if you guys were watching cnn cnbc or fox news i'm sure you saw that the taum sauk dam broke in missouri.... i work at the closest hospital to that and you would not believe how freakin low the media will go to get a story..... so to sum it up


MEDIA BLOWS

you would not believe how freakin low the media will go to get a story..... so to sum it up

Oooh, I have some friends that work in the media. They would probably agree with you (I do). I'd love to hear the story...

FOX does not deserve to call what they do "news"

Their war mongering and not-so-subtle "blending" of news and opinion has debased the entire media and lowered standards across the board. I beleive they are single-handedly responsible for Bush winning both elections. Think about it. Eliminate their influence and replay the events-- do you really think that howdy doody dumbf*ck would have won? It's an instrument of the neo-con hard right designed to brainwash the dumb sheep into following the Republicans straight into hell and it works brilliantly, much to the horror of intelligent and compassionate Americans who really care about this country and what's happened to it.

Fox news rules. Fair & Balanced yo

Howard Stern for Pres!

Is no one going to chime in and say CNN is WAAAY biased to the left???? (American)CNN is biased to poor people/people with less education, Int'l CNN is much better than domestic CNN imho
FOX>ALL

FOX does not deserve to call what they do "news"

Their war mongering and not-so-subtle "blending" of news and opinion has debased the entire media and lowered standards across the board. I beleive they are single-handedly responsible for Bush winning both elections. Think about it. Eliminate their influence and replay the events-- do you really think that howdy doody dumbf*ck would have won? It's an instrument of the neo-con hard right designed to brainwash the dumb sheep into following the Republicans straight into hell and it works brilliantly, much to the horror of intelligent and compassionate Americans who really care about this country and what's happened to it.

^- Wow...

You overanalyse the whole deal.... It's not about being an "Instrument"... It's ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY about ratings and MONEY!

What Fox News does, is to get high ratings and therefore, make MORE MONEY... if you think otherwise, you are extremely naive...

And in regards to the post above... The reason they are the number one rated channel is because more people watch them than anyone else... not defending them, but stating that a majority of american's watching television news like what they see there... brainwashed or not... it's capitalism... and that's what cable news channels are driven by...

If you had a left-wing channel... it would tank ratings wise.... Air America makes nothing even close to the ratings and profit Fox News station's do... It's just about money... all news is tainted by it... unfortunately... more people like the right-wing perspective than the left-wing...

FOX does not deserve to call what they do "news"

Their war mongering and not-so-subtle "blending" of news and opinion has debased the entire media and lowered standards across the board.
Open your eyes. Do you really call what CNN does, fair and unbiased? Before Fox news came on the scene, the news media was dominated by liberal networks. You want to talk about a network "helping" a candidate? CNN practically changed their logo to a picture of John Kerry. Heck, read any story on CNN and you'll see what I mean. There is an obvious liberal slant to everything they do. And how about CBS with Dan Rather? Can't find any news to suit your liberal stance? No problem, just create it yourself.

Suuurrrrreeeee, one cable news network can win an election.
You broke the code there Sherlock.... Now, this neo-con has some more sheep to brainwash.....

Some times liberals can be so stupid. But if they weren't, who would we laugh at?

Here's my new favorite source for news. Never anything negative! :D

http://www.happynews.com

Even the weatherman is biased, that sonofa_____ said it was gonna rain and snow and it barely sprinkled!

That's not biased, that just bad guesser..... :lol:

Me being a sociology major, I would love to get into the whole huge debate about American mass media and its hegemonic tendencies, and conservative agenda and all that, but I wont because it would bore most people to tears.

What biznox said is actually very accurate and not far from the truth at all with exception of "I beleive they are single-handedly responsible for Bush winning both elections. Think about it. Eliminate their influence and replay the events-- do you really think that howdy doody dumbf*ck would have won? "

But quite simply, you are not going to get any fair or balanced or un biased news from any of the big 3 networks(ABC, CBS, NBC) or cable news networks. All of these networks are all owned by a small handful of large corporations who are all run by right wing conservatives, with Fox News and its boss Rupert Murdoch being the worst of them all. Fox News is just a machine for the conservative agenda which is blatantly obvious to anyone who pays close attention, and anyone who says Fox News is fair and balanced or un biased is well... an idiot, (no offesne to anyone). But really, none of the news networks are fair or balanced or un biased in reality. All the news channels have a right wing bias, some more than others, and some do it so subtly you wouldn't even notice or they may throw in some left wing or moderate (netither left or right) tid bits here and there to give the illusion that they are balanced or un biased. But as long as our news is controlled by large mega corporations all run by conservatives seeking to control what we see and hear, we will never get fair and un biased news. Public broadcasting used to be great, but even they are now falling victim to the Rupert Murdochs of the world. The government has a big hand in this too with the various bills and laws passed over the years giving these companies greater power to control our news, etc. Just look at clear channel which has taken over the radio industry in this country thanks to the Telecommuncations Act of 1996. Clear channel is not only dominating the radio industry, they are also buying up clubs, concert venues, etc with a clear goal of controlling the majority of those markets and controlling what we hear on the radio. They have even stated that their goal is "total synergy" which is a pretty way of saying complete control over the industry in every aspect. Its not any secret that the DJ's on clear channel stations are only allowed to play what they are told and have no freedom at all in what is played. But thats radio and a whole other ballgame. Newspapers arent safe either considering many of the nations newspapers companies are owned by many of the same big media companies that run the news networks.

