People who decry a 'liberal media' miss one critical fact--while many members of the media seem to have liberal sensibilities, many have very large paychecks, and will report in whatever way that will guarantee that paycheck does not decrease. More often than not, it's to pump up the drama. They NEED this to be a horse race. 2004, with the eminently qualified but uncharismatic Kerry, was a non-starter for them. They indulged the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth just because it made Kerry a little more interesting, to the detriment of the truth itself. Whenever you're watching the news, and you hear the response to a question that should then elicit a, "What did you just say?" moment, know that whoever asked the question knows that clarification is not the friend of good drama.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair

>> ^quantumushroom:
Bush is a lot smarter than the left will ever give him credit for being. And if he's not, it just makes the left look even more incompetent.Trill, he's not a movie star/empty suit like the Obamessiah. He's done well considering the American media is 90% leftist and wants him to fail. At least have the temerity to admit he's never gotten a fair shake from the press, even to oneself.
"If Bush is "stupid", even with test scores higher than Frenchy Kerry's, then it's a very poor reflection on your taxocrats in Congress that they DANCE to his tune; most Bush legislation has passed handily and easily."
I don't see this as being an argument for anything but your own biases. Not that I'm overly concerned. You're entitled to your opinion of Bush. At present, our American Congress is overrun with wannabe-Euros (called Democrats, taxocrats, victicrats) and they've got lower approval ratings than even Bush. All the same, just as Bush is given credit for the stuff libs call bad, so it goes he gets the credit for the legislation he passes.
"Torture" of head-sawing terrorists is fine with me. If you're not an enemy soldier of a standing army, you have no rights under any code of law. It's embarrassing that anyone would try to invent rights for the very scum that seek to destroy civilization. Good riddance.
Phone tapping in wartime? Yawn. There's 300 million Americans, good luck sifting through the transcripts, feds.
Americans are stupid? Dumb is everywhere, but Europe's finished, has been for a long time. You're not a model for humanity, you're a warning. Socialist economies have high unemployment and are grossly inefficient. Without a fight, you've surrendered any economic edge you might have had, kow-towing to "global warming" charlatans. You've lost your individual national identities in that despicable EU. Nanny-state government cancels tobacco, seizes your guns--without resistance--leaving you defenseless sheep to be culled by criminals and your lefty propaganda media, the model which our American bastard media likes to imitate, covers up the resulting mess. With the death of religion, which the "intelligentsia" of Europe deem a triumph, the last remnant of your ability to transmit cultural values is gone. You might as well start bowing to Allah now.


Again and again you use sweeping and deflecting terms like "the left" "the liberal". Every piece of criticism is swatted by the same gaping maw. This lends you no credability whatsoever, especially when it's so blatant. Racists have better slur propaganda than you have - at least they've thought it out. In the same way you swat every criticism of bush as "left" and "liberal" bullshit, we should treat you with the same lack of intelligence you treat us, and refer to any compliment of bush as "right" or "conservative" or whatever the respective terms are.

You STILL fail to address the point. People have been filming, recording and watching bush for 8 years, and the worldwide opinion (not just lefties, liberals, whatever other buzz word you'll throw out) is that he is a moron. I'm NOT going to say that he has never gotten a fair shake from the media when i've seen the man stand in front of an audience and claim to know the name of a general, and sit there flaccidly saying "his name is........general!" When i've seen the man make an empty, ventriloquistic speech about terrorism, and then demand that we "watch this drive!"

Sifting through even more of your propaganda and buzz-words, i see you make yet another basic error:
"just as Bush is given credit for the stuff libs call bad, so it goes he gets the credit for the legislation he passes."
-- But i haven't done that, don't you see? Again your gaping swatting maw has landed you in the wrong. I'm not a lib, and i never said he gets all the credit for what passes through congress good or bad. I say he's as involved with the good as he is with the bad - ie. not that much.

