supposed big trouble for kerry in mondays paper.

  1. ***** Vampire
    goldylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    840
    Answers
    0

    supposed big trouble for kerry in mondays paper.


    Two links from two blogs with an interesting buzz…

    From INDC Journal:


    Cryptic Alert

    Speaking of “lies,? keep an eye on the front page of the Washington Times this coming Monday.

    UPDATE: It’s something that the Kerry campaign will be forced to address regarding a previous criticism of Bush’s foreign policy. That’s all that I’m saying.


    And from Power Line:



    We just Got a Tip…

    …that a major newspaper will break a front-page story Monday morning that could create a serious problem for the Kerry campaign. We don’t yet have any details, but it relates to a foreign policy issue, and it will call into question—amazingly enough—John Kerry’s truthfulness.

    We’ll watch for the story Sunday night and post it as soon as it becomes available.



  2. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Anything less than a picture of him getting gang banged by Hussein and Bin Laden won't change anything in my opinion.
  3. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Thw Washington Times:

    A Right Wing propaganda sheet that's run by a guy who had himself crowned Messiah in front of a bunch of shocked lawmakers. Some of them even denied being there later....

    Yeah, that's a balanced and reliable source...
    •   
       

  4. Board Supporter
    Funny Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    360
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Anything less than a picture of him getting gang banged by Hussein and Bin Laden won't change anything in my opinion.
    lmfao
  5. Gold Member
    wojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,908
    Answers
    0

    wow i would have never expected such a ploy..shakes head
  6. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Here is the story:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0609-9428r.htm


    From http://www.indcjournal.com/:
    Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

    But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
  7. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    A Right Wing propaganda sheet that's run by a guy who had himself crowned Messiah in front of a bunch of shocked lawmakers. Some of them even denied being there later....

    Yeah, that's a balanced and reliable source...
    And the news york times is? Bill Gertz is a great reporter who writes for wash. times.
  8. USA HOCKEY
    CEDeoudes59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,928
    Answers
    0

    well lets see if the mainstream media covers it
    My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
    hair loss from steroids dot com
  9. Registered User
    goes4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    367
    Answers
    0

    will be interested to see if this is all over the news today or not
  10. Registered User
    PastorofMuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    257
    Answers
    0

    Info, I think that outright dismissal of a source is really beneath you. Yes, the WT is shady, but how about addressing the article in question?
  11. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    And the news york times is? Bill Gertz is a great reporter who writes for wash. times.

    nyt has slipped recently and their opinions have sometimes escaped the editorial page, but they are still considered a high quality paper in terms of the reporters they have on the payroll, the stories they uncover and the quality of their fact checking (despite a few notable exceptions on this last point).

    washington post too is considered a high quality, reputable publication. washington times on the other hand is not considered reputable. i have not seen cnn or foxnews pick this story up yet, and i doubt it'll do any damage to kerry because people don't really care about details like this that don't involve blowjobs or military service. at worst (if the story is true) kerry will say he made a mistake in that speech and that'll be that.

    -5
  12. Registered User
    goes4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    41
    Posts
    367
    Answers
    0

    first thing on the news this morning was this story
  13. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    nyt has slipped recently and their opinions have sometimes escaped the editorial page, but they are still considered a high quality paper in terms of the reporters they have on the payroll, the stories they uncover and the quality of their fact checking (despite a few notable exceptions on this last point).
    The NY Times editorial page has now become it's news page. The reporterss are all liberal just like the Boston globe who has one token conservative writer. They are so liberal in a recent article they lambasted Kerry for not telling people that he would raise taxes even higher than he is all ready saying. It is considered the paper of record among liberals. The media use it as a template to decide what they will cover or not cover based on the times. Do they have a few talented writers working for them still? Yes but you can't out right dismiss the Washington times. As I said before Bill Gertz is a great reporter and he works for them. Do they have a conservative slant? Yes but it is not much worse than the NY Times. Another problem is there are only two conservative paper in America , the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. The rest of them are just like the NY Times.
  14. Registered User
    jboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    59
    Answers
    0
  15. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    I am definitely in the wrong profession.
  16. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by goes4ever
    first thing on the news this morning was this story
    i still don't see this on cnn.com or foxnews.com.

    and i just don't see this becoming a big story, here's why. i've been watching the campaigns closely and especially during and after the debates both candidates have been lying their asses off.

    they misquote and mischaracterize each other, they exaggerate numbers and often they just plain get their facts wrong. the media does some fact checking, but no one seems to really care. it's not news that a candidate got his numbers wrong, or didn't 'remember' some event correctly. i don't see how this one statement by kerry about meeting the guys at the security council is any different.

    if however the press found out that kerry had visited a sex club with his wife or gotten a bj from an intern or something like that then he would be in big trouble.

