If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.


Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to
the Bush/Cheney team.


NOYB wrote:
Hahahaha. That's a funny one!

How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while
Clinton was President?

???

... How many sorties did our fighters fly over
Afghanistan while Clinton was president?


???

There was plenty of covert operation going on in Afghanistan, which laid
the ground work for our support of the Northern Alliance and the
eventual overthrow of the Taliban.

Did you assume that by "the pros" I meant the Clinton Administration?
Why, do you think they did *that* much better a job of running the country?

I meant (of course) the Pentagon. The Bush Administration looney-tunes
like Feigth & Bolton had no part in planning the Afghanistan invasion
and occupation... it's notable that once they got involved, things went
downhill... and we *still* haven't found Bin Laden...




Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later
than originally planned... has been a disaster.


Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever!


1- it was not Iraq's FIRST election, I guess there's no substitute for
ignorance of history when trying to judge political accomplishments

2- I am not downplaying it, I am putting the election in an accurate
context... as part of an ongoing process



Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can
take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling.


He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it.
He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the
willingness to use them.


And if they leave Iraq, what's going to happen there?



And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else
the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.


How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months?

Where do you get this? As of last August, the "new jobs" total was well
under 2 million, the net was still a loss of over a million... the
economy is ramping up (FINALLY!) but that doesn't change 3+ years of
backsliding & stagnation... and of course blatant lies about it...

.... How about
cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus
making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions
in history (despite the 9/11 attack)?

Huh? You can 3+ years "mild & short"

Fact, NOBBY, stick with the facts.

How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US
soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al
Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day?

How about all the bogus alerts? How about the FACT that the airlines
themselves say that security has not significantly improved? How about
the FACT that unmonitored border crossings are at an all-time high? How
about the statements from the retiring head of Health & Human Services
that our food supply is almost completely unprotected? How about the
Coast Guard's pleas for more port security... ignored at every turn?

Personally I'd credit blind luck & stupidity on the part of the
terrorists (you have to be a little thick in the head, and have an
unrealistic world view, to buy into their line of malarkey) more than
any action by the Bush Administration.


How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever
achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and
end-of-first-term elections?


What has that done for America?

Besides, Bush & Cheney have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and
continue to spend hundreds of millions, to scream their lies into the
ear of every American who'll sit still for it. I'm not surprised they've
gained popular support... but that doesn't change the facts on the
ground, and I believe that sooner or later people will wake up to the
facts.

Everything comes & goes in cycles, and the harder Bush & Cheney's team
of whackos & hired shills (BTW do they pay you, NOBBY?) push, the sooner
they'll fall, from their own momentum. Maybe some real conservatives
will have a chance to come to the fore.

DSK

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:25:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"


The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?


Considering the source of the article, I can only guess at the real
truth.

I was thinking the same thing.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.

NOYB wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.







news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the
networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment.

Sadly true -- in all cases

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his
habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was
"entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's.
The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.

If you haven't watched the show, you need to. It takes a comical look at a
number of politically charged issues. Here's an exchange between Candace
Bergen and William Shattner:

LEWISTON (Bergen)

The problem is the basis of the

case, if there is one, would lie in

The Bill of Rights, which Denny, of

course, thinks never should have

been passed.



CRANE (Shattner)

We're one Supreme Court appointment

away from overturning them.



SCHMIDT

The Bill of Rights.



CRANE

Damn right. Red States rule.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make
money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit
of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and
therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

Here's the Boston Legal exchange on this issue:

JUDGE GREENBLATT

Mr. Shore. This is a school. Is

it wise to expose students to

programs which send the message --

you're anti-American if you question

the government?



SHORE

I'm not sure Fox sends that message

Your Honor, but before we convict

them as the network of conservative

values, or any values for that

matter, these are the folks who

brought you "Joe Millionaire," and

"Who's Your Daddy?"





JUDGE GREENBLATT

That's the entertainment division,

I'm talking about the news.



SHORE

(building steam)

And I'm telling you it's all the

same. This isn't about political

content. This is a corporation

looking to make money. Fox News

began as alternative news programming

to grab a market share, they saw

ratings and profit in a conservative

demographic, and they've been waving

the flag ever since. And so what?

News today, all of it, is

infotainment. Last February, a

deadly toxic known as Ricin was

found in the mailroom of the Senate

Majority leader, potential

terrorism. CNN Headline News led

with Janet Jackson's exposed breast.

A month ago, while we're in the

middle of a war, newscasts all across

the country led with Prince Harry's

costume at a keg party. It's a

business, and while ABC and NBC go

for the deeper social issues like

Brad and Jennifer's breakup, Fox

chooses to run with red, white and

blue. And by the way, before you

villify them, a survey done in 2002

revealed that seventy percent of

the people in this country believe

it is good when news organizations

take a strong pro-American point of

view. Seventy percent.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

Does that make it right?



SHORE

Of course it makes it right.



Because the rule in infotainment is

give the people what they want.

The reason Fox is such a big threat

is because they're popular. So

much so that they've been copied by

both CNN and MSNBC. CNN actually

toyed with getting Rush Limbaugh to

help capture some of Fox's market

share. This is money, Your Honor.

Not politics.



Let me say, I am a great lover of

the news.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

I can see that.



SHORE

I watch it all. On days like 9/11,

or other world-changing events, the

news programs are nothing short of

spectacular. When President Kennedy

was shot, when Martin Luther King

delivered "I Have A Dream," when we

walked on the moon, our lives were

shaped by these events, in part

because of the news. But on all

the other days,... they're

businesses, looking to compete like

anybody else in a competitive market

place. They sell product. Fox is

simply a network like ABC, NBC,

CBS, CNN, -- chasing the God-almighty

buck. And even if you're determined

to believe that Fox is some evil

empire, looking to spread rightwing

propaganda... that still doesn't

change the fact that we are in this

room today because a principal is

shutting down the expression of

ideas... because he disagrees with

the content. If you say that's

okay... my, my. Then we really do

have a problem.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

I grew up watching Walter Cronkite.

It was a time, the news seemed to

be fair, objective... and trusted.

In fact, whenever we doubted the

blather coming out of the

politicians' mouths... it was the

press we turned to to get a sense

of the truth. Well... Walter

Cronkite has definitely left the

building. When it comes to

credibility... big media is dead.

Networks pander, some to

conservatives, others to liberals,

and I agree with Mr. Shore, it's

probably more about money than

ideology. Where it was once the

obligation of the media to ask the

tough questions, today we have a

network operating from a mantra,

"don't ask questions." Don't

criticize your government. It's

horrifying. But Fox is just as

free as other networks to adopt a

bias in hopes of attracting a bigger

audience.





JUDGE GREENBLATT (CONT'D)

Doesn't make for good journalism...

but this network is hardly alone.

Mr. Harper, I realize times have

changed in the high schools as well.

Hate violence is on the rise.

Administrators have to be more free

to curtail students' civil liberties,

including disruptive speech. But

attaching a device to a television

to block out a certain network

because of its content... that seems

to go too far. It's censorship.

And I cannot let it stand. Motion

for the plaintiff... is granted.

On 15 Mar 2005 07:37:29 -0800, wrote:

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.

Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they can
compare. You've spent your life seeing one side.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."