Firstly the problem with torturing "head-sawing" terrorists is that you're assuming everyone to torture is guilty. Not necessarily true is it? That's why most suitably evolved countries/states have gotten rid of it. People......

you know what? half way through this i realised that i could spend days talking to you and you'd still not get it. you're an idiot, and unfortunately the world must survive with idiots. i tried to show you where you were wrong and instead of reading it you just said more stuff that was wrong. you don't even discuss it - you just throw words like "lib" and "left" around like it answers all questions in the same way people cling to arguments for religion.

i'd just like to finish by saying that i never said americans were stupid, and by assuming i did, it only lends weight to my opinion that you don't read things, you don't pay attention, you are incapable of discussion.

you've made this a very hollow victory perhaps thinker has the stamina to set the record straight

Do you genuinely want me to believe that Bush is actually incredibly intelligent but there is a huge scheme (even at his own conferences and interviews) subscribed to by thousands of people worldwide, elaborately concealed and orchestrated to hide every shred of evidence that the man is intelligent?

Bush is a lot smarter than the left will ever give him credit for being. And if he's not, it just makes the left look even more incompetent.

There'd have to be 1 million hours of footage of him being intelligent to countermand all the evidence that he's a buffoon. People have been following, listening, recording and filming him for what, 8 years? And most of what we have as a record of him is him talking bullshit or making an idiot of himself.

Trill, he's not a movie star/empty suit like the Obamessiah. He's done well considering the American media is 90% leftist and wants him to fail. At least have the temerity to admit he's never gotten a fair shake from the press, even to oneself.

"If Bush is "stupid", even with test scores higher than Frenchy Kerry's, then it's a very poor reflection on your taxocrats in Congress that they DANCE to his tune; most Bush legislation has passed handily and easily."

-- A number of things here. Firstly, you're under the impression that George Bush comes up with every single thing that passes, becomes law, or is an ethic that his administration works toward. Secondly, you appear to also be under the impression that "Congress" (i am not american) is free of interpersonal politics, bias, or policy-buying. It'd be the first governmental body that was in the history of this planet. Thirdly, you're arguing that Bush must be intelligent because people follow him, which is the biggest error of judgement. I don't think i need to elaborate here. This is not an argument in favour of bush being intelligent. Whatsoever.

I don't see this as being an argument for anything but your own biases. Not that I'm overly concerned. You're entitled to your opinion of Bush. At present, our American Congress is overrun with wannabe-Euros (called Democrats, taxocrats, victicrats) and they've got lower approval ratings than even Bush. All the same, just as Bush is given credit for the stuff libs call bad, so it goes he gets the credit for the legislation he passes.


There were no attacks on American soil the first time you pissed off the countries that are currently trying to attack you. It took them 20 years or more, but when they made an attack, they made the most devastating terrorist attack ever seen, which affects america and americans and freedom in america (tapping phones, torture) years and years after the event. Comments like this are the reason why americans are viewed as stupid.

"Torture" of head-sawing terrorists is fine with me. If you're not an enemy soldier of a standing army, you have no rights under any code of law. It's embarrassing that anyone would try to invent rights for the very scum that seek to destroy civilization. Good riddance.

Phone tapping in wartime? Yawn. There's 300 million Americans, good luck sifting through the transcripts, feds.

Americans are stupid? Dumb is everywhere, but Europe's finished, has been for a long time. You're not a model for humanity, you're a warning. Socialist economies have high unemployment and are grossly inefficient. Without a fight, you've surrendered any economic edge you might have had, kow-towing to "global warming" charlatans. You've lost your individual national identities in that despicable EU. Nanny-state government cancels tobacco, seizes your guns--without resistance--leaving you defenseless sheep to be culled by criminals and your lefty propaganda media, the model which our American bastard media likes to imitate, covers up the resulting mess. With the death of religion, which the "intelligentsia" of Europe deem a triumph, the last remnant of your ability to transmit cultural values is gone. You might as well start bowing to Allah now.

Well, the whole conversation was about Afghanistan. Suddenly he brings up Iraq?

I went back and listened to it again. Why did he even bring up Pakistan when the conversation was about Afghanistan? He was doing his own Pecking to Death By Ducks over a comment Obama made and he was trying to work it into the conversation.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that this is a rehearsed bit. Topic is Afghanistan? Bring up Pakistan (the country next to Afghanistan, don't you know) and attack Obama.

He blew his line, is what he did.