There is some good news though, we have the internet where we have access to countless outlets where we can get good news from every point of view possible, and make our own educated decisions on what we want to get out of it without being spoon fed corporate censored news that we get on the big networks from mass media.

Sorry if I bored anyone with this, but I have been very passionate about this subject for quite some time and have been sort of an "advocate" against the mass medias goal of total domination over the news industry and their desire to control what they want us to see and hear.

FOX does not deserve to call what they do "news"

Their war mongering and not-so-subtle "blending" of news and opinion has debased the entire media and lowered standards across the board.
Open your eyes. Do you really call what CNN does, fair and unbiased? Before Fox news came on the scene, the news media was dominated by liberal networks. You want to talk about a network "helping" a candidate? CNN practically changed their logo to a picture of John Kerry. Heck, read any story on CNN and you'll see what I mean. There is an obvious liberal slant to everything they do. And how about CBS with Dan Rather? Can't find any news to suit your liberal stance? No problem, just create it yourself.

It could be argued that the media in general leans SLIGHTLY to the left, but FOX news is nothing remotely like "fair and balanced" it is more like a grotesque overreaction to the perception of liberal media. They go so so SO far in the opposite direction that it's not even funny. CNN at least, seperates the commentary from the hard news in their reporting. FOX blends it all together, there is no distinction between what is fact and opinion. Everything on the channel is tainted by Rupert Murdoch's political viewpoint.

Ever notice that the so called "liberal media" is made up of the most respected names in news? The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN. Those are the names with credibility and intelligence behind them. Only diehard Republibots and hard right bible thumpers think FOX news is legitimate. The majority of those who watch it watch for the sensationalized packaging and don't recognize that they break all the rules when it comes to backing up what you say with genuine sources ("some people say..." for those of you who have seen Outfoxed)

Regardless of their viewpoint, it's the WAY they deliver the news that is irresponsible and unethical. Any reputable newspaper or channel like CNN has a clear seperation between what is hard news and what is commentary, whereas FOX is just hour after hour of "talk shows" run by right wing idealogues PRESENTED as news. Not the same thing as actual objective news.

I mean... they insist on calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers" instead when the ENTIRE rest of the news world calls them the latter. WHY would you do that? Unless you are trying to push a particular point of view (i.e. the terrorists are animals who have no legitimate greviances with the US/Israel)

The way FOX does this is very subtle so it's missed by most people, thats what makes them so dangerous...

The way FOX does this is very subtle so it's missed by most people, thats what makes them so dangerous...

Exactly

Someone previous said its all about money and ratings and that is correct, but its only part of it. Its just one of many aspects.

I mean... they insist on calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers" instead when the ENTIRE rest of the news world calls them the latter. WHY would you do that? Unless you are trying to push a particular point of view (i.e. the terrorists are animals who have no legitimate greviances with the US/Israel)

Despite whether their grievances are merited or not... they TARGET innocent people... making them terrorists and killers... commiting homicide in the act of commiting suicide... I would consider Fox new's description much more acurate of a perspective and less prone to the Bias of "Understanding their reasons for such action"... while never presenting those individuals as animals which you alude to.

Also, Despite whether their grievances are legitamate or not... any individual who purposely attacks innocent people for the sake of attention or terror, DESPITE ANY cause or "Reason" for said action, is the most dangerous and hideous of all humanity... and any individual who thinks that way, will not change their behavior, whatever response is given... even a peaceful one. History has time and time again proven that to be true.


CNN and every other news channel consists of direct bias as well...

But, the whole concept of "Television News" is ironic... as Television as a media, and also newspapers as well are absolutely corrupted by capitalism and the neccesity of ratings and profit... they are parts of corporations, held by share-holders that MUST post profit... so they do what they can to appeal to the greatest amount of people.... CNN, NYT, Washington Post, and on and on...

Fox News does what they do as it generates the most amount of profit... and Cnn and others do what they do, as it appeals to another perspective, which captures the profit from that "group" of people they focus on to capture ratings from...

If you think any media will put direct unbiased news in front of profit... you are extremely naive... They have to defend their credibility to a limit, but in every media, that limit is stretched and spun all over the place.

That is why I love blogs, and that is why I dislike all television "news" across the board... it's meant as entertainment, not news.... as REAL news is mostly stuff people wouldn't want to watch, or read about....

The best news stories are always in the last pages....

And if you think the NYT is unbiased....

Their report on Bush signing the ability to monitor international calls left out the fact that there is an existing precident in both the Clinton administration and all before that, that allow them to monitor calls going into the u.s. from external countries and from the U.S. to external countries without a warrant and is not restricted in any current or previous policy with the NSA. It's existing precedent and OLD NEWS... just spun at the right time...

The only current and exercised restrictions are with calls originating and ending in the US, in which the NSA must pass that to the FBI and which the FBI must get a warrant.

Although I do dissagree with this policy in MANY MANY ways (As I believe it infringes on many liberties), the timing of this report and the information that wast "Left Out" obviously shows an amount of bias...

