View Full Version : Bush can't decide
Just read today that Bush has Flip-Flopped.
In february he stated he was "THE WAR President". "I make War decisions from here in the Oval Office" were his own words..
Now today since popularity for the war has waned, he announced he wants to be "The PEACE President"
I guess he can't make up his mind. It is going to be kind of hard to accept the "Peace President" thing since he has
Started TWO Wars!
just an Update..
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hm
Could this be situational leadership. Could it be a leader trying to move this country away from war and work more towards peace?
If you want flip flops -- check out Kerry's voting record.
Else, please don't beat the Bushs http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
N7AAO
07-21-2004, 01:12 AM
Maybe the Democratic party is feeling bad... Clinton only started one war! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Perhaps you guys on the RIGHT( "Right" doesn't mean it is correct) need to concede that your candidate Flip-Flops also!!
Seems from what I read out of the story is that Bush is flip-flopping to try and gain votes, But that is just what i am getting out of it.
But then again, that doesn't surprise me One bit. I'm sure you guys (On The RIGHT) will try to bring up Clinton or some other president to make your case, but lets just try to stick with BUSH and the facts! That is what this story was about. I only spoke of the story about BUSH flip-Flopping!
Nope -- I think they are still pissed about "hanging chads"
N7AAO
07-21-2004, 01:24 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N6WK @ July 20 2004,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps you guys on the RIGHT( "Right" doesn't mean it is correct) need to concede that your candidate Flip-Flops also!!
Seems from what I read out of the story is that Bush is flip-flopping to try and gain votes, But that is just what i am getting out of it.
But then again, that doesn't surprise me One bit. I'm sure you guys (On The RIGHT) will try to bring up Clinton or some other president to make your case, but lets just try to stick with BUSH and the facts! That is what this story was about. I only spoke of the story about BUSH flip-Flopping![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let me get this straight.
Kerry flip-flops on the war... "I actually voted for it before I voted against it," and all that... and that's good.
Bush utters a supposed flip-flop, and that's bad.
I guess it all boils down to "Kerry good; Bush bad."
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ July 21 2004,02:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could this be situational leadership. Could it be a leader trying to move this country away from war and work more towards peace?
If you want flip flops -- check out Kerry's voting record.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well It could be, but honestly, I think he is just trying to assure some more Votes by being liquid.(he is trying to MOVE the Spot Light from WAR to Peace but after all, He Started the wars!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
He is trying to move the Spotlight OFF the Fiasco he created by promoting himself as the PEACE GUY... Sick at best!
I am sure Kerry's record of voting is open to debate, but again, Kerry is NOT the President YET. i just want you guys to know and ADMIT that your guy Flip_Flops Too! they all do, Their POLITICIANS !! As the Indians would say, "he speaks with forked Tongue"
N6WK
KB3JCP
07-21-2004, 01:30 AM
President Bush has right idea, but wrong way of dealling with this war. I affraid this will be worse then Vietnam. We lost so many young men and women, we cann't allow Bush to send more troops in on offence,when we need them here on defence. As Amateur Radio Volunteers, We should help make it impossible for Terrorists to succeed. I mean, get neighborhood watches formed and trained.
73 from Adam KB3JCP / WQAI363
ke4pjw
07-21-2004, 01:36 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N6WK @ July 19 2004,19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just read today that Bush has Flip-Flopped.
In february he stated he was "THE WAR President". #"I make War decisions from here in the Oval Office" were his own words..
Now today since popularity for the war has waned, he announced he is "The PEACE President" #
I guess he can't make up his mind. #It is going to be kind of hard to accept the "Peace President" thing since he has
Started TWO Wars!
just an Update..
:D[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Bush Said: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'
If you are going to quote him, get it right.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
k4uug
07-21-2004, 01:37 AM
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/101113.jpg
Stop Hanoi John (http://www.stopjohn.com/pages/movies/hanoi-john.htm)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 21 2004,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kerry flip-flops on the war... "I actually voted for it before I voted against it," and all that... and that's good.
Bush utters a supposed flip-flop, and that's bad.
I guess it all boils down to "Kerry good; Bush bad."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What do you mean " a suppossed Flip Flop?" Are you trying to say he DIDN'T say it?? God, read the News guy!
As far as BUSH BAD; KERRY GOOD.. You said it, I didn't actually say it but I will say that in my mind, yes BUSH= BAD
And I actually had Voted for him, But I WILL NOT again!!
k9kxq
07-21-2004, 01:54 AM
Shakin that Bush Boss, Shakin that Bush...
Cool Hand Luke
k4uug
07-21-2004, 01:54 AM
John Kerry claims to have support from foreign leaders. Who are those leaders?
Who are those leaders?click here to find out ! (http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_leaders.htm)
John Kerry is a flip flopper to the core...standing for every side of every issue. Watch him dance his way out of this.
John Kerry is a flip flopper (http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_flipper.htm)
This man has the nerve to say he supports our troops?
Kerrys American Betrayal (http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_betrayal.htm)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
KC2KFC
07-21-2004, 02:00 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N6WK @ July 20 2004,18http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just read today that Bush has Flip-Flopped.
In february he stated he was "THE WAR President". #"I make War decisions from here in the Oval Office" were his own words..
Now today since popularity for the war has waned, he announced he is "The PEACE President" #
I guess he can't make up his mind. #It is going to be kind of hard to accept the "Peace President" thing since he has
Started TWO Wars!
just an Update..
<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YAWN
Sorry.
Talk about getting it right. there are some so called facts floating around here about Kerry, Jane fonda and Others that are NOT even close to being Correct. Need to get on them Also!
