, has a better record on civil liberties. Not perfect-- he did vote for the Patriot Act-- but better. At any rate, he's no friend of John Ashcroft, and that is a relief. He has stated "In my first 100 days, I will restore our commitment to civil rights and individual rights," That will begin with the appointment of "an attorney general who knows he can fight the war on terrorism without attacking America's freedoms. ... an attorney general whose name is not John Ashcroft." http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004537.html

And so far as I know, no one has been required to sign a pro Kerry statement to attend a rally, nor has anyone been arrested for wearing a Bush T-Shirt at a Kerry rally. Yeesh.

So, Reason Four, if civil liberties is an important issue for you

Reason 5: Kerry is his own man
Don't take it from me. Take it from columnist Charley Reese, who otherwise has a reputation for being extremely conservative.

______________________________________________
Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet

Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory. It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be. People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush.

Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.

It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing.

Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian. It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration.

Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it.

Go to Kerry's Web site (www.johnkerry.com) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions.


All pretty good reason to vote for Kerry, in my mind.

Blackfish

[Mulder]

You gotta love an issue that will bring a lurker in to post. Good one blackfish.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by aghast
NO!!!!!!!!!!! Say it ain't so, Kimbo! Will Kimbo Slice go Tiger Woods on us?

Henry Cisneros, Gary Hart, Marion Barry, now KIMBO SLICE??? All felled by the vile temptress, woman. All before reaching their rightfully deserved political destinies. 'Tis a dark day in American politics.

If J-Lo does to Kimbo's punching what she did to Ben Affleck's box office staying power, have we seen the last of Kimbo Slice? Drained and distracted by a double-sided-taped dress, can Kimbo Slice even survive the next four years of underground fighting brutality to reach the 2008 Boise convention nomination?

"B==ch set me up!" A dark day indeed.

The grassroots backyard undergound movement continues...

http://p214.ezboard.com/bkimbosliceforum
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v314/nightsword/kimboslicebw.gif

[kpsta]

http://p214.ezboard.com/fkimbosliceforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=25.topic (http://)

Marble rye? :confused:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Rileydog
Regretably, I do expect politics from the incumbent party. So Ridge did not surprise me.

I just dislike FLAT OUT DECEPTION from the media. As someone who makes a living by paying attention to how things are written, that's what I call the article from msn. deception.

Hey Rileydog. I have no problem with the "media" being overly critical of the President (even Clinton or Kerry); the Monica scandal was pop-corn fodder, but that's all they could focus on at the time. What I do have a problem with are "news organizations" that are cheerleaders of for the Administration. This county belongs to the people. Not one party (Dem or Repub). And it's the media's job to be critical of them.

So, you might dislike "FLAT OUT DECEPTION from the media." Well, I think that "FLAT OUT DECEPTION from the government" is worse.

Keep them on their toes!

[aghast]

Kimbo Aza Jifunza Byrd Slice (http://p214.ezboard.com/fkimbosliceforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=11.topic). Ahh, truly a name for the ages. He will combat racism. He will fight poverty. He will destroy the Axis of Evil. All day. All day!

Yet he will not kick a man when he is down. And he knows when a weaker opponent, and compared to America every opponent is a weaker opponent, has had enough.

Kimbo Aza Jifunza Byrd Slice (http://p214.ezboard.com/fkimbosliceforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=11.topic). If I close my eyes just enough to dream, I can, yes, I can see it now: Kimbo Slice on the floor of the 2008 Boise Democratic National Convention, ready to accept the party's unanimous nomination for president.


SLICE: My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Kimbo Aza Jifunza Byrd Slice (http://p214.ezboard.com/fkimbosliceforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=11.topic), meaning "F=== that [guy] let's run this s===," believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success.

(APPLAUSE)

They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential.

(APPLAUSE)

They're both passed away now. And yet I know that, on this night, they look down on me with great pride.

And I stand here today grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious fists.

I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

(BALLOONS FALL, BURSTING ON THE SHARDS OF KIMBO SLICE'S BEARD)

"Slice/Obama 2008: That's how a [guy] eats!"