But, Welcome to the world of profit driven news... That story maid soooo much profit for soooo many people, it's not even funny.... when, in actuality, those who know existing policy and are free from the "Spin"... it's old news that no one cared about till now...

At least it ruffled a few feathers and maybe we'll get some policy enacted to help.... but I'll bet you that the NSA will continue to tap international calls freely, no matter what... as it will be in the name of "national Security" which trumps any rights.... in THEIR opinion... not mine.

Never meant to imply that the rest of the media is without fault. I'm simply pointing out that the standards of FOX news are in the toilet when compared to just about anyone else short of the National Enquirer and Weekly World News.

It's a known fact that Murdoch has a twisted right wing agenda. It's a known fact that journalists at FOX are told how to slant stories and what "message" to project---- lots of former employees readily admit this.

There is nothing happening on THAT scale, propaganda-wise, in the other mainstream news organizations. If YOU don't see that then you're not looking carefully enough. For every instance of arguably extremely subtle bias you can cite in the NYT, there are 100 screamingly blatant examples on FOX news.

You cannot put them in the same basket. FOX is it's own sick phenomenon that transcends the usual subtle and occaisional bias so much that it's ridiculous.

And in regards to the post above... The reason they are the number one rated channel is because more people watch them than anyone else...

you're kidding. that's like saying toyota is the number one import just because more people buy them than other imports...or Coca Cola is bigger than pepsi merely because it sells more. i mean it's gotta be more than that....no?

ok, my bad.

^ Not saying that they are the best....

Just that they have higher ratings than any of the other cable news channels and almost more than them all combined... so, there has to be something said for that...

In their type of medium, "Cable News", they have the formula for success... and appeal to the greater number of people, people who chose to watch other "Cable News" channels are in the minority.

In regards to a business model.... they are brilliant.... ethically... well, that's a whole different story, but in that regard they are among friends when it comes to poor ethical behavior for the sake of profit, as every cable news channel is guilty in that regard.

My point is that, regardless of their popularity, they are in a class of their own when it comes to being biased and unethical. You cannot compare what they do to other news networks or news outlets at all. They are about as ethical as Al-Jezeera, so don't act as if all news organizations are biased so whats the difference, because there is a HUGE difference.

Examples?

They are about as ethical as Al-Jezeera

That is one of the worst statements I've ever read on Scionlife...

You obviously have not read any transcripted reports from Al-J or seen any of their content...

It's absolutely untolerable to relate the two.... A/J supports and plays overtly anti-american propeganda and inderectly supports terrorism by giving them a venue to advertise and present their insane beliefs...

Demonstrate an instance, other than a generalisation, that any popular american media channel advertises or supports terrorism or hatred against a people, due to their worldview or religion.

I agree fully that popular american news media is overtly unethical, but by drawing such extreme and inflammitory ties, you destroy your credibility....

I see their bias, and understand their reasons for presenting such bias... but, realistically, what are some examples of behavior that even gets them in the same ballpark of A/J?

It was an exaggeration, you're right of course.

I was just getting annoyed that people were comparing what FOX does to the New York Times and CNN. They simply aren't on the same scale when it comes to ethics and bias--- I think that fact holds true regardless of your political view. Just look critically at how they both operate. You don't have senior employees coming out of CNN telling of memos instructing them on what "message" to send for the day, for example. Any bias in those other alleged "liberal" media outlets is incidental compared to the systematic slanting of the news and crafting of a deliberate "message" that is the M.O. every day at FOX News.

The A.J. comparison was over the line though, I retract it.

Some of you people scare me.

Both Al-Jeezera and Fox news do one thing. Play to their target audience.

I have some pretty close ties to the 'media' and most of what Biznox has said is either right on the money or very close to the mark about Fox. NHGrafx hit the nail on the head though about the ownership issues. Keep in mind there has been a very carfully crafted society shift that has occured over the last decade because of the richest 2 percent that own the media and thier politics. The current media. tv, radio, etc has been well crafted. There really is no need to say more.

The real downfall of media started when we began to give a damn what the audience thought or who would be offended by the story. People simply change channels to one that doesnt offend. God forbid they not stay tuned in and buy the freakin 'Garden Weasil' when advertised and they lose an avertising dollar. Again, certain "news channels" have benefited grately from this American need to be coddled. Please see society shift above.

If while watching a news show, you find yourself agreeing or shouting "right on" to the TV more often than not, something is very wrong and you are only getting one side of an issue. News should upset, offend, comfort, and make you question. Not rally, choose sides, vilify and coddle.

... by now , we all , know the Prez. had the dam blown to flood out the poor and take their property and give it to his rich friends ........oh wait , that was New Orleans .

Well, it worked once.......might as well try it again.

FOX does not deserve to call what they do "news"

Their war mongering and not-so-subtle "blending" of news and opinion has debased the entire media and lowered standards across the board. I beleive they are single-handedly responsible for Bush winning both elections. Think about it. Eliminate their influence and replay the events-- do you really think that howdy doody dumbf*ck would have won? It's an instrument of the neo-con hard right designed to brainwash the dumb sheep into following the Republicans straight into hell and it works brilliantly, much to the horror of intelligent and compassionate Americans who really care about this country and what's happened to it.