He might want to be the Peace President, But we all know he is a WAR President.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1OBN @ July 21 2004,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">John Kerry is a flip flopper to the core...standing for every side of every issue. Watch him dance his way out of this.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yea, that's Accurate info.. NOT!!!
Bush is FLIP FLOPPING ALSO, just ADMIT IT!
I never said Kerry didn't flip-flop.
Why can't the so called RIGHT wing ADMIT that BUSH is Flip-Flopping and CHENEY gives out Contracts to his friends??
Geeze!!
<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
YAWN
Well, You took the time to read it and to respond..Can't be all that boring or you wouldn't have evn read it. hehehe
Trolling away!
K6UEY
07-21-2004, 02:53 AM
N6WK,
Gordon you keep quoting news from the bottom of the bird cage, but you have yet to say why you insist on having a Socialist president for this country.You obviously are not an ignorant person,although admittedly you are often behind the curve on the facts,why are you so insistant that this leftist be even admittided to the whitehouse,besides being in a position of screwing up the whole planet? With France,China , Cuba and a few others,don't we have far enough Socilalist losers to go around,why try to finish off the United States by making this leftist loser president ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
W8EFA
07-21-2004, 03:09 AM
Here are just a few of the Bush flip-flops
Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ July 21 2004,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N6WK,
Gordon you keep quoting news from the bottom of the bird cage, but you have yet to say why you insist on having a Socialist president for this country.You obviously are not an ignorant person,although admittedly you are often behind the curve on the facts,why are you so insistant that this leftist be even admittided to the whitehouse,besides being in a position of screwing up the whole planet? With France,China , Cuba and a few others,don't we have far enough Socilalist losers to go around,why try to finish off the United States by making this leftist loser president ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Orv,
I also know that you are an intellegent person. that being said , Why do you continue to refer to Kerry as a Socialist when you know very well he is a Democrat?? It only hurts you when you do the innuendos. As far as being behind the curve on the facts, sometimes I am but there are other times i have brought up info that even you had not heard yet. My position is, I do not like BUSH. I only post this stuff because i get so tired of reading all the CRAP and lies that some of the "RIGHT" wing people put up here. If the right wing will just admit that bush is bad and Kerry is bad,I have NO problem. However, that doesn't seem to happen. It seems to be this; Bush is Almighty and Holy and has never done anything wrong then they go on to say how Horrible Kerry is and that He has NEVER done any good. We both Know that these BOTH are LIES.
If the USA can survive a Bush administration,( let alone a father and a Son of Bush's) we can survive anything!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8EFA @ July 21 2004,04http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here are just a few of the Bush flip-flops[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
W8EFA,
Thank You!
Reading this thread only bears out my earlier statement about this election (and most of them in the US today):
They are both power mongering, unprincipled SOBs.
TP
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8LXR @ July 21 2004,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading this thread only bears out my earlier statement about this election (and most of them in the US today):
They are both bastards.
TP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Right On!
W8EFA
07-21-2004, 03:31 AM
I agree with WK and LXR that they both flip-flop. #They both are politicians, what do you expect. #Politicians seem to sway whatever way gets them the most votes at the moment.
Here are some more Bush Flip-Flops as an example
Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
You see what happens here?
The Bush folk will argue that their boy is George Washington and Mother Theresa all rolled into one, while the Kerry folk will argue that he is just plain awful and blah, blah, blah.
Then the Kerry folk will make their boy out to a genuine American hero who veritably walks on water, while the right wingers try to paint him as an enemy of the American state, by GOD!
Of course, both camps conveniently ignore their own SOBs shortcomings (many), reversals, spins,..etc., ad nauseum.
You want the long and skinny?
Here it is:
They are both SOBs to one degree or another interested in one thing: POWER.
My take and only my opinion BUT:
You have a choice between a quasi-fascist (Bush) and a quasi-socialist (Kerry) but most of you are neither fascists nor socialists.
NOW, which one do you choose?
God Bless America.
Out.
TP
K6UEY
07-21-2004, 03:42 AM
N6WK,
Well Gordon, all you have to do is check Kerry's record in the Senate.His actions at times is even to the Left of T. Kennedy.The Sr. Senator and the Jr. Senator from Mass. lead the Congress in representing the far and extreme far left views.And you want them to run the country and be the leader of the free world ?
President Bush showed the courage and leadership to attempt to bring Peace to the free world,and after blood shed of good troops it is starting to become a fact,and possibility after several thousand years. Give him the final four years to complete the job,and the whole world will rejoice because of your vote. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
N8LXR,
Darn if you don't have it exactly Correct sir!
N6WK
"is even to the Left of T. Kennedy.The Sr. Senator and the Jr. Senator from Mass. lead the Congress in representing the far and extreme far left views."
K6UEY
OK UEY, you seem to be very concerned about extremism of the far left.
Good for you. That's a start.
Now, tell us how GWB represents the extremism of the far right for balance.
Out.
TP
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ July 21 2004,04:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N6WK,
Well Gordon, all you have to do is check Kerry's record in the Senate.His actions at times is even to the Left of T. Kennedy.The Sr. Senator and the Jr. Senator from Mass. lead the Congress in representing the far and extreme far left views.And you want them to run the country and be the leader of the free world ?
President Bush showed the courage and leadership to attempt to bring Peace to the free world,and after blood shed of good troops it is starting to become a fact,and possibility after several thousand years. Give him the final four years to complete the job,and the whole world will rejoice because of your vote. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sorry Orv,
I am certainly going to try my BEST to deprive him of another 4 years of his BS. yes he sure did show a lot of Courage by not actually going to war himself (I will NOT forget that fact) to bring WAR and Mayhem to the World.