I'm going to stick to my original premise. Let's stop demanding absolute perfection from everyone in the public eye. I mean, really. These people live with microphones stuck in their face for hours a day. They don't eat well. They're tired. I EXPECT them to make a mistake once in a while. They are human. There is something seriously wrong with public debate when only perfection is allowed.

What is important is to look at the whole. George W also misspeaks. But he misspeaks A LOT. The man is not an orator, is not a statesman, has no natural dignity. I think it is appropriate to hold up his legions of mistakes as a pattern. How the heck anyone ever voted for that man as the Leader of the Free World is a complete mystery to me.

And it is this Pecking by Ducks nonsense that creates automaton politicians. Terrified to make ANY MISTAKE AT ALL, they speak carefully and rehearse and rehearse and rehearse until all the humanity is leached from them. And then they get criticized for that. Gore. Kerry. Clinton.

I am very impressed by Obama, for a number of reasons. One thing in particular -- he has figured out how to stay human and accessible and dignified in such an intense environment. To me, this speaks of a great and quick intelligence. It ain't easy. Who has succeeded at it?

I know that I am a lone voice in the wilderness. The mass snarkiness of the comments on every website proves that, I believe. I'm going to hang in there, though, and say things once in awhile in defense of the basic humanness that binds us all.

Real criticism on real topics, not Pecking. Please.

You can say whatever you want about how I don't know the President, but I don't need to be his golfing buddy to understand what type of a person he is. He hasn't been misconstrued by the media for eight years, to make him look bad.

"Misunderestimated" would be a better word, since it's Bush's word. But you'd probably just say that was a liberal conspiracy to make him look stupid. Because if we make him look stupid, then we can mock his policies. But you have it backward. We don't mock his stupidity in order to mock his policies. We look at his policies and think, "Those are really fucking stupid." So we assume that the man creating all of these terrible policies must be stupid. If he's not an idiot, then he must be a sociopath. No reasonable person would start a pre-emptive war in a sovereign nation, then brag about how well it's going while the entire nation devolves into a civil war. But, oh yeah, I forgot that was a liberal bias, too. Everything bad is a liberal bias, and everything good is the truth, right? Because that doesn't sound like a bias, in and of itself. Not at all.

Also, I am yet another person who hates Bush, who didn't vote for Kerry or Gore. And I'm not voting for Obama, either. I hate the Democrats in Congress, and I've already explained that to you before. I hate all politicians right now, because they either have no spine or they run rampant, with no thought to what their actions will bring. There is absolutely no middle ground in American politics, and it's disgusting.

...But I guess I'm just a liberal bias, right?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Still hating Bush? You've never met the man, you've never read anything about him other than opinions by liberals in their massive media machine which they deny is biased and some one-liners on comedy shows...fucking COMEDY shows, that's the extent of your being informed. There has to be some media magic at work otherwise how is an empty suit like Obama still a viable candidate?
If Bush is "stupid", even with test scores higher than Frenchy Kerry's, then it's a very poor reflection on your taxocrats in Congress that they DANCE to his tune; most Bush legislation has passed handily and easily.
Other than the usual fringe kooks and commies trying to look respectable, I've witnessed no real loss of freedom for the average American, with the exception of massive government expansion, which is what liberals want anyway.
Liberals create their own false image of who Bush is then make a show of tearing it down. Meanwhile, in the real world, there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11 and Iraq has free elections.
The man is far from perfect and certainly no more than a quarter conservative, but he ain't the jive turkey Uncle Liberal be laying down.
Kudos to the NPR milktoast for speaking his mind. If he hadn't...we'd never know he was an NPR milktoast.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Still hating Bush? You've never met the man, you've never read anything about him other than opinions by liberals


Stopped taking you seriously there.

Do you genuinely want me to believe that Bush is actually incredibly intelligent but there is a huge scheme (even at his own conferences and interviews) subscribed to by thousands of people worldwide, elaborately concealed and orchestrated to hide every shred of evidence that the man is intelligent?