I have yet to encounter any media outlet that does not try to interject opinion with their news. I for one like Fox News. What I really hate is the BBC. They are so far left they are scary. I can't understand how you can condemn Fox News for being guilty of interjecting opinion (they do) while not condemning anyone else...Oh wait, I know. You don't agree with Fox News or their politics so its okay to criticize them while overlooking it when your favorite media outlets do it for the Left. People like you make me sick.

Well said OMAC!!!!! This whole "Freedom of Speech (unless I don't agree)" mess is sickening!

Most of the shows Fox News puts out are 'Opinion Driven" shows and if you can't tell, you might want to head back to Sesame Street....

Here is a very interesting article directly related to the subject:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


Please read....

I have yet to encounter any media outlet that does not try to interject opinion with their news. I for one like Fox News. What I really hate is the BBC. They are so far left they are scary. I can't understand how you can condemn Fox News for being guilty of interjecting opinion (they do) while not condemning anyone else...Oh wait, I know. You don't agree with Fox News or their politics so its okay to criticize them while overlooking it when your favorite media outlets do it for the Left. People like you make me sick.

It's a matter of degree. I don't like any irresponsible news bias. Former FOX employees admit being told to deliver a certain "message" for the day. FOX basically acts as the PR department for the Republican party. Some other news outlets may have personalities than lean one way or the other, but none of the major ones I know about have a clearly defined agenda to promote a certain point of view in everything they do.

MSNBC leans right, but I'm not criticizing them here. Why? Because they don't have the blantant agenda that FOX does. There's a difference. BBC and CNN are among the highest quality news outlets there are out there and have journalistic credentials that carry weight. They were formed to deliver NEWS first. When opinion enters the picture its identified as such, the way real journalists operate. FOX was formed, by their own admission, as a reaction to the perceived "liberal media" so from the very beginning it wasn't a serious news operation, it was concieved as an outlet to deliver a certain point of view from the ground up.

If Michael Moore or Al Franken or another far left personality formed their own news organization with the purpose of countering FOX news, I wouldn't take it any more seriously than I do FOX.

Watching FOX as entertainment is cool. I watch it myself sometimes. All I'm saying is if you watch it as your only or primary source of news then you are drinking from a tainted well and every bit of information you get (or DON'T get) is going to be going through the filter or Ruppert Murdoch's idea or what the world should be.

Sure, watch FOX for the commentary, if you agree with them. They have great commentary. The problem is they don't understand the difference between commentary and NEWS and they present one as the other to deliberately mislead people.

Air America?

Agenda driven News/Talk organization?

Michael Moore did try to counter the Right...in the form of uneducated documentaries designed for the peasants of America

Dont mean to derail but the topic made me think of this giant bag of douche



http://www.home.zonnet.nl/kraan90/image/grace,%20nancy4.jpg

"Ms. if you have a penis your guilty" has to go. I'd love to shoot spaghetti on her.

Most of you guys are too caught up in it already. . . you argue as if it were a football game, but in reality, it ain't too far from the truth.

Biases and what-not aside, the bottom line is that ALL news media and corporations exist TO MAKE MONEY. Therefore they will appeal to that which makes money. No, they will not appeal to the average American. . . hell no. They will appeal to the average American who watches a lot of TV and prefers to watch the news. It has nothing to do with politics and corruption. . . it has to do with the simple economic and capitalist truth that news media's goal is TO MAKE MONEY. They don't have views/opinions except for profits and losses. Why do you think Fox recruited Geraldo Rivera? To lean further to the right? I don't think so.

Rooting for a particular side is semi-stupid. . . it's like trying to find out who wants to rip you off the least, when they all want to rip you off, but some are better than the others. Too bad that given the chance, they'd all cut for the big profits.

The same goes for political parties. . . why do you think Republican and Democratic views switch every 10-20 years? Do you think the Republican party will really stay conservative forever? No. It hasn't in the past by any measure, nor will it in the future. Political parties care about power and votes. Likewise, media only care about MONEY. Nobody in the news business has a benevolent agenda, nor do they really intend to help people. If they really meant well, they wouldn't be broadcasting for free. They want you to watch, so they can make some goddamn money.

It's ENTERTAINMENT. . . and they will appeal to whatever niche/market is profitable to them. This goes for ALL news and media. . . any business that doesn't follow this basic rule, would not stay in business (which is why honest reporting has gone the way of the dinosaur). We all want to be lied to. . . and that's the truth. We all want confirmation that we are right. How often do you check the sources that confirm your thoughts? Never. But you will ALWAYS second guess those who disagree with you. A truly balanced (and intelligent person) would check ALL sources.

Most of you guys are too caught up in it already. . . you argue as if it were a football game, but in reality, it ain't too far from the truth.

Biases and what-not aside, the bottom line is that ALL news media and corporations exist TO MAKE MONEY. Therefore they will appeal to that which makes money. No, they will not appeal to the average American. . . hell no. They will appeal to the average American who watches a lot of TV and prefers to watch the news. It has nothing to do with politics and corruption. . . it has to do with the simple economic and capitalist truth that news media's goal is TO MAKE MONEY. They don't have views/opinions except for profits and losses. Why do you think Fox recruited Geraldo Rivera? To lean further to the right? I don't think so.