George Bush is NOT the Leader of the Free World. Our President only THINKS he should be the World COP. the FREE world Does Not need GWBush to pretend to be the Peace Leader and wage war at the same time. You don't really believe that because of George W Bush that all wars are going to be over after several thousand years do you? if so I am surprised with you to be so Nieve!
NO he will NOT get MY Vote!
W8EFA
07-21-2004, 04:05 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ July 20 2004,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N6WK,
Well Gordon, all you have to do is check Kerry's record in the Senate.His actions at times is even to the Left of T. Kennedy.The Sr. Senator and the Jr. Senator from Mass. lead the Congress in representing the far and extreme far left views.And you want them to run the country and be the leader of the free world ?
President Bush showed the courage and leadership to attempt to bring Peace to the free world,and after blood shed of good troops it is starting to become a fact,and possibility after several thousand years. Give him the final four years to complete the job,and the whole world will rejoice because of your vote. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh Bullcrap.
Leadership - Look at Tony Blair. #He is a real leader. # In Great Britain, a similar investigation found holes in that nation’s intelligence about Iraq.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair responded promptly, saying he took full, personal responsibility.
The world knows that the United States erred, but our national leadership seems deaf to that world opinion — and now to the U.S. Senate committee.
Most of all, we must ensure that this never happens again. Instead, Bush promised in Tennessee that the United States would not shrink from future pre-emptive attacks to defend itself. If such attacks are based on the same quality of intelligence, this is sobering news indeed.
You say it is a fact that peace has been brought to the free world? #What planet have you been living on? Let's see some facts, not rhetoric.
Give him 4 more years and the rest of the world will rejoice? #It is a fact that our popularity and credibility have been damaged significantly in GW's first 4 years.
I would hate to see how much more damage he can do with his smug arrogant demeanor and actions.
ke4pjw
07-21-2004, 06:08 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8EFA @ July 19 2004,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of all, we must ensure that this never happens again. Instead, Bush promised in Tennessee that the United States would not shrink from future pre-emptive attacks to defend itself. If such attacks are based on the same quality of intelligence, this is sobering news indeed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You sound like we lost the war or something.
k5rna
07-21-2004, 07:15 AM
As a dog lover i do wish you people would quit calling the canidates a SOB.A female dog is a bitch so why insult a female dog?
K0RGR
07-21-2004, 07:50 PM
My S.O.B. can whip your S.O.B.!
w5klb
07-22-2004, 06:02 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N6WK @ July 20 2004,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1OBN @ July 21 2004,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">John Kerry is a flip flopper to the core...standing for every side of every issue. Watch him dance his way out of this.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yea, #that's Accurate info.. NOT!!!
Bush is FLIP FLOPPING ALSO, #just ADMIT IT!
I never said Kerry didn't flip-flop.
Why can't the so called RIGHT wing ADMIT that BUSH is Flip-Flopping and CHENEY gives out Contracts to his friends??
Geeze!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gordon,
Misinterpetation and disinformation campains are not going to help your candidate get elected. The American people KNOW better! And Al Franken, George Soros, John F(lipflop) Kerry, and Moore will find this out the hard way.
You Dems and the "why are we there?" crowd need to reflect on history and do the math so here are some questions for you and make ensure you answer them HONESTLY:
1.Which President involved us Korea?
2.How many troops did we loose in Korea?
3.What political affiliation did this President claim?
4.Which President involved us in Vietnam?
5.How long were our troops involved in Vietnam?
6.How many troops did we lose in Vietnam?
7.What political affiliation did this President claim?
8.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Iraq?
9.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Afganistan?
An Activity:
Do the math, and compair the number of troops killed in VIETNAM ONLY, and compair them with the sum of IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN combined.
Now before I go looking like I'm only interested in numbers, like McNamara did during Vietnam, I want you to know that these troops are more than numbers to me and my thoughts and prayers are with families of these fallen heros.
History quiz over.
And you talk about Bush flip flopping. WISHING he was a peace president and the REALITY of being a war president are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES and Bush knows the differance. Stop the disinformation and misinterpetation and talk about some REAL ISSUES or is this the best you can come up with?
I'm enjoying N6WK's highwire act, as he tiptoes that line between dead horse flogging and trolling. Gordon, we know how you feel about the President in particular and Republicans in general. Why not switch to a fresher, less overdone topic, like code versus no code?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KeithMyath @ July 22 2004,10http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm enjoying N6WK's highwire act, as he tiptoes that line between dead horse flogging and trolling. Gordon, we know how you feel about the President in particular and Republicans in general. Why not switch to a fresher, less overdone topic, like code versus no code?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's pretty hard to take you seriously at all when you hide behind a pseudonym.
WK's issue is with Bush, he has stated he voted for Reagan in the past.
I guess you aren't that strong in your opinions if you don't have the courage to identify yourself. It's real easy to be contrary while being anonymous.
WX7B
k4kyv
07-22-2004, 06:40 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8EFA @ July 20 2004,21<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Leadership - Look at Tony Blair. #He is a real leader. # In Great Britain, a similar investigation found holes in that nation’s intelligence about Iraq.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair responded promptly, saying he took full, personal responsibility.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Left? Right? #Check out this website. #Take the test yourself to see where you stand. #Then look at how Blair, Bush and Kerry all score.
www.politicalcompass.org
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ July 22 2004,10http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Misinterpetation and disinformation campains are not going to help your candidate get elected. The American people KNOW better! And Al Franken, George Soros, John F(lipflop) Kerry, and Moore will find this out the hard way.
You Dems and the "why are we there?" crowd need to reflect on history and do the math so here are some questions for you and make ensure you answer them HONESTLY:
1.Which President involved us Korea?
2.How many troops did we loose in Korea?
3.What political affiliation did this President claim?
4.Which President involved us in Vietnam?
5.How long were our troops involved in Vietnam?
