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

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.

 

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.

 

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

But you knew that.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

but true...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...


"I went to COLLEGE!!!"

 

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

 

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.