Rooting for a particular side is semi-stupid. . . it's like trying to find out who wants to rip you off the least, when they all want to rip you off, but some are better than the others. Too bad that given the chance, they'd all cut for the big profits.

The same goes for political parties. . . why do you think Republican and Democratic views switch every 10-20 years? Do you think the Republican party will really stay conservative forever? No. It hasn't in the past by any measure, nor will it in the future. Political parties care about power and votes. Likewise, media only care about MONEY. Nobody in the news business has a benevolent agenda, nor do they really intend to help people. If they really meant well, they wouldn't be broadcasting for free. They want you to watch, so they can make some goddamn money.

It's ENTERTAINMENT. . . and they will appeal to whatever niche/market is profitable to them. This goes for ALL news and media. . . any business that doesn't follow this basic rule, would not stay in business (which is why honest reporting has gone the way of the dinosaur). We all want to be lied to. . . and that's the truth. We all want confirmation that we are right. How often do you check the sources that confirm your thoughts? Never. But you will ALWAYS second guess those who disagree with you. A truly balanced (and intelligent person) would check ALL sources.

Well said djct.... but you still didn't answer why FOX hired Has-Been Grealdo..... and his brother, Uday.....

So far, we all agree that anyone that only gets their news from one type of source is worse than someone that doesn't listen to any news.


As for me, I think this dead horse has been beat enough...

It's a stab at the dark, since I'm not part of their management, but it's likely to help "balance" the whole conservative stigma they carry. Geraldo is a nice way to even out Bill O' Reilly

It's a stab at the dark, since I'm not part of their management, but it's likely to help "balance" the whole conservative stigma they carry. Geraldo is a nice way to even out Bill O' Reilly

Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson's love child couldn't balance out Billy O.... :rofl:

Air America?

Agenda driven News/Talk organization?

Yes, absolutely.

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I have no problem with opinion and commentary when it is clearly labeled as such.

I only have a problem when the lines between commentary/opinion and news are deliberately blurred. There is only one reason for doing that--- to subversively affect peoples opinions and viewpoints.

Air America doesn't pretend to be a hard news organization. Fox News does.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can emphasize this point. Some people seem to be missing it still. :doh:

Michael Moore did try to counter the Right...in the form of uneducated documentaries designed for the peasants of America

Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. If he is guilty of anything, it's of letting his emotions get in the way of his objectivity and that means most of the time he winds up only preaching to the choir.

That said, "uneducated documentaries designed for peasants" don't win at Cannes.

There's nothing uneducated about Farenheight 9/11.

Probably the most amusing thing about the people who virulently criticize that film is NOT ONE of them that I've heard has even watched it in the first place. The vast majority are simple parrots repeating what they've been told by right wing ideologues.

A suggestion: At least see the film and attempt to have an open mind before you derride it as uneducated crap. Moore may be an overly emotional super-liberal, but he is also an extremely talented and earnest filmmaker regardless of your politics that is a fact.

The truth hurts and people react to that, particularly when it's critical of their side. Guess what. The Bushes are friendly with the Saudi royals and involved in the Carlyle Group. Bush did sit around and twiddle his thumbs before 9/11. He has spent more time on vacation than any president in modern history.

Regardless of your political views, if you can't see that Clinton was a vastly more intelligent man than Bush, you're delusional and beyond reason.

Let's compare: Getting a BJ in the oval office and a bad real estate deal decades ago VS. Starting a war in the middle east with a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 based upon intelligence from ONE source, whom was labelled as questionable and failed a lie detector test.

Hmmm.. Which is worse do you think?

Anyone want to address those exact points, or will you handle it in the typical Republican style by side-stepping the indisputable FACT that Bush and the intelligence community knew that they had ONE source for the alleged WMD program and the guy was labeled as a liar by the CIA, yet THAT is the information we went to war on. Try to focus on that FACT instead of coming back with unrelated, irrelevant straw man arguments, if you can.

Michael Moore did try to counter the Right...in the form of uneducated documentaries designed for the peasants of America

Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. If he is guilty of anything, it's of letting his emotions get in the way of his objectivity and that means most of the time he winds up only preaching to the choir.

That said, "uneducated documentaries designed for peasants" don't win at Cannes.

There's nothing uneducated about Farenheight 9/11.

Probably the most amusing thing about the people who virulently criticize that film is NOT ONE of them that I've heard has even watched it in the first place. The vast majority are simple parrots repeating what they've been told by right wing ideologues.

A suggestion: At least see the film and attempt to have an open mind before you derride it as uneducated crap. Moore may be an overly emotional super-liberal, but he is also an extremely talented and earnest filmmaker regardless of your politics that is a fact.

The truth hurts and people react to that, particularly when it's critical of their side. Guess what. The Bushes are friendly with the Saudi royals and involved in the Carlyle Group. Bush did sit around and twiddle his thumbs before 9/11. He has spent more time on vacation than any president in modern history.

Regardless of your political views, if you can't see that Clinton was a vastly more intelligent man than Bush, you're delusional and beyond reason.