6.How many troops did we lose in Vietnam?
7.What political affiliation did this President claim?
8.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Iraq?
9.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Afganistan?
An Activity:
Do the math, and compair the number of troops killed in VIETNAM ONLY, and compair them with the sum of IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN combined.
Now before I go looking like I'm only interested in numbers, like McNamara did during Vietnam, I want you to know that these troops are more than numbers to me and my thoughts and prayers are with families of these fallen heros.
History quiz over.
And you talk about Bush flip flopping. WISHING he was a peace president and the REALITY of being a war president are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES and Bush knows the differance. Stop the disinformation and misinterpetation and talk about some REAL ISSUES or is this the best you can come up with?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
All you have proven with this post is, once again, you have absolutely no grasp on history. You are taking bits and pieces of information and twisting them to make a (tenuous) point. Toss in a few gratuitous insults for good measure and you have the incomplete historical world according to WPW.
It appears you are trying to show Democratic presidents were responsible for greater debacles than the current Iraq mess. I won't even bother correcting your obvious mistakes as the bottom line is both Korea and Vietnam were the result of policy missteps by US administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The ideological makeup of both political parties in significantly different now than even in the early 70's. It is entirely too simplistic to explain away both Korea and Vietnam on purely partisan terms. If you bothered to do any research on both topics (which you obviously haven't) you'll find general agreement across party lines as to the pros and cons of US intervention in both conflicts. It is far more complicated than Democrat bad! or Republican bad!
Speaking of real issues, all I've seen from you are slogans, juvenile insults and disinformation. Your last "history lesson" made no sense because you don't even know the answers to your own questions!
It's obvious to anyone that Bush and his advisers miscalculated the Iraqi response to our invasion. I think the administration also misjudged the growing #resistance of the American people to the costs, both human and monetary of this war. Bush is making the same mistake Presidents (both parties) have made since Truman. A bad decision needs a quick reaction which may cut against your original intent, not a reaffirmation and escalation of the original mistake.
WX7B
ai4ep
07-22-2004, 06:52 PM
I am not sure if any one has ever noticed this but...
the USA sems to " go to war " at least every 20 years ro so...
just when we get a new young string of "age old enough to GO to war " appears !!
or " just as soon as a new generation gets old enough to go to war " we seem to find a reason to do it.
notice the cycles seem to be every 20 years or so...
KG4ZQZ
07-22-2004, 07:37 PM
- are the Afghanis better off without the Taliban or with the Taliban?
- you decide
- are the Iraqis better off without Hussein or with Hussein?
- you decide
- then tell me if you think the U.S. should have done or not done anything in the absence of UN action...
WA7KKP
07-23-2004, 12:15 AM
WE decide who is going to be president, not the GOP or the Supreme Court.
Vote November 2. If you don't vote, put up and shut up.
Gary WA7KKP
K4JSR
07-23-2004, 02:12 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA7KKP @ July 22 2004,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WE decide who is going to be president, not the GOP or the Supreme Court.
Vote November 2. #If you don't vote, put up and shut up.
Gary WA7KKP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
For sure, for sure! Vote November 2, 2004 and be
certain to "FLUSH THE JOHNS"!
Take that, you bleeding heart ground rod wetting liberals!
Lord, if You love me make tomorrow 11/02/04!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
At least Glen will let us get back to something with real
meaning--- know code/no code! Now there is an issue
we can really get nasty about! I wish they had an
emoticon with blood dripping fangs just for that debate!
Please hold the flames until I get back with the burgers.
Tata for now....
Cal K4JSR
Abuse Liberals, Ga.
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 02:15 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K4JSR @ July 22 2004,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For sure, for sure! Vote November 2, 2004 and be
certain to "FLUSH THE JOHNS"!
Take that, you bleeding heart ground rod wetting liberals!
Lord, if You love me make tomorrow 11/02/04!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
At least Glen will let us get back to something with real
meaning--- know code/no code! Now there is an issue
we can really get nasty about! I wish they had an
emoticon with blood dripping fangs just for that debate!
Please hold the flames until I get back with the burgers.
Tata for now....
Cal K4JSR
Abuse Liberals, Ga.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Burgers? You want the militant vegetarians to attack you as well? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Beam on down, Scotty, we're having a BBQ!
K4JSR
07-23-2004, 02:25 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Burgers? You want the militant vegetarians to attack you as well? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Beam on down, Scotty, we're having a BBQ![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Shhhh! They may find out that I am a member of PETA.
You know, "People Eating Tasty Animals"!
Try driving around Athens, Ga., the home of the University of Georgia with a bumper sticker that says
People Eating Tasty Animals next to my "Nuke the Whales" bumpersticker. You would think that I was being an iconoclast or something! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How do you want your burger?
I would suggest tartar but all of the liberals would
try to feather feather us! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
73, Cal K4JSR
Gutshoot Critters, Ga.
n7wsb
07-23-2004, 02:28 AM
You guys should check this website out if you want to know the facts behind many of bush's "facts"
http://www.factcheck.org/
W8EFA
07-23-2004, 02:57 AM
Try driving around Athens, Ga., the home of the University of Georgia
No thanks
K4JSR
07-23-2004, 02:57 AM
WSB, That URL is just typical leftist bloviating.
The articles have more distortion than a rock musician's
fuzz box. Go listen to your buddy Al Franken or Michael
Moore.
73, Cal K4JSR
Leftabuse, Ga.
K4JSR
07-23-2004, 03:00 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8EFA @ July 22 2004,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try driving around Athens, Ga., the home of the University of Georgia
No thanks[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
CHICKEN! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
n7wsb
07-23-2004, 03:03 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K4JSR @ July 22 2004,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WSB, #That URL is just typical leftist bloviating.