    -5
  17. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    i still don't see this on cnn.com or foxnews.com.
    Why would you, they want him to win? All you have to do is compare the coverage the swift boat vets to Bush being AWOL from his national guard service. They worked for 5 years on the Bush story and simply dismissed the claims of the vets.
  18. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The NY Times editorial page has now become it's news page. The reporterss are all liberal just like the Boston globe who has one token conservative writer. They are so liberal in a recent article they lambasted Kerry for not telling people that he would raise taxes even higher than he is all ready saying. It is considered the paper of record among liberals. The media use it as a template to decide what they will cover or not cover based on the times. Do they have a few talented writers working for them still? Yes but you can't out right dismiss the Washington times. As I said before Bill Gertz is a great reporter and he works for them. Do they have a conservative slant? Yes but it is not much worse than the NY Times. Another problem is there are only two conservative paper in America , the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. The rest of them are just like the NY Times.
    NYT is definately biased in Kerry's favor even beyond the editorial page, but they have some great guys working for them such as Seymour Hersh who uncovered the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib abuses in Iraq (here's a link to a good interview he gave on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3917659 ). So biased yes, but also high quality in terms of investigative reporting and a solid source for accurate information.

    I'm also not convinced that the media is liberal on balance. The reason is that many of the liberal sources, such as NPR, offer high quality reporting and don't cover bull**** stories such as the O'Reilly scandal, nor will their reporters argue the case for Kerry.

    On the right though, FOXnews on the other hand offers a platform for conservatives such as O'Reilly and Hannity, who often concentrate on meaningless stories such as the fact that Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter was gay, and since they have a huge audience they can force the mainstream media to pick up these stories. Similarly, these guys will passionately defend Bush's decisions whereas the mainstream (liberal) press will offer coverage that is slanted in Kerry's favor, but they stop short of outright defending his ****ups.

    So it balances out. In addition, the mainstream press was on Bush's dick from 9/11 until his WMD claims were debunked, so I'd say they were slanted in his favor at the time. I think the current bias has little to do with liberalism and much more to do with the fact that most people in the press just don't like Bush irrespective of his party affiliation.

    -5
  19. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Why would you, they want him to win? All you have to do is compare the coverage the swift boat vets to Bush being AWOL from his national guard service. They worked for 5 years on the Bush story and simply dismissed the claims of the vets.
    i'd expect foxnews to support Bush. also i saw much more coverage of the swiftees than of the Bush AWOL story. in fact, most of the AWOL story coverage i saw was focused on Dan Rather's ****up, rather than Bush's questionable military service record. i really don't care about any of it though because these guys were both young at the time and it's a stretch in my opinion to make it an issue right now when there are so many real issues going on.

    -5
  20. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    I'm also not convinced that the media is liberal on balance.

    -5
    I posted this in another thread but it never got a response. So I will add it here also. It was a well observed study that was conducted to measure bias. I can post a link if you would like to read it.


    A Measure of Media Bias
    Tim Groseclose Department of Political Science, UCLA, and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Jeff Milyo Harris School of Public Policy University of Chicago

    Here are some pieces from study:
    As before, these results show a strong liberal bias among the media. When we use citations as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report are left of center. When we use sentences as our level of observation, all media outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Drudge Report are to the left of center. And, depending upon how one defines center, even the Drudge Report is to the left of center. Only if one defines the House mean as the center, is the Drudge Report right of center. If instead one uses the House median, Senate median, or Senate mean, the Drudge is to the left of center.
    Digression: Defining the “Center?
    In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states. Next, we think it is more appropriate to use the median House member, instead of the mean. One reason is that, because of The Median Voter Theorem (Black, 1957), one should expect policy to be at the median instead of the mean.

    Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center?
    Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
  21. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    So biased yes, but also high quality in terms of investigative reporting and a solid source for accurate information.
    As I said earlier the NY times has a few good reporters working for them. That being said what you are seeing is more and more the editorial board in jumping into it's news coverage. It is also a fact that most journalist are to the left. You can see this in what they choose to report on, what they choose to ignore, how issues are framed, and how issues are written about.
    I'm also not convinced that the media is liberal on balance. The reason is that many of the liberal sources, such as NPR, offer high quality reporting and don't cover bull**** stories such as the O'Reilly scandal, nor will their reporters argue the case for Kerry.
    You seemed to contradict your self here. One hand you say your not convinced there is a liberal bias, then you admit NPR is biased. They might offer high quality reporting on certain issues but will ignore others that go against their ideology.There is a liberal bias.
  22. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    I posted this in another thread but it never got a response. So I will add it here also. It was a well observed study that was conducted to measure bias. I can post a link if you would like to read it.
    It is really important how you define the center. Many of the press think they are center but in fact to the left. It would be better to see how they stand on different issues rather than asking them if they are left, right or center. That way you will have a more accurate picture on where they stand.
  23. ***** Vampire
    goldylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    840
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    It is really important how you define the center. Many of the press think they are center but in fact to the left. It would be better to see how they stand on different issues rather than asking them if they are left, right or center. That way you will have a more accurate picture on where they stand.
    what is exactly a centrist view? i never understood this.....
  24. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    You seemed to contradict your self here. One hand you say your not convinced there is a liberal bias, then you admit NPR is biased. They might offer high quality reporting on certain issues but will ignore others that go against their ideology.There is a liberal bias.
    let me clarify, the reporters and editors are on average significantly more liberal than the average american and that shapes the stories they cover to some extent, but the mainstream press is not vocal about it's bias in my opinion, whereas the fairly prominent right wing press is very vocal and they play a big role in what stories get covered even by the mainstream press, so on average what you get from the media may not be unbalanced. unbiased would probably be the wrong term since the coverage is full of bias but from both sides.

    -5
  25. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    let me clarify, the reporters and editors are on average significantly more liberal than the average american and that shapes the stories they cover to some extent, but the mainstream press is not vocal about it's bias in my opinion, whereas the fairly prominent right wing press is very vocal and they play a big role in what stories get covered even by the mainstream press, so on average what you get from the media may not be unbalanced. unbiased would probably be the wrong term since the coverage is full of bias but from both sides.
    I think what you are saying is the bias to the left and right balances each other out. The problem with that is that there is only one conservative paper and one conservative news channel. The rest are all liberal. So they really can't balance each other out. There is no conservative answer to a 60 minutes or 20/20 type of show right now.What conservative talk radio and internet blogs do is keep the press a little bit more honest. Fifteen years ago the CBS scandal and the swift boat vets type stories never would got the coverage it did. The problem I have is IMO the press shouldn't be left or right but should be just about the facts regardless which side the facts may harm.
  26. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    what is exactly a centrist view? i never understood this.....
    It's someone who is in the middle of the two extreme ends of the political spectrum. Someone who is fiscally conservative and some what socially liberal could be considered moderate or more of a centrist. I personally don't really like the term.
  27. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    It is really important how you define the center.
    It is defined in various manners(ie using different variables) in the study.
  28. Registered User
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    189
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    I think what you are saying is the bias to the left and right balances each other out. The problem with that is that there is only one conservative paper and one conservative news channel. The rest are all liberal.
    this is more or less true, but my claim is that foxnews and other conservative news sources are more vocal and more explicitly partisan so even though there's fewer of them, their impact is big enough that it balances out the rest.

    for example, i notice that Brit Hume on foxnews has picked up on the washington times story: (Brit Hume's Grapevine: Who did Kerry really meet with at the U.N. Security Council in 2002?) I wouldn't be surprised if Hannity and O'Reilly mention it tonight as well.

    I see no mention of it on CNN yet, but if foxnews succeeds in making a big deal about this story and people start tuning in, then CNN and others will also have to cover it, and that will of course hurt Kerry. We'll see what happens.

    The liberals, however, are not able to push their stories. For example, the story about Bush's 7 minutes reading my pet goat after he was told the US was under attack got no coverage in the mainstream media at the time it happened. However, if the roles had been reversed and it had been a democrat president sitting there in that classroom, then I'm pretty sure Hannity and O'Reilly would have been on it like flies on **** and then the mainstream media would have had to pick it up as well.

    -5
  29. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    this is more or less true, but my claim is that foxnews and other conservative news sources are more vocal and more explicitly partisan so even though there's fewer of them, their impact is big enough that it balances out the rest.