There'd have to be 1 million hours of footage of him being intelligent to countermand all the evidence that he's a buffoon. People have been following, listening, recording and filming him for what, 8 years? And most of what we have as a record of him is him talking bullshit or making an idiot of himself

"If Bush is "stupid", even with test scores higher than Frenchy Kerry's, then it's a very poor reflection on your taxocrats in Congress that they DANCE to his tune; most Bush legislation has passed handily and easily."
-- A number of things here. Firstly, you're under the impression that George Bush comes up with every single thing that passes, becomes law, or is an ethic that his administration works toward. Secondly, you appear to also be under the impression that "Congress" (i am not american) is free of interpersonal politics, bias, or policy-buying. It'd be the first governmental body that was in the history of this planet. Thirdly, you're arguing that Bush must be intelligent because people follow him, which is the biggest error of judgement. I don't think i need to elaborate here. This is not an argument in favour of bush being intelligent. Whatsoever.

"Liberals create their own false image of who Bush is then make a show of tearing it down. Meanwhile, in the real world, there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11 and Iraq has free elections."
-- There were no attacks on American soil the first time you pissed off the countries that are currently trying to attack you. It took them 20 years or more, but when they made an attack, they made the most devastating terrorist attack ever seen, which affects america and americans and freedom in america (tapping phones, torture) years and years after the event. Comments like this are the reason why americans are viewed as stupid.

Your argument is so easy to demolish it's not even challenging. Or maybe i'm a liberal building you up to be something you're not and then making a show of knocking you down.

Maybe, but you put your bullshit up there to be interpreted, and i "interpretated" it. Bushism ftw. BTW i'm english, i have no "liberal" or "conservative" point of view, i have only my personal opinion. As does everyone else, but you don't seem to be able to accept that.

oh qm

you are still assuming that anyone who "hates" bush also supports kerry?

damn, you really have to look up POLARISED in the dictionary.

Still hating Bush? You've never met the man, you've never read anything about him other than opinions by liberals in their massive media machine which they deny is biased and some one-liners on comedy shows...fucking COMEDY shows, that's the extent of your being informed. There has to be some media magic at work otherwise how is an empty suit like Obama still a viable candidate?

If Bush is "stupid", even with test scores higher than Frenchy Kerry's, then it's a very poor reflection on your taxocrats in Congress that they DANCE to his tune; most Bush legislation has passed handily and easily.

Other than the usual fringe kooks and commies trying to look respectable, I've witnessed no real loss of freedom for the average American, with the exception of massive government expansion, which is what liberals want anyway.

Liberals create their own false image of who Bush is then make a show of tearing it down. Meanwhile, in the real world, there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11 and Iraq has free elections.

The man is far from perfect and certainly no more than a quarter conservative, but he ain't the jive turkey Uncle Liberal be laying down.

Kudos to the NPR milktoast for speaking his mind. If he hadn't...we'd never know he was an NPR milktoast.

@blankfist, I got my math wrong, I should have said 40 years.

Notice that your most recent example is from the 1960's. I'm not that old.

You're right about earlier Democrats with interventionist policies, but both the Democratic and Republican parties were pretty different back before the 80's.

If you look at the history of the Democratic party, the whole Vietnam debacle, and the fight with Dixiecrats over civil rights triggered a transformation in the Democratic party. The south went for Nixon, and the anti-war movement took hold in the Democratic party by 1972. By the time of Carter, it was a different party from the one that produced Lyndon Johnson.

That Wikipedia page is actually pretty good; the 2005-Present section pretty well explains how big a shift the Democratic party has had just in the years since Kerry.

@MarineGunrock, I don't know much about state-level politics, but here in Ohio neither party has done much about debt, having roughly tripled since Republicans gained control in the early 90's. To be fair, as far as these things go that's only modest growth, considering Ohio's economy has taken a beating over those years.

At the national level, if you look at the chart of national debt, you'll notice how every Republican since Reagan made it go up, while the last two Demorcats (Carter and Clinton), both made the debt go down.

Raising taxes to cover spending programs is fiscal responsibility. You can certainly take the stance that you'd prefer the spending programs get cut to balance the budget instead, but at a national level the Republican MO has been to raise spending, while lowering taxes, which is far from fiscally responsible.