A pornographer. A fighter. But more than anything, an American.

===

Oh, and blackfish, please post more often. If nothing else, it will cut off a heck of a lot of time that I spend in research.

[Refman]

blackfish -

You bring up some interesting points. Here's a different thought.

Last year, I paid taxes, married with ZERO allowances. My wife did the same. At the end of the year, I had to cut the IRS a check for over $5,000.00!!!

That's right. After Uncle Sam took "his cut" all year long, the greedy jackass fleeces me for another $5,000.00 at the end of the year.

FACT: Under John Kerry, my tax liability would have been even higher. We as a people (at least in my household) are taxed to the damned gills. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who has flat out said he plans on raising taxes.

No thanks...move along.

[blackfish1]

I don't know your tax bracket, so I can't comment on that per se.
I'm self employed so I can get hit pretty hard at tax time also, and I sympathize. I still think Kerry's plan is more responsible (which may change if he's in office, but every Prez changes their campaign promises once the reality of office hits) than W's. I don't see how anyone who deigns to call themselves conservative can vote for the man based on his economics alone, and taxes, though an issue for me, are less important than all the other issues I listed above. I would gladly keep the taxes as is or even slightly higher to have Bush gone. To me it is too important--the balance swings towards Kerry with little problem. For me it's a question of morals (Ooo...evil word.)

Is the tax issue thedeciding factor for you?

Blackfish

[Rocket104]

Originally posted by Refman
FACT: Under John Kerry, my tax liability would have been even higher. We as a people (at least in my household) are taxed to the damned gills. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who has flat out said he plans on raising taxes.

Why is this a fact? When has Kerry said he would raise taxes?

Now, if you are part of the top 1% he plans to raise taxes on (yes, repealing the tax cut is raising taxes), then fine. If you're not, where do you come up with the assertion?

That being said... you do realize that it is not the President who ultimately changes the tax code but the Congress, right? The President may try to press certain issues, but the Congress makes the call.

I never understand how people can say taxes would go up under Kerry - there is NO WAY that would happen. That's political suicide.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by Rocket104
That being said... you do realize that it is not the President who ultimately changes the tax code but the Congress, right? The President may try to press certain issues, but the Congress makes the call.

Then how can you blame war (the act of congress), and the current tax cuts' so-called "adverse affects on the middle class" (the act of congress) solely on the current President?

Oooops. Gotcha.

[blackfish1]

Because it wasn't Congress who presented false and misleading information to justify the war and sold it to the American people, it was the administration.

Oops

Gotcha.

Blackfish

[IROC it]

Some in congress were brave enough to INITIALLY vote "no."

Kerry and his flip-flopping kind voted "Yes" and then blamed it on the "debil."

Oooops. Gotcha back.

http://users4.ev1.net/~yarrum/thedebil.gif

John Kerry's momma said, "George Bush is the debil... he made me do it."

[blackfish1]

Gotcha back? Not really. Some (ummm...a small handful) in Congress did vote no. This is true. Given the evidence presented at the time, I don't fault those who voted yes (though any decent alternative news site could have told them it was all bogus to begin with, but that's another point altogether). I do fault those who still support the war still despite overwhelming evidence.

And if you want to open up the can of flipflop worms, don't even. Bush flipflops (and oh how I'm hoping this term is retired at the end of election season) are legendary.

Your point of how one can blame the war on the current adiminstration still is without merit. They pushed the case, presented false information to the public, the UN and to Congress. And they still won't take responsibility for it. This, among other reasons, is why they completely suck big droopy hairy and sweaty donkey balls.

Blackfish

[Rocket104]

Originally posted by IROC it
Then how can you blame war (the act of congress), and the current tax cuts' so-called "adverse affects on the middle class" (the act of congress) solely on the current President?

Oooops. Gotcha.

Both of you please stop. My post wasn't even attempting to blame Bush for anything, just attempting clarification on Refman's assertion. It was a question for him, not a chance for either of you to start attacking the other.

As for the war question, technically we're not (and were not) at war, right? There was never a declaration of war, true? F'ing Congress. Yes, they suck.