    for example, i notice that Brit Hume on foxnews has picked up on the washington times story: (Brit Hume's Grapevine: Who did Kerry really meet with at the U.N. Security Council in 2002?) I wouldn't be surprised if Hannity and O'Reilly mention it tonight as well.
    I don't think that's an issue of FOX news being more vocal about being conservative as it is about the rest of the press not covering it on that issue any way. It not like FOX is out there saying Kerry Sucks vote for Bush. A candidate saying he met with certain leaders and it turns out not to be true is a news worthy story regardless if it's a republican or a democrat.
    I see no mention of it on CNN yet, but if foxnews succeeds in making a big deal about this story and people start tuning in, then CNN and others will also have to cover it, and that will of course hurt Kerry. We'll see what happens.
    That's my point. FOX and mainly talk radio can force rest of the net works to cover certain stories but they can't force them to give it fair coverage. It's not so much that the talk radio is forcing them to cover it but if they don't cover it they appear biased which they are.
    The liberals, however, are not able to push their stories. For example, the story about Bush's 7 minutes reading my pet goat after he was told the US was under attack got no coverage in the mainstream media at the time it happened. However, if the roles had been reversed and it had been a democrat president sitting there in that classroom, then I'm pretty sure Hannity and O'Reilly would have been on it like flies on **** and then the mainstream media would have had to pick it up as well.
    That is simply not true. The main stream press acts as an echo chamber for the democrats. Look at the Iraqi prison scandal they milked that for as long as they could, giving Richard Clark a full hour on 60 minutes when they have never gave some one a full hour that is critical of the Clinton Administration, saying that black voters were disenfranchised even though there was not evidence to support this and totally ignoring voter irregularities that would hurt the democrats, When Clinton was interviewed on 60 minutes there are several legitimate stories that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden several times yet was not asked about it and the one question Rather did ask they let Clinton get away with another lie, they spent 5 years trying to find something to support Bush being AWOL in his national guard service and base what they reported on the testimony of one person who has mental problems, yet you have many people who served with John Kerry saying he is unfit for command and there is evidence that Kerry Lied about his service... he said he was in Cambodia and on Christmas eve it that turn out not to be true........ do you honestly think if there was a hand full of people saying bush was unfit for command and they it was obvious he was lying that the press would treat it in the same way? How did they treat the swift boat story? The framed the story as it was a republican smear campaign instead of looking into the allegations. I could go on and on here. For every example of a conservative bias I can give you 20 of a liberal bias. The fact is the press is overwhelmingly liberal.
    As for the 7 minutes it has gotten some coverage but the problem is Michael Moore shot himself in the foot by selective editing, exaggerating, omitting certain facts, and basically lying. I also know the hype 9-11 is saying the 7 minutes may not be true but I haven't seen it yet.
  30. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    It is defined in various manners(ie using different variables) in the study.
    The context I was referring to is when they ask members of the press if they are left right, or moderate really skews the survey. The press operate in a echo chamber and because every one they know basically thinks they same way they think they are moderate or centrist when the reality is that they are libs.
  31. Registered User
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,233
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The context I was referring to is when they ask members of the press if they are left right, or moderate really skews the survey. The press operate in a echo chamber and because every one they know basically thinks they same way they think they are moderate or centrist when the reality is that they are libs.
    Yes, this is true
  32. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by PastorofMuppets
    Info, I think that outright dismissal of a source is really beneath you. Yes, the WT is shady, but how about addressing the article in question?

    OK,

    How about this:

    John Kerry has been traveling nonstop, giving multiple speeches every day for the past year. He must have spoken millions of words publicaly. Even assuming that the points, as presented in the article are true facts, all they could find was one insance where he said he spoke with "all members" of the counsel insead of just "members" or the "entire" counsel instead of "the counsel."

    They had to look awfully hard to find that tiny point, which could easily be chalked up to fatigue.

    Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.

    It's grossly beneath any serious newspaper to try to make a scandal out of it.

    Might I point out some things that Dubya has said:

    In front of Kofi Anon he stated that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. In fact, he said this twice. Here one of the times:

    " The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030714-3.html

    That's odd. The inspectors had to stop inspecting because of the invasion...

    I think that Dubya is not only dishonest with us, he can't even face the truth himself.

    Then there's the freudian slip about gynecologists being unable to practive their "love" because of lawsuits.
    http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/lovedocs.html


    Bush is a sad little man, propped up my a very scary machine.

    And somehow, I don't see any reason to drop my generic dismissal of the "moonie" publication, The Washington Times.
  33. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    And somehow, I don't see any reason to drop my generic dismissal of the "moonie" publication, The Washington Times.
    Yet you post a kool aide drinking liberal propaganda web site as a source and don't see any thing wrong with that? Bill Gertz is a legitimate reporter who works for them. He may very well be one of the few but something is either true or it isn't. The enquirer isn't exactly known for being the pinacle of journalism but they got allot right during the Lewinski scandal. Ted Turner is just as crazy as Moon just in a different way. Should we dismiss every thing on CNN as well? While both men could have a influence on how the content is framed, Ted Turner doesn't do any of the reporting and neither does the Reverend.
    Might I point out some things that Dubya has said:

    In front of Kofi Anon he stated that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. In fact, he said this twice. Here one of the times:

    " The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030714-3.html

    That's odd. The inspectors had to stop inspecting because of the invasion...