The articles have more distortion than a rock musician's
fuzz box. #Go listen to your buddy Al Franken or Michael
Moore. #
73, #Cal #K4JSR
Leftabuse, Ga.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can tell you didn't even look at the web page because they go after moveon.org, and Kerry's claims as well. You shouldn't criticize things you haven't even seen/read.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ July 22 2004,19http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K4JSR @ July 22 2004,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WSB, #That URL is just typical leftist bloviating.
The articles have more distortion than a rock musician's
fuzz box. #Go listen to your buddy Al Franken or Michael
Moore. #
73, #Cal #K4JSR
Leftabuse, Ga.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can tell you didn't even look at the web page because they go after moveon.org, and Kerry's claims as well. You shouldn't criticize things you haven't even seen/read.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You're surprised? #I'm not...
KA7RRA
07-23-2004, 04:05 AM
I voted for Bush in 2000 and Iam going to vote for him in 2004
Guts is defined as..,
Going to a Penn State HOME game and waving ANY OTHER teams banner!
Going to Auburn and saying 'Who the heck is this Bear Bryant? Wasn't he some old guy who led cheers or sumthin?'
Walking into a P.E.T.A. meeting, in the wintertime, wearing a fur coat, carrying a pizza box and saying 'OK! Who ordered the large pepperoni with bacon and sausage?' at the top of your lungs!
Taunting K9STH.....
Meeting Hillary Clinton and asking if she would not mind baking a few dozen cookies for your next fundraiser.
kc0ebm
07-23-2004, 06:28 AM
Bush can't decide???
He's the most decisive president I've ever seen in my life.
I don't see him having any trouble making decisions. Its called leadership.
No waffling with Bush.
I'd rather have a man of conviction over a man of the winds of popularity any day.
No question in my mind either. There'll be a 2 term Bush in the White House come November if my guess is correct.
And if you have doubts about his convictions or his decisiveness, he will erase all doubt during a second term.
As far as war vs. peace. Bush is a "peace through strength" president. The worst kind of president to have if you're a terrorist.
I'm votin' fer Bush again. And I'm doin' it proudly and loudly.
EBM
w5klb
07-23-2004, 08:09 AM
Dave, WX7B
Here the are the answers to my little quiz:
1. Which President involved us in Korea?
Ans: President Harry S. Truman
2. How many troops did we loose in Korea?
Ans:33,741 US Dead
# # #23,615 Killed in Action
# # #Not to mention the 92,134 wounded or the 4,820 MIAs
3. What political affiliation did this President claim?
Ans: It is a well know fact that President Truman was Missouri Democrat.
4.Which President involved us in Vietnam?
Ans: President John F. Kennedy
5.How long were our troops involve in Vietnam?
Ans: Let's see... 1960 to 1973... that's 13 years!
6.How many troops did we lose in Vietnam?
Ans:58,148 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
7.What political affilliation did this President claim?
Ans: President John F. Kennedy was... (drum roll please) ... a Democrat (imagine that)
8.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Iraq?
Ans: 900 last count
I will admit that I cannot answer the number dead so far in Afghanistan, but you can bet the farm that it doesn't come remotely close to the number killed in Vietnam when the troops killed in Iraq is added in. Also notice that there was a lot more troops killed under Democratic Presidents of recent memory than under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr combined and all of them were...(drum role)...REPUBICANS (imagine that) This IS the point I'm making yet liberals and the liberal media is quick to criticise Bush for number of troops that is killed in Iraq. All you liberals want the American public to beleave is:BUSH IS BAD. This is DISINFORMATION AND A DISTORTION OF THE FACTS. You know it and I know it. Then you have the gall to #insult me for pointing this out because you and your party want to cover it up or rewrite history and spread this popaganda about Bush thinking the American people are stupid enough to beleave it. And guess what? IT'S NOT WORKING. A person would have to be thinking impaired and living in a fantansy world to beleave this liberal-socialist crap.
One other thing...
I could care less what YOU think about me. I will sleep REAL WELL knowing that this is how you feel. I do hope you will survive going through puberty. I went through it too back when I was 13 or 14 years old-it was pretty rough for me also. Some people are just late bloomers. You may be one-who knows and who cares?
G'day
K6UEY
07-23-2004, 09:23 AM
G.W.Bush has my vote for a second term. With out a doubt the right man for the job..... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
k4uug
07-23-2004, 12:23 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ July 23 2004,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">G.W.Bush has my vote for a second term. With out a doubt the right man for the job..... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/9862.jpg
He has my vote! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
K9STH
07-23-2004, 12:35 PM
FT:
If you went to Auburn and asked that about "Bear" Bryant they would agree with you! Now, if you went to the University of Alabama and said the same thing then there "might" be trouble!
Paul "Bear" Bryant also coached at Texas A&M University before he went to Alabama.
You have "heard" of the supposed powers that Bryant had. Well, when Alabama played Georgia Tech at Grant Field (on the Georgia Tech campus) in the fall of 1962 (my freshman year at Georgia Tech) it had been raining all morning. But, the instant that he walked onto the field the skies started clearing and it didn't rain anymore that day. However, that is where his "power" stopped. Georgia Tech beat Alabama by, if I remember correctly, a score of 10 to 7!
Glen, K9STH
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ July 23 2004,00http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dave, WX7B
Here the are the answers to my little quiz:
1. Which President involved us in Korea?
Ans: President Harry S. Truman
2. How many troops did we loose in Korea?
Ans:33,741 US Dead
# # #23,615 Killed in Action
# # #Not to mention the 92,134 wounded or the 4,820 MIAs
3. What political affiliation did this President claim?
Ans: It is a well know fact that President Truman was Missouri Democrat.
4.Which President involved us in Vietnam?
