Bush's fake Turkey

[Tock]

I couldn't find the related thread regarding what a nice thing it was for Bush to visit the troops in Baghdad, and how nice it was that Hillary Clinton had been spending several days with the troops in Afghanistan, but I ran into this little tidbit by Michael Moore:

========================
Turkeys on the Moon... from Michael Moore

December 8, 2003

Dear Mr. Bush,

Well, it's going on two weeks now since your surprise visit to one of the
two countries you now run and, I have to say, I'm still warmed by the
gesture. Man, take me along next time! I understand only 13 members of the
media went with you -- and it turns out only ONE of them was an actual
reporter for a newspaper. But you did take along FIVE photographers (hey, I
get it, screw the words, it's all about the pictures!), a couple wire
service guys, and a crew from the Fox News Channel (fair and balanced!).

Then, I read in the paper this weekend that that big turkey you were holding
in Baghdad (you know, the picture that's supposed to replace the
now-embarrassing footage of you on that aircraft carrier with the sign
"Mission Accomplished") -- well, it turns out that big, beautiful turkey of
yours was never eaten by the troops! It wasn't eaten by anyone! That's
because it wasn't real! It was a STUNT turkey, brought in to look like a
real edible turkey for all those great camera angles.

Now I know some people will say you are into props (like the one in the
lower extremities of your flyboy suit), but hey, I get it, this is theater!
So what if it was a bogus turkey? The whole trip was bogus, all staged to
look like "news." The fake honey glaze on that bird wasn't much different
from the fake honey glaze that covers this war. And the fake stuffing in the
fake bird was just the right symbol for our country during these times.
America loves fake honey glaze, it loves to be stuffed, and, dammit, YOU
knew that -- that's what makes you so in touch with the people you lead!

It was also a good idea that you made the "press" on that trip to Baghdad
pull the shades down on the plane. No one in the media entourage complained.
They like the shades pulled and they like to be kept in the dark. It's more
fun that way. And, when you made them take the batteries out of their cell
phones so they wouldn't be able to call anyone, and they dutifully
complied -- that was genius! I think if you had told them to put their hands
on their heads and touch their noses with their tongues, they would have
done that, too! That's how much they like you. You could have played "Simon
Says" the whole way over there. It wouldn't have been that much different
from "Karl Says," a game they LOVE to play every day with Mr. Rove.

Well, if you're planning any surprises for Christmas, don't forget to
include me. When I heard last week that you wanted to send a man back to the
moon, I thought, get the fake goose ready -- that's where ol' George is
going for the holidays! I don't blame you, what with nearly 3 million jobs
disappeared, and a $281 billion surplus disappeared, and the USA stuck in a
war that will never end -- who wouldn't want to go to the moon! This time,
take ALL the media with you! Embed them on the moon! They'll love it there!
It looks just like Crawford! You can golf on the moon, too. You'll have so
much fun up there, you might not want to come back. Better take Cheney with
you, too. Pretend it's a medical experiment or something. "That's one small
step for man, one giant leap for every American who's sick and tired of all
this crap."

Yours,

Michael Moore

[email protected]

www.michaelmoore.com
==============================

Well, we all will agree (yes?) that M. Moore's reputation for impartial journalism has been somewhat sullied over the years, so I did a little checking . . .

. . . and it seems that yes indeed, the turkey Bush held for all the cameras to take was a fake. It sure did make for a great picture, though. Check out
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_844321.html?menu=
or do your own yahoo search on the words "turkey bush fake" and see what you get.

I didn't bother to check any of the other stuff Mr Moore brought up in his letter, but it kinda makes me wonder about a few things I won't go into here . . . but I kinda get the feeling now that, for him, the whole thing was more for his re-election campaign than for the troops. Hillary's trip was probably done for similar reasons . . . but what troubles me the most, is how none of the usual media have called him on it. I get nervous when the most powerful guy in the world does stuff and the major journalists don't talk about it . . . it's almost like they're afraid of not getting invited to the next show-and-tell if they write something the President's handlers don't like . . .

Oh well, I thought it was curious, and not having any nekkid women's titties to post, this is gonna be the best I can do . . .
--Tock

[Mart651]

by the lead in i thought i found something i could post whore on but it started leaning further and furthe to the left that i fell out of my chair.
I will stay out of this. I know how this one goes.

[sin]

a president doing something to get re-elected? im shocked! oh my god its almost like their in it for themselves.
thats as much as im gonna say, since i know the firestorm will hit this thread soon.