Need I say any more? Below is the main reason our country is in the state that its in. Because no one; republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, will stand up to a faulty president.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Kennedy was for lower taxes and strong national defense. In other words, he'd be a Republican today.
Bush is "dumb"? You libs ran your best and brightest and lost to him TWICE. hahahaha.


>> ^karaidl:
Kerry sure as hell isn't our "best."
And we didn't lose the first time.

*promote

and the interview is posted

1. You should have known this was a bad idea.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Fire-In-The-Hole
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bellydancer-accident-and-a-funny-one-at-that
http://www.videosift.com/video/Slip-n-slide-of-fire
http://www.videosift.com/video/Always-set-your-ebrake-or-else
http://www.videosift.com/video/Do-Not-Drink-Then-Drive-Or-Else

2. Bad ideas in retrospect.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Caravan-problem
http://www.videosift.com/video/Boogie-Boarder-plants-his-head-in-the-sand
http://www.videosift.com/video/UF-Student-tasered-at-John-Kerry-Speech
http://www.videosift.com/video/This-is-what-happens-if-you-talk-on-your-phone-at-a-concert
http://www.videosift.com/video/pwned-by-a-water-ride
http://www.videosift.com/video/slideplayaccident
http://www.videosift.com/video/Didnt-go-exactly-as-planned-Ouch

3. Potential bad idea

http://www.videosift.com/video/A-message-for-those-who-want-war-with-Iran
http://www.videosift.com/video/You-will-be-the-hit-at-any-party-when-you-bring-a-lion

4. Knowing what your doing is a bad idea

http://www.videosift.com/video/Old-Man-Goes-Nuts-In-Car-Wash

5. Looks like a bad idea

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jump-in-the-waters-great
http://www.videosift.com/video/Low-Budget-Tattoo-Removal
http://www.videosift.com/video/Redneck-Carnival-Ride

Well these are all important arguments, because as recent history proves, Bush's speaking difficulties cost him his presidential campaign against John Kerry (described as the "greatest debater since Cicero").

>> ^Farhad2000:
Getting both Florida and Michigan back was a stupid, stupid mistake. They broke the rules, Obama wasn't on the ticket, only Clinton was. There was no campaigning, and still for no fucking reason the votes were halved and spread among the candidates.
The Clinton campaign very easily changed the media dialog and pushed this through, no one stated the very clear facts.

I think the RBC outcome was about as amicable as could've been expected. If it weren't for Clinton throwing every ounce of her weight into this, the DNC would've stood by their earlier decision to strip all delegates.

As it was, the states still paid a price, and the results didn't significantly change the outcome of the race, while still playing nice to the state parties of two states the Democrats really want to compete in.

The fight was more a struggle between the DLC democrats, and the Dean/Obama Democrats, and the latter group won, without making things ugly.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Why is there such a failure of back bone and leadership in the Democratic party? Every fucking year they play by the rules of the Republican party dialog, always responding to or playing to the Republican tune.

I agree this is a problem. They're getting better, and Obama's done a better job of this than Gore or Kerry.

I think the main issue is with the media though. We now have Air America, Olbermann, and the blogs out there fighting the media dominance of the Republican party, but it won't be fixed until somehow we find a way to bring back a mostly objective media that investigates, and reports facts, without always filtering things through a political lens.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Hillary's inability to finally concede a loss and pledge support behind Obama shows an immense failure of character, and willingness to step aside and help bring change that is so badly needed after 8 years of Bush.

I totally agree. I had mild dislike for her before this contest, now she's just like a liberal version of Bush. She might ram universal healthcare through on a signing statement, and use the same veto/fillibuster BS to force a carbon cap, but making things like that happen that way won't work any more than Bush's policies did.

To quote kos's slogan, what we need are "More Democrats, better Democrats." It's gonna take a while to get a Democratic party to have a majority of vertebrates, but there's been a lot of progress in just the last couple years.

^
Agree. Both parties are plenty guilty of pandering to the common man while living a life of privilege. Obama, not as much.
When you marry, you agree to pool your resources. I don't see guilt in spending money that's legally shared between you. Rich does not = morally bankrupt or greedy. Most of the time it means talent and competitive nature. Except in the case of McCain and Kerry, where it's wealth of woo, lucky bastards.