Ans: President John F. Kennedy
5.How long were our troops involve in Vietnam?
Ans: Let's see... 1960 to 1973... that's 13 years!
6.How many troops did we lose in Vietnam?
Ans:58,148 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
7.What political affilliation did this President claim?
Ans: President John F. Kennedy was... (drum roll please) ... a Democrat (imagine that)
8.How many troops have we lost, to date, in Iraq?
Ans: 900 last count
I will admit that I cannot answer the number dead so far in Afghanistan, but you can bet the farm that it doesn't come remotely close to the number killed in Vietnam when the troops killed in Iraq is added in. Also notice that there was a lot more troops killed under Democratic Presidents of recent memory than under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr combined and all of them were...(drum role)...REPUBICANS (imagine that) This IS the point I'm making yet liberals and the liberal media is quick to criticise Bush for number of troops that is killed in Iraq. All you liberals want the American public to beleave is:BUSH IS BAD. This is DISINFORMATION AND A DISTORTION OF THE FACTS. You know it and I know it. Then you have the gall to #insult me for pointing this out because you and your party want to cover it up or rewrite history and spread this popaganda about Bush thinking the American people are stupid enough to beleave it. And guess what? IT'S NOT WORKING. A person would have to be thinking impaired and living in a fantansy world to beleave this liberal-socialist crap.
One other thing...
I could care less what YOU think about me. I will sleep REAL WELL knowing that this is how you feel. I do hope you will survive going through puberty. I went through it too back when I was 13 or 14 years old-it was pretty rough for me also. Some people are just late bloomers. You may be one-who knows and who cares?
G'day[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you read my post, you'd see this isn't about you personally. I'll ignore your sophomoric attempts at denigration. It's really about historical record and your blatant generalizations and distortions for partisan gain of the record.
Some basic items (which I alluded to in my previous post).
First and foremost: Both Korea and Vietnam were the result of US government policy decisions (and failures) of the time period in which they occurred. Presidents of both parties were involved in both wars. This is not hard to grasp. In regard to Vietnam, more servicemen were killed under Nixon/Ford than the other presidents combined. My point is, the policy failure was bi-partisan no matter how much you stamp your little feet and wave your little arms.
There is no rewriting of history here. Vietnam was a disaster and we lost, no matter how hard we try to justify our actions there. Vietnam was a series of diplomatic errors that turned into military defeat.
Speaking of history, Bush's actions in starting the Iraq war are eerily familiar to Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Do you even know what that was?
In regard to disinformation, "Bush is Bad" etc., there is no disinformation needed here. Bush's actions and policy decisions speak for themselves. From this stupid war to his misguided tax policies, this man is a disaster as president and needs to be voted out of office. This doesn't have any thing to do with "liberal media", which is a figment of the right wing imagination anyway. #
Maybe you should redirect some of your anger toward taking a look at the historical record and try to view history without your "the world is supposed to be this way" view. The United States, while the greatest country in the world, sometimes screws up. Korea, Vietnam and unfortunately Iraq are prime examples.
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 03:50 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This doesn't have any thing to do with "liberal media", which is a figment of the right wing imagination anyway. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A figment of the right wing? Consider this finding by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar # 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(Full report available here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214).)
I doubt you can successfully characterize the Pew Center as a conservative organ, either...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Beam me up, Scotty, I've successfully demolished another liberal myth with cold hard facts.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This doesn't have any thing to do with "liberal media", which is a figment of the right wing imagination anyway. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A figment of the right wing? Consider this finding by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar # 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(Full report available here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214).)
I doubt you can successfully characterize the Pew Center as a conservative organ, either...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Beam me up, Scotty, I've successfully demolished another liberal myth with cold hard facts.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your numbers actually support the notion the media is unbiased. Accepting your numbers, 34% hardly represents a majority, which would make the media "liberal". Again, using the Pew numbers, it appears the majority of journalists are non-partisan.
Would you accuse Fox news of "conservative bias" if it was found that 34% of the journalists who work there are identified as "conservative"?
This "liberal media" bias garbage has been around for a long time. The flames of this myth have been fanned by talk radio extremists and their supporters. Really what it breaks down to is right wingers always scream bias! whenever a viewpoint is stated that disagrees with their position. It's intellectually dishonest and extremely boring.
I don't see you or your fellow true believers talking about "media bias" during the run-up to the Iraq mess. Not many from the mainstream media questioned Bush and his rational for this stupid war. The press was actually irresponsible in not questioning Bush's motives more. How is that liberal media bias?
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 05:29 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This doesn't have any thing to do with "liberal media", which is a figment of the right wing imagination anyway. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A figment of the right wing? Consider this finding by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar # 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(Full report available here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214).)
I doubt you can successfully characterize the Pew Center as a conservative organ, either...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Beam me up, Scotty, I've successfully demolished another liberal myth with cold hard facts.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your numbers actually support the notion the media is unbiased. Accepting your numbers, 34% hardly represents a majority, which would make the media "liberal". Again, using the Pew numbers, it appears the majority of journalists are non-partisan.
Would you accuse Fox news of "conservative bias" if it was found that 34% of the journalists who work there are identified as "conservative"?
This "liberal media" bias garbage has been around for a long time. The flames of this myth have been fanned by talk radio extremists and their supporters. Really what it breaks down to is right wingers always scream bias! whenever a viewpoint is stated that disagrees with their position. It's intellectually dishonest and extremely boring.
I don't see you or your fellow true believers talking about "media bias" during the run-up to the Iraq mess. Not many from the mainstream media questioned Bush and his rational for this stupid war. The press was actually irresponsible in not questioning Bush's motives more. How is that liberal media bias?