    I think that Dubya is not only dishonest with us, he can't even face the truth himself.
    The problem is that the reason we are in Iraq is UN didn't enforce it's own resolutions. The other problem is they were being bribed by Sadam. Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolutions for years and they did nothing about it. Then they decided to start enforcing them when it was too late. They were doing inept job when they were doing inspections and let Sadam play games with them. The notion that we should have gone back to letting them handle it is asinine.
    John Kerry has been traveling nonstop, giving multiple speeches every day for the past year. He must have spoken millions of words publicly. Even assuming that the points, as presented in the article are true facts, all they could find was one insance where he said he spoke with "all members" of the counsel insead of just "members" or the "entire" counsel instead of "the counsel."

    They had to look awfully hard to find that tiny point, which could easily be chalked up to fatigue.
    If this was Bush insted of Kerry would you have the same response? I doubt it. The problem with your theory is that Kerry is seems to be fatigued allot. He tried to explain his famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote by stating that he was at a midnight rally when he said it and was tired. The problem with that is he said it at noon. He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth and or saying what ever is politically expedient at the time. His position on Iraq has changed several times. He was either mistaken or lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve when he was in Viet Nam. There are also legitimate questions about his Viet Nam service. So either he is too fatigued to be president or he isn't the most honest person in the world.
    Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.
    So I take it you have a problem with the NY Times doing this as well? You didn't seem to have a problem posting a socialist web site that had many of their facts wrong on several issues to try to explain away Kerry's Viet Nam service.
  34. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Yet you post a kool aide drinking liberal propaganda web site as a source and don't see any thing wrong with that? Bill Gertz is a legitimate reporter who works for them. He may very well be one of the few but something is either true or it isn't. The enquirer isn't exactly known for being the pinacle of journalism but they got allot right during the Lewinski scandal. Ted Turner is just as crazy as Moon just in a different way. Should we dismiss every thing on CNN as well? While both men could have a influence on how the content is framed, Ted Turner doesn't do any of the reporting and neither does the Reverend.

    The problem is that the reason we are in Iraq is UN didn't enforce it's own resolutions. The other problem is they were being bribed by Sadam. Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolutions for years and they did nothing about it. Then they decided to start enforcing them when it was too late. They were doing inept job when they were doing inspections and let Sadam play games with them. The notion that we should have gone back to letting them handle it is asinine.

    If this was Bush insted of Kerry would you have the same response? I doubt it. The problem with your theory is that Kerry is seems to be fatigued allot. He tried to explain his famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote by stating that he was at a midnight rally when he said it and was tired. The problem with that is he said it at noon. He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth and or saying what ever is politically expedient at the time. His position on Iraq has changed several times. He was either mistaken or lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve when he was in Viet Nam. There are also legitimate questions about his Viet Nam service. So either he is too fatigued to be president or he isn't the most honest person in the world.

    So I take it you have a problem with the NY Times doing this as well? You didn't seem to have a problem posting a socialist web site that had many of their facts wrong on several issues to try to explain away Kerry's Viet Nam service.


    1) Your tone is getting increasingly shrill. Chill out, and don't twist what I write for the purposes of making straw men.

    2) Ted Turner has not been involved in CNN for years. It's owned by Time Warner.
  35. Registered User
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    641
    Answers
    0

    Ted is the largest share holder and still carries a ton of weight in the organization (I worked there), his prestige diminished a little after the AOL buyout but now that that has gone down as one of the biggest fiascos in modern business history, he still carries as much weight as ever.
  36. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    1) Your tone is getting increasingly shrill. Chill out, and don't twist what I write for the purposes of making straw men.
    You posted a total left wing web site as a source and then out right dismissed an article in the Washington Times because it's one of the few papers in the country that has a right wing bias and because of who owns it.
    You said
    Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.
    You talk about editorializing ,yet again you think it's ok to post that web site as a source and the NY Times does this all the time as does Jennings, Rather, Brokaw and most papers in the country. There is nothing shrill about what I said. I didn't twist what you said around at all. In fact I quoted what you said before my response.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Looking for links in all the wrong places!!!!
    By wheystation in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-14-2005, 07:30 PM
  2. Steroids Headed for Troops in Iraq Seized
    By SigEp05 in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-12-2005, 06:47 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 10:44 PM
  4. Al-Qaida ally attended fund-raiser for Kerry
    By goldylight in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2004, 09:06 AM
  5. Big day for me tomorrow..
    By Matthew D in forum General Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 09:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in