[Mart651]

Screw it lets get it started.
GO BUSH!! GO BUSH!! GO BUSH!!
I WOULD VOTE FOR YOU A THOUSAND TIMES
but i am a felon and i know more than one vote would get noticed.

[ripped4fsu]

Ummm... dangerous thread. I'll just say this... I love my country. but I aint too crazy about the jokers running it.

[Mr. Death]

Michael Moore is irrelevent. His opinions mean nothing, because he hates Bush so much he applies blind rhetoric to anything that Bush does. If Bush personally went to a laboratory and found the cure for AIDS, Michael Moore would say that he was subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry. If Bush solved the Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Michael Moore would accuse him of unilateralism. Bush could find Michael Moore's Christmas wish list, make all of his pipe dreams come true, and Michael Moore would criticize him for having the audacity to even begin to fulfill his wildest dreams. When you criticize just for the sake of demeaning a person, without even listing a possible counter philosophy, you become irrelevent. Michael Moore, say hello to Al Frankin, Terry MaCauliffe, Martin Sheen, etc.

[mfenske]

Crap, I wasn't going to comment on this one but oh well.
Posted by Mr. Death - Today at 11:53 AM

Michael Moore is irrelevent. His opinions mean nothing, because he hates Bush so much he applies blind rhetoric to anything that Bush does. If Bush personally went to a laboratory and found the cure for AIDS, Michael Moore would say that he was subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry. If Bush solved the Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Michael Moore would accuse him of unilateralism. Bush could find Michael Moore's Christmas wish list, make all of his pipe dreams come true, and Michael Moore would criticize him for having the audacity to even begin to fulfill his wildest dreams. When you criticize just for the sake of demeaning a person, without even listing a possible counter philosophy, you become irrelevent.

I will agree with you that Mr. Moore doesn't like GW. I don't like him either. I am not so anti-Bush that I won't give him credit where it's due. His immediate handling of the post 9/11 was good, better than Gore's would have been. That was 2 years ago. What scares me about the Bush administration is like Moore says is the heavy biasing of the media or rather the lack of coverage for his many goof ups. Finally, I wish Mr. Bush would go ahead and solve AIDS, Isreal/Palestine, or eliminate the debt I would definitely give him credit and maybe even vote for him. But, I think we both know that ain't gonna happen. Any day that George gets up and ties his own shoes is a good day in Washington. Mark

[Mr. Death]

Crap, I wasn't going to comment on this one but oh well.
Posted by Mr. Death - Today at 11:53 AM

What scares me about the Bush administration is like Moore says is the heavy biasing of the media or rather the lack of coverage for his many goof ups. Finally, I wish Mr. Bush would go ahead and solve AIDS, Isreal/Palestine, or eliminate the debt I would definitely give him credit and maybe even vote for him. But, I think we both know that ain't gonna happen. Any day that George gets up and ties his own shoes is a good day in Washington. Mark

Media bias in favor of Bush? You're kidding right. Independent polls show that the media is over 90% liberal Democrat. Anyone can watch the news and blatantly see that. And if you think that there is a lack of coverage, who is to blame for that? Bush doesn't decide what stories run in the newspaper, or on television. The comments made about AIDS, etc. were meant to be hyperbole. If you are waiting for a president to solve those ills, among others, before you give them your support, kick back and relax. Bill Clinton couldn't solve them, but I bet you didn't complain then. Your last comment doesn't even deserve a response.

[markas214]

Michael Moore is irrelevent. His opinions mean nothing, because he hates Bush so much he applies blind rhetoric to anything that Bush does. If Bush personally went to a laboratory and found the cure for AIDS, Michael Moore would say that he was subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry. If Bush solved the Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Michael Moore would accuse him of unilateralism. Bush could find Michael Moore's Christmas wish list, make all of his pipe dreams come true, and Michael Moore would criticize him for having the audacity to even begin to fulfill his wildest dreams. When you criticize just for the sake of demeaning a person, without even listing a possible counter philosophy, you become irrelevent. Michael Moore, say hello to Al Frankin, Terry MaCauliffe, Martin Sheen, etc.

Wow, this could be a Clinton hating post if you replaced the name Moore with Limbaugh. More people made a name for themselves (and loads of money) hating Clinton on radio, in print,and TV than all the other presidents combined.