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh, I guess it takes 42% to make a "majority," after all, that's what Bill Clinton was elected with.
And the fact that self-described liberals outnumber self-described conservatives by a margin of 3 to 1 nationally doesn't matter at all, does it? Oops, I was wrong... 34% vs 7% is closer to 5 to 1!
Beam me up, Scotty, these folks are imitating ostriches
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This doesn't have any thing to do with "liberal media", which is a figment of the right wing imagination anyway. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A figment of the right wing? Consider this finding by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar # 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(Full report available here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214).)
I doubt you can successfully characterize the Pew Center as a conservative organ, either...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Beam me up, Scotty, I've successfully demolished another liberal myth with cold hard facts.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your numbers actually support the notion the media is unbiased. Accepting your numbers, 34% hardly represents a majority, which would make the media "liberal". Again, using the Pew numbers, it appears the majority of journalists are non-partisan.
Would you accuse Fox news of "conservative bias" if it was found that 34% of the journalists who work there are identified as "conservative"?
This "liberal media" bias garbage has been around for a long time. The flames of this myth have been fanned by talk radio extremists and their supporters. Really what it breaks down to is right wingers always scream bias! whenever a viewpoint is stated that disagrees with their position. It's intellectually dishonest and extremely boring.
I don't see you or your fellow true believers talking about "media bias" during the run-up to the Iraq mess. Not many from the mainstream media questioned Bush and his rational for this stupid war. The press was actually irresponsible in not questioning Bush's motives more. How is that liberal media bias?
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh, I guess it takes 42% to make a "majority," after all, that's what Bill Clinton was elected with.
And the fact that self-described liberals outnumber self-described conservatives by a margin of 3 to 1 nationally doesn't matter at all, does it?
Beam me up, Scotty, these folks are imitating ostriches.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
check again..
34 + 7 = 41 total partisans.
59= non-partisans, that is a majority anyway you slice it. You aren't even factoring what area each journalist specializes in. Could be the food critic, movie critic, obituary writer are all "liberal" whereas the editorial page or the white house beat writer could be "conservative". These "facts" you quote mean nothing. This is another example of weak twisting of numbers to support an agenda.
I'm starting to really question your ability to read, especially your own posts.
As the moderator is fond of saying, perhaps you should read your posts before pushing the "send" key...
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 05:55 PM
You need to work on your ratios.
34% of one group means there are approximately 5 times as many as in the group that has 7% (7x5=35). Therefore, liberal journalists outnumber conservative journalists by 5 to 1. The math is not that hard.
Keep grasping at straws, it's entertaining!
Beam me up, Scotty!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,09:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to work on your ratios.
34% of one group means there are approximately 5 times as many as in the group that has 7% (7x5=35). Therefore, liberal journalists outnumber conservative journalists by 5 to 1. The math is not that hard.
Keep grasping at straws, it's entertaining!
Beam me up, Scotty![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think you are the one with your hand in the straw bucket.
Your initial comment was total media was "liberal".
The stats you quoted show
34% liberal
7% conservative which would make the remaining
59% non-partisan.
SOOOOO, over all, using the PEW numbers, (which you quoted) 59% of journalists are non-partisan. How does that make the composite "liberal"? It doesn't.
Your ratio thing means zero if the over all number of participants are non-partisan.
I won't stoop to your level with a final comment.
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 06:19 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,11:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,09:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to work on your ratios.
34% of one group means there are approximately 5 times as many as in the group that has 7% (7x5=35). Therefore, liberal journalists outnumber conservative journalists by 5 to 1. The math is not that hard.
Keep grasping at straws, it's entertaining!
Beam me up, Scotty![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think you are the one with your hand in the straw bucket.
Your initial comment was total media was "liberal".
The stats you quoted show
34% liberal
7% # conservative # which would make the remaining
59% #non-partisan.
SOOOOO, over all, using the PEW numbers, (which you quoted) 59% of journalists are non-partisan. How does that make the composite "liberal"? It doesn't.
Your ratio thing means zero if the over all number of participants are non-partisan.
I won't stoop to your level with a final comment.
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's try this again. "Percent" is derived from "per cent" (two words), which means "per one hundred."
So, let's say you have 100 M&Ms (I hope you like M&Ms). Let's say that 34 of them are green, and 7 of them are yellow (I am deliberately avoiding red and blue). You have approximately 5 times as many green M&Ms as you do yellow M&Ms, don't you?
That is the only point I am making. You keep trying to drag the 59% that were not mentioned in my quotes in, and those are not germane to my point.
My point is, and continues to be, that liberal journalists are 5 times more numerous than conservative journalists. And the remaining 59% have nothing to do with that.
Beam me up, Scotty, the math lesson is complete.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is, and continues to be, that liberal journalists are 5 times more numerous than conservative journalists. And the remaining 59% have nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, and this proves what?
One of your main contentions in this and other threads is that the media is "liberal".
What you have shown is 34% are Liberal, 7% are Conservative and 59% are Non-partisan. I'll concede in this same that there are 5 times more liberals than conservatives in this particular model. How does this affect the entire picture?
You still haven't accounted for the other 59%, which DO matter. 34% does not make the entire whole "liberal". Again, you've proven with this model, that the media as a whole, is non-partisan! Your ratios, while showing more liberals than conservatives, doesn't tell the true story of the big picture, which is, again, using your numbers, that the media, AS A WHOLE ENTITY, is non-partisan.
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 07:29 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is, and continues to be, that liberal journalists are 5 times more numerous than conservative journalists. And the remaining 59% have nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, and this proves what?
One of your main contentions in this and other threads is that the media is "liberal".
What you have shown is 34% are Liberal, 7% are Conservative and 59% are Non-partisan. I'll concede in this same that there are 5 times more liberals than conservatives in this particular model. How does this affect the entire picture?