Let's compare: Getting a BJ in the oval office and a bad real estate deal decades ago VS. Starting a war in the middle east with a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 based upon intelligence from ONE source, whom was labelled as questionable and failed a lie detector test.

Hmmm.. Which is worse do you think?

Anyone want to address those exact points, or will you handle it in the typical Republican style by side-stepping the indisputable FACT that Bush and the intelligence community knew that they had ONE source for the alleged WMD program and the guy was labeled as a liar by the CIA, yet THAT is the information we went to war on. Try to focus on that FACT instead of coming back with unrelated, irrelevant straw man arguments, if you can.

I actually did see the movie in theatres when it came out..thanks for asking. It was nothing but propaganda..did you not see that all of the people he interviewed for the movie were a bunch of broke ___ uneducated f***s?
Soldiers complaining that they got sent to war??? GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK!!!! What do they thing soldiers do?? Hang out and play spades?!!! Soldiers go to war=FACT.
What was up with him interviewing a state trooper?? What does that have to do with the current President? Nothing.
Mother mourns losing son (who was a soldier)...she shouldn't be _____ing she knew he was a soldier and with that comes the chance that you will go and fight and possibly die. Everyone knows that risk. If you don't want to go fight then don't enlist. You don't get paid crap anyways, you can make more money doing something else which doesn't have a risk of death.
You know stupid people really grind my gears. If I enlisted (which I won't) I would have the expectation that I will have to go fight and might die...shouldn't everyone else? My best friend is a Marine and he knew that he might go to war and that there was a chance of him dying, but he enlisted because that's what he wanted to do. He knew this because he has a brain. All the soldiers who complain about going to war or who are"conscientious objectors" are idiots and joined the military to be freeloading pieces of crap like people on welfare.
Liberals disgust me.
Don't you think it's beneficial for the President to be "in tight" with the Saudis??? I mean since they have a huge amout of oil that we need... Would you rather have a leader who didn't get along with the Saudis so that we would have MUCH higher oil prices?
Do you not see how war is good for the economy? Who do you think the government buys missiles and bombs and bullets and rifles, tanks, planes etc from? That's right AMERICAN companies. The companies then hire more people, and they also pay those people that work for them. Where do you think that money goes? That's right the employees spend that money, where? IN AMERICA. From there the companies where they spent the money hire more people and the cycle goes on. We're talking about BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of US Dollars getting injected into America's, and in turn the global economy. Don't forget soldiers get paid too, and more if they actually are deployed in a war zone. Also don't families get paid if their little soldier dies? They spend that money too.
I know it sounds cold hearted but that's the way the world is, get over it. I know if my friend died I would definately be upset, but Liberals tend to look at the small picture, open your eyes and look at the BIG picture.

For the soldiers who go waah waah:
soldier: One who serves in an army.
army: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
warfare: The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict.
war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Also yes, Bill Clinton was obviously a smarter man, but are you really stupid enough to believe that the President makes a majority of the decisions??? Have you heard about something called a cabinet? No not the one in your kitchen, the President's cabinet. They advise him, aka tell him what to do. You think he chooses them by himself??? No way! You should be old enough to realize that you vote for a party, not for a person, and that the party has control over that person.
Party: An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office.
You vote for a party based on it's principles, not on who their "front man" is.
I'm getting a headache from other's ignorance.
I can rant all day about liberals
/rant
PS don't take this pwnage personally, I'm not calling you an idiot just going off at no one in particular, mainly the liberal point of view

Since when did we ever get to choose between Bush or Clinton? We had Al Gore and Bush. . . and yes, I would have rather had Gore than Bush. . . and I'm a Republican. Gore made a critical mistake that many past candidates have made. . . he "assumed" he was going to win. It isn't uncommon for the underdog candidate, with lower ratings, to win. In fact, it has happened to the upset of history many a time. Gore did not campaign as hard as he should have. . . and he paid for it. The margin was slim, even if he did really win, and it should never have been a slim margin in the first place. Bush, in turn, campaigned vigorously amoung Church groups and conservatives, encouraging people to litterally come by the bus load. What a great tactic. . . not that it makes him a fit leader either.

And guess what, they did it again with Kerry. . . who I think is a retard anyway (doesn't make Bush a good by any means either).

BIZNOX, you have made some points, but I don't see how any of them apply to the current situation. . . at all. OK, maybe if you compared Gore to Bush or even Kerry. . . but those are past elections which don't even matter anymore. Why not compare Bush to JFK or LBJ or FDR. Sure, Bush is a retard. . . I don't think many people are going to argue with you there. But comparing him to Clinton has no relevancy at all. . . to anything. . . except to push some kind of agenda or message.

English is right on about befriending the Saudi. . . would you rather we be enemies and wage war on them? I think not. . .

And on going to war. . . don't forget that Congress approved the war, by a large margin. . . I place an equal amount of blame on Congress. I had little faith in them to begin with.

Ok. . . Bush has spent a ton of time on vacation. . . point noted. And that's true. And that sucks. . . but like I said. . . bush is a retard!