[Cycleon]

thats because part of what they hated about Clinton was that he personally screwed up, lied and cheated - on Bush, they hate him personally for his policies

and that "lone newsie reporter" was from the Washington post - that bastion of far right conservatisim and the others were all from the wire services - if the had all been newsies, then moore would have wondered why no pics - but probably more wire photogs on thxgiving in TX than newsies - sinece no one thought that there would be news to report, maybe just a few nice bush family pics - im sure the fact that a reporter from Bloomberg news was also only there because Bloomberg is now a republican mayor in NYC - such idiocy

doesnt matter tho - scream allll you want - just get ready for 4 more years of Bush - and if you will scream loud enough, maybe we will get a super majority in the Senate so we can get some real judges in there instead of these idiots clinton and carter put in

[Neo]

my .02....I can't stand Michael Moore. He's a bitch......

[chicamahomico]

Tock.....you're posts are awesome, plain and simple. IMO right wing Yankees don't like Moore's opinions because he often provides valid arguments(and just as many stupid ones) against long held, American beliefs. Some of you guys sound like religious zealots defending their religion without question when people criticize your country and/or it's government's actions and policies.

[shootdeep]

think about the risk he took...so what if it was a show turkey. at least he didn't make the troops wait an extra hour to eat like hitlery(not misspelled)did. the troops not only got to eat on time, they were served by the president himself. last but CERTAINLY not least, micheal mooron is an idiot.

[mfenske]

Posted by shootdeep - Today at 05:31 PM
think about the risk he took...so what if it was a show turkey. at least he didn't make the troops wait an extra hour to eat like hitlery(not misspelled)did. the troops not only got to eat on time, they were served by the president himself. last but CERTAINLY not least, micheal mooron is an idiot.

Oops, I forgot about those 6 million Jews that Hillary killed. How could I be so dense? I am happy the troops ate on time. What time is that? Did GW say it's 12:00 must be time for the Internationally Delegated Ingestion Of Turkey (IDIOT). Lastly if Micheal Moore is an idiot, what does that make GW? Mark

[Mr. Death]

IMO right wing Yankees don't like Moore's opinions because he often provides valid arguments(and just as many stupid ones) against long held, American beliefs.

That's exactly the opposte of why we don't like people such as Michael Moore. We dislike like them because they don't make valid statements on policy. They use inflammatory language that is meant to demean the president on a personal level, not a political one. There are also people of his equivalence on the right, such as Ann Coulter. They are just as bad, and are a detriment to their party. As far as the Hitlery comment, that is just ridiculous. People on the left commonly make those claims about Bush as well. Bush is nothing like Hitler, and neither is Hillary. Attacks like these are the types of remarks I oppose from either side. Even though I am a Republican, I respect anyone from either side that makes clear and consice policy arguments without reverting to the all to common vitriolic personal attacks.

[tryingtogetbig]

I didn't even read it Tock...sorry. I saw Michael Moore and quit reading. What an idiot he is. Look at him...he's a fat lazy wannabe. Somone tell him to take a shower sometime. Fukin hippy.

peace,

ttgb

[cooksbrut]

Mr. Death you forgot to add Susan Surandon and Tim Robbins to that list... let them all burn

[Mart651]

What is so stupid is if it was a dem. Michael would have been jumping up and down and saying how caring he was no matter what kind of turkey it was. See the problem? Even if republicans do something good the dems have to find fault. Yes I know the republicans do pretty much the same thing but it usually makes a little more sense. Not just talking to hear them selves talk.

[Tock]

Media bias in favor of Bush? You're kidding right. Independent polls show that the media is over 90% liberal Democrat. Anyone can watch the news and blatantly see that.

And if you think that there is a lack of coverage, who is to blame for that? Bush doesn't decide what stories run in the newspaper, or on television. .

==================

Um, the media is 90% liberal Democrat, and there are independant polls to prove it? Ummmmmm . . . I don't think so. Last I heard, there were 6 or 7 multi-national corporations that owned around 90% of the news outlets in the US.

From http://www.corporations.org/media/ ---->
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 5 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html Identifies the biggest 10 media corporations in 2002 as being:
1) AOL/Time Warner (Name recently changed to just Time Warner)
2) General electric
3) Viacom
4) Walt Disney
5) Liberty Media
6) AT&T
7) News Corporation
8) Bertlesmann
9) Vivenon Universal
10) Sony