You still haven't accounted for the other 59%, which DO matter. 34% does not make the entire whole "liberal". Again, you've proven with this model, that the media as a whole, is non-partisan! Your ratios, while showing more liberals than conservatives, doesn't tell the true story of the big picture, which is, again, using your numbers, that the media, AS A WHOLE ENTITY, is non-partisan.
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I love the way you keep missing the point... Among those journalists listing either "liberal" or "conservative," five times as many consider THEMSELVES liberal!
As for the other 59%, if you'd bothered to read the report, which you obviously have not done, they consider themselves "moderate," which means nothing. After all, Senator John Edwards is being called "moderate" by the media, and yet his voting record, as tabulated by the National Journal (which is non-partisan, as opposed to National Review, which is unabashedly conservative), is the 4th most liberal in the nation... and if memory serves, that is even more liberal than Ted Kennedy (but I could be mis-remembering that point). So, "moderate" can mean truly middle of the road, or it can mean "liberal that doesn't want to say they are a liberal." I know which one you are going to claim it means, tho.
Beam me up, Scotty, I already know what the reply will be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is, and continues to be, that liberal journalists are 5 times more numerous than conservative journalists. And the remaining 59% have nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, and this proves what?
One of your main contentions in this and other threads is that the media is "liberal".
What you have shown is 34% are Liberal, 7% are Conservative and 59% are Non-partisan. I'll concede in this same that there are 5 times more liberals than conservatives in this particular model. How does this affect the entire picture?
You still haven't accounted for the other 59%, which DO matter. 34% does not make the entire whole "liberal". Again, you've proven with this model, that the media as a whole, is non-partisan! Your ratios, while showing more liberals than conservatives, doesn't tell the true story of the big picture, which is, again, using your numbers, that the media, AS A WHOLE ENTITY, is non-partisan.
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I love the way you keep missing the point... Among those journalists listing either "liberal" or "conservative," five times as many consider THEMSELVES liberal!
As for the other 59%, if you'd bothered to read the report, which you obviously have not done, they consider themselves "moderate," which means nothing. After all, Senator John Edwards is being called "moderate" by the media, and yet his voting record, as tabulated by the National Journal (which is non-partisan, as opposed to National Review, which is unabashedly conservative), is the 4th most liberal in the nation... and if memory serves, that is even more liberal than Ted Kennedy (but I could be mis-remembering that point). So, "moderate" can mean truly middle of the road, or it can mean "liberal that doesn't want to say they are a liberal." I know which one you are going to claim it means, tho.
Beam me up, Scotty, I already know what the reply will be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not missing anything.
You continue to pump up "statistics" that don't prove anything!
This is just another attempt to "prove" the liberal media lie. The "liberal" media doesn't exist and you know it and your statistics don't support it.
What does John Edwards have to do with this discussion? What does the linkeage with right wing boogeyman Ted Kennedy have to do with this? Nothing. YOU are making the jump that all that call themselves "moderate" aren't. That's a huge leap. It's also an assumption you're making which has absolutely no basis in fact.
WX7B
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 07:41 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ July 23 2004,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 23 2004,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is, and continues to be, that liberal journalists are 5 times more numerous than conservative journalists. And the remaining 59% have nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, and this proves what?
One of your main contentions in this and other threads is that the media is "liberal".
What you have shown is 34% are Liberal, 7% are Conservative and 59% are Non-partisan. I'll concede in this same that there are 5 times more liberals than conservatives in this particular model. How does this affect the entire picture?
You still haven't accounted for the other 59%, which DO matter. 34% does not make the entire whole "liberal". Again, you've proven with this model, that the media as a whole, is non-partisan! Your ratios, while showing more liberals than conservatives, doesn't tell the true story of the big picture, which is, again, using your numbers, that the media, AS A WHOLE ENTITY, is non-partisan.
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I love the way you keep missing the point... Among those journalists listing either "liberal" or "conservative," five times as many consider THEMSELVES liberal!
As for the other 59%, if you'd bothered to read the report, which you obviously have not done, they consider themselves "moderate," which means nothing. After all, Senator John Edwards is being called "moderate" by the media, and yet his voting record, as tabulated by the National Journal (which is non-partisan, as opposed to National Review, which is unabashedly conservative), is the 4th most liberal in the nation... and if memory serves, that is even more liberal than Ted Kennedy (but I could be mis-remembering that point). So, "moderate" can mean truly middle of the road, or it can mean "liberal that doesn't want to say they are a liberal." I know which one you are going to claim it means, tho.
Beam me up, Scotty, I already know what the reply will be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not missing anything.
You continue to pump up "statistics" that don't prove anything!
This is just another attempt to "prove" the liberal media lie. The "liberal" media doesn't exist and you know it and your statistics don't support it.
What does John Edwards have to do with this discussion? What does the linkeage with right wing boogeyman Ted Kennedy have to do with this? Nothing. YOU are making the jump that all that call themselves "moderate" aren't. That's a huge leap. It's also an assumption you're making which has absolutely no basis in fact.
WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep, just what I thought you'd say.
ai4ep
07-23-2004, 07:52 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif you two are going to have to get off that see - saw and let the other kids ride for a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 07:57 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ July 23 2004,12:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif you two are going to have to get off that see - saw and let the other kids ride for a while. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm done for the moment. Like my late father used to say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."
Last I saw (on CNN) we're runnin' outta bullets.
N7AAO
07-23-2004, 08:47 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9QJ @ July 23 2004,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last I saw (on CNN) we're runnin' outta bullets.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then make more! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kc2kde
07-23-2004, 08:57 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ July 20 2004,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Si vis pacem, para bellum.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ain't that the truth!