Do you want to address problems. . . problems that we can fix? How about social security or health care reform? How about the totally screwed up primary and party system that CREATES these far extremist politicians that everyone hates (both left AND right). Bush was a douchebag. . . so was Kerry. I want REAL politicians who actually REPRESENT ME, but I can't get that when parties have to appeal to extremists to win the majority of their supporters (think about it, if you have a left half and a right half, you have to sit at about 1/4 far left and 1/4 far right to address the majority of your faction). We need representation that represents THE MIDDLE. . . but that can't exist.

All (left or right) extremists ever do is make it all the worse. . . for every Bush you will get a Michael Moore. . . for every Church going religious imposer we will get a hippie drug smoking college drop out. This is our system. It's time for reform. . . and personally I'm going to embody the change I want to see. I refuse to conform to extremism. There are Democratic views I agree with and Republican views I agree with as well. I lean towards the right, but I'll vote D anytime, so long as they are qualified. I am part of the new trend. . . the growing realization of those whom lie dead splat in the middle.

Thanks for reading.

Wow it sounds like some of us are crying, about the Left Media not being
in total control any more.

Fox news is the closest, not perfect, thing we have to real news.

Don't cry in your beer. You can always get dish and watch other country
news.

Choices are what scions are all about, so choose to watch or not.

Choices are what scions are all about, so choose to watch or not.

By far, the wisest, most on topic, and astute post on this entire thread.

PS don't take this pwnage personally, I'm not calling you an idiot just going off at no one in particular, mainly the liberal point of view

Don't worry. I didn't see anything I would consider pwnage.

I don't think soldiers and military families are upset about being sent to war.

I think they are upset about being sent to war based upon blatant, deliberate lies and dying for a cause which no one can clearly define.

We WENT to war because of WMD. Congress approved it based on WMD. Then we get there and OOPS. No WMD. Uh... OK.. ah... now it's a war of "Iraqi freedom". Oh, OK.

If Iraqi freedom was such a good cause, then tell me, why didn't we go to war based on that in the first place?

If we are such a wonderful country that wants to spread democracy and free people, then why do we do NOTHING for Africa and the rest of the multitude of other people in the world living under dictatorships????

I don't like super-liberals either, but anything. ANYTHING is better than a neo-conservative who thinks America can do no wrong and is willing to smear good mens repuations, lie to congress and the American people and behave in a shockingly unethical manner day-in and day-out like it's business as usual.

In the history of this country we have NEVER had men as evil as these at the helm.

It absolutely AMAZES me that conservatives are willing to completely overlook the blatant LIES that got us into this war and just accept anything the Bush administration does and says no matter how crooked and evil.

As far as befriending the Saudi ROYALS. Maybe you guys forgot, but they are a corrupt, wealthy and evil group RESENTED by their own people and THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS AL QAEDA CITES FOR DECLARING WAR ON THE US IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Oh, thats right. I forgot. Republicans aren't interested in actually trying to understand the enemy. They'd rather tell their idiot constituency that the terrorists "hate us for our freedom" instead of discussing the real reasons because that might challenge people to think (god forbid) the moment people start to think, Republicans lose votes.

Stupid people bother YOU? :no:

We WENT to war because of WMD. Congress approved it based on WMD. Then we get there and OOPS. No WMD. Uh... OK.. ah... now it's a war of "Iraqi freedom". Oh, OK.


Don't forget that Congress gets to actually see the evidence. . . it's not like they were blindly following Bush either. What, do you think everyone somehow thought Bush was a super intelligent honest Saint, prior to Iraq? No. The same evidence existed now as did then. The fact remains that Congress failed to stop the war from happening (based on WMD's anyway). To think otherwise is to really kid yourself. It's not particularly easy to pass a lie to Congress, considering the dozens of committees and subcommittees that work as unofficial fact checkers.


If Iraqi freedom was such a good cause, then tell me, why didn't we go to war based on that in the first place?


War is seldom waged for one reason. We didn't enter WWII to save the Jews. . . we entered because of Pearl Harbour, thus bringing us into the European Theater as well (meaning war with Germany).


If we are such a wonderful country that wants to spread democracy and free people, then why do we do NOTHING for Africa and the rest of the multitude of other people in the world living under dictatorships????


That is an excellent point. Why? Because nobody in America cares. That's the honest answer. We could cure all AIDS in Africa and nobody would even shed a tear. We were hit by terrorists on 9-11, thus why we care about Terrorism. Honest, but true.


I don't like super-liberals either, but anything. ANYTHING is better than a neo-conservative who thinks America can do no wrong and is willing to smear good mens repuations, lie to congress and the American people and behave in a shockingly unethical manner day-in and day-out like it's business as usual.


I'm sure that super-liberals can be just as destructive. I'm not sold on this logic. If we had the green hippie way, all cars would be erradicated, all corporations would be shut down, and marijuana would be the largest consumed recreational drug in the country. Under their rule, we would have a new generation of Tobacco company. . . but it would be marijuana. And I'm sure they'd add lots of additives, chemicals, and kill many people, not unlike the Tobacco companies. Our corporations (often times characterized as villains) are the primary source of revenue for world wide charity organizations. What little food that exists in Africa exists because of corporate America. . . what little human aid that exists comes from America. We are, by far, the largest contributor of humanitarian aid and charity in the entire world. And government structure and the efficient revenues generated by corporations, this would not exist. And this something fundamentally provided by the right wing. However, extremists aren't good either. . . on either side.


In the history of this country we have NEVER had men as evil as these at the helm.


You've obviously never studied history. I don't know where to begin. . . from the resistance to desegregation to rights suppresion. . . to HOOVER. You REALLY disqualify yourself here with this statement. Bush has caused some int'l damage, but all in all, he hasn't caused too much damage domesticly. To say that we've "NEVER" had men as "evil" . . . and in capital letters. . .


It absolutely AMAZES me that conservatives are willing to completely overlook the blatant LIES that got us into this war and just accept anything the Bush administration does and says no matter how crooked and evil.

The majority of Republicans disapprove of Bush's performance. I don't know where you got this from. Who are these conservatives? Did you get this idea from talking to maybe 15-20 people that you know? That doesn't constitute much. By the way, why are you so angry? Anger doesn't do a lick of good. Arguing with facts is far more effective than just venting non-sensical opinions based on nothing.


As far as befriending the Saudi ROYALS. Maybe you guys forgot, but they are a corrupt, wealthy and evil group RESENTED by their own people and THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS AL QAEDA CITES FOR DECLARING WAR ON THE US IN THE FIRST PLACE.


We've been friends with the Saudi's for a long time. . . this dates back to the Clinton days. And did you know that most people have been saying the same thing about America as you just said for the Saudi's? Except they've been saying it about us for almost 50 years. We're corrupt? Check. . . have always been. Wealthy? Do you see any politicians on welfare? No. Do we always push our own agenda? Yes. . . always have. Al Qaeda has plotted against us since the Clinton days. . . so I don't think that it has any relevancy to our current President's mistakes, nor on our friendship with the Saudi's. . . do you think we give a damn about China either? Political friends are political friends. . . it doesn't mean that they are peachy keen.


Oh, thats right. I forgot. Republicans aren't interested in actually trying to understand the enemy. They'd rather tell their idiot constituency that the terrorists "hate us for our freedom" instead of discussing the real reasons because that might challenge people to think (god forbid) the moment people start to think, Republicans lose votes.


Again, I've already addressed this. This is about as useful and as factual as a "your Mom is so fat" comment.


Stupid people bother YOU? :no:

No. . . but you're starting to. . . I'm not opposed to exposing the mistakes of the Bush administration. . . in fact I encourage it. But you really do give HARD WORKING, and factually argumentative Democrats and liberals a bad name. It wouldn't hurt to read up on some basic basic history, especially on the events of the 80's and 90's. There are good arguments (for your side of the argument) to be made. But you havn't really cited many of them. Most of what you bring up is opinionated here-say.

It sounds like perhaps we agree on more than I would have suspected.

I have to agree I could have made a much more compelling argument if I wanted to make the effort, but don't confuse that with me being ignorant of history. I might have cited the fact that we created a fertile environment for Islamic extremism and terrorism by abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1980s. I might have mentioned the fact that we helped arm and strengthen Iraq all throughout the 80's and treated Saddam like a buddy when he was at war with Iran (I'm reminded of the famous photo of Don Rumsfeld heartily shaking Saddam's hand)

I made the mistake of assuming that you were defending the Bush administration and it's policies without reserve and I reacted emotionally, for that I apologize. I will stand by the sentiments behind most of what I wrote though. The idea that most Republicans don't approve of Bush is news to me. I do know that some Republicans have finally pulled their heads out of the sand and are just beginning to realize Bush is a liar with a meglomaniac agenda. It's definitely a case of too little too late.

Perhaps Bush and his administration aren't the most evil men America has ever seen, but they are certainly toward the top of the list.

I'll say this. History will not be kind to this administration as more and more of the truth is revealed, regardless of how this war turns out.

I find it interesting that you use 9/11 and terrorism as a reason why we went to war in Iraq while choosing not to "liberate" any of the other people in the world suffering under dictatorships and military rule.

You sound way too intelligent to beleive Iraq had any relevance in the war on terror, so I have to assume you meant to acknowledge it was used as a reason, but you don't necessarily buy into it.

I wonder how the war on terror would be doing if we had focused on Afghanistan and northern Pakistan instead of pulling out special forces and assinging local goat herders to hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Good points, and accurate.

But one clarification, I don't have any reason for going to war with Iraq, since I never asked to go to war. I was stating the country's reason for going to war. In all seriousness, "liberation" was nothing but fodder to add to the argument for war. The main reason that those in charge chose to go war was to fight terrorism, which is a popular move in the realm of politics. Fighting terrorism (effectively, or the promise of effictive fighting) wins votes. I'm not so sure about now, but definitely in the past few years. Terrorism was Congress' primary concern. . . liberation was but a side effect. Like you said before, if liberation were important, there would be other countries higher up on the priority list. But that's just the thing, and it's sad. The majority of Americans don't really care about Iraqi freedom. We just don't want anymore terrorist attacks. But again, I'm referring to the public. . . and not individuals.

And of course, this doesn't account for the possibility and likelihood of personal agendas for going to war with Iraq. There are strong arguments that Bush had personal reasons. . . which I can't validate or invalidate. One thing is for sure, despite the reasons, we made one helluva a big intelligence error, deliberate or not.