As far as your charge that these companies are all "liberal Democrats," keep in mind that the people on the Board of Directors of all these multi-billion $$$ corporations are astute business people, are legally obligated to make the sort of business decisions that maximize the return on investment to their shareholders, and hob-nob with the rich and republican law-makers as frequently as it takes to improve corporate profit. Media giants have been pushing the FCC to allow each company to own up to 45% (up from 35%) of all the media in any particular city. What this essentially means is two companies like GE and Walt Disney could potentially own 90% of all the TV, radio, cable, newspapers, magazines, and etc, and if the management of those two companies decided they didn't want to let particular news stories get out, they could effectively squash that information. Republicans generally favor this madness, Democrats oppose it. There's been an uproar against the FCC proposal, and you can find the latest on it by checking around with a Google or Yahoo search.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on the absurdity of the notion that 90% of the media is controlled by liberal Democrats. Now, what may have given you that impression are the journalists who do their jobs and ask politicians "The Hard Questions," and push and investigate until they get satisfactory answers. Whenever any president gives a press conference and they have a Q & A period afterward, geez, regardless of party affiliation, I want the journalists to ask tough questions, even if (and especially if) it embarrasses the president. In a democracy, it's imperative that a free press do this, because you and I can't spend all day in Washington DC checking on what's going on, and somebody has to double-check what these guys say to make sure everything is on the up-and-up.
Some people see media reporters asking tough questions of a conservative politician and assume they're badgering because they dislike him or belong to another political party and they're just trying to put him down so they can get their guy elected. I don't think that's the way it works. It's just the free press checking to see that, as I said, everything is on the up-and-up. If the answer doesn't pass the "smell test," the good journalists will investigate further, ask more probing questions, and see just how bad things might be. And sometimes, things are pretty **** bad, and if it wasn't for sharp journalists, Government Politicians could just pass out Official Drivel, and We The People would have to be satisfied with whatever they said.
So yah, we in the US of A are **** lucky to have obnoxious, probing journalists. We're not so lucky that so much of what they write gets edited or censored by the conservative publishers, concerned by profit or losing access to public officials, or because it offends their personal sensabilities.


-----
Then, you offered: "Bush doesn't decide what stories run in the newspaper, or on television." Then I'm sure you have not noticed that you haven't seen any caskets filled with American Servicemen on TV lately. That's because the Bush Administration has declared that the media shouldn't do it anymore.
Check out these references:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...opinion.dover/
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storyrhs

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oc...bush-o23.shtml

Now, it seems to me that when the government bans media coverage of an event as innocuous as unloading American Hero's caskets from a plane, something is wrong . . . very wrong. It stinks to high heaven . . . and if a President will stoop to banning something as simple as this, what else might he ban (that we don't know about)?
It's just another situation that creates distrust in public officials. Not a good thing.

But, if you don't mind that all the news information you get comes screened and packaged, and pre-digested from one or two big multi-national corporations, and if you don't mind that your president can tell these news corporations that they can't show Servicemen's coffins on TV anymore, then let me suggest you move to Cuba or some other communist country where they do this sort of thing all day long, and gov't corruption flourishes and goes unchallenged. Yah, you might even feel comfortable in George Orwell's world of 1984. Yah.

Enough of this post . . . I gotta get me some protein . . .
--Tock

[Tock]

I didn't even read it Tock...sorry. I saw Michael Moore and quit reading. What an idiot he is. Look at him...he's a fat lazy wannabe. Somone tell him to take a shower sometime. Fukin hippy.

peace,

ttgb

===================


Yah, there's quite a bit there . . . and I agree that he's hardly an impartial journalist, given to overstatement. But I saw the allegation, checked it out, and, to my surprise, it turned out to be true. I didn't check out anything else he brought up, my time is not infinite . . .

Yah, I'll call it a deception because no one in their right mind parades his ass around a crowded cafeteria carrying a **** fake turkey on a platter like it the real **** thing (you can tell I'm annoyed--lol). The shot of him standing in the food serving line ladling out gobs of mashed potatoes was fine--he was actually doing something that real people do. Not very photogenic, at least not as photogenic as that shot of him that looked like he was MR. Thanksgiving Himself, serving Nature's Bounty to patriotic American Boys overseas. I'm sure the whole thing was planned beforehand so they'd have something fancier to put on TV than GW ladeling out gobs of mashed potato.
. And that offends me two ways:
1) that government officials work to get scripted film footage, quite unrepresentative of what was actually going on, produced and aired in what has been called "the liberal Democratic media."
2) And I'm pissed that during the broadcast of the event, no mention was made that the **** thing was fake; I'm pissed that the media (as "liberal and Democratic" as it is) was manipulated into presenting that staged image as real.

It's the deception that irritates me . . . yes, this one was a small one, I'll agree. But how many small ones are there? How many big ones are there? And why the xxxx doesn't the media point them out?

Ah . . . I was going to rant for a while longer, but I figure it's pointless, because I doubt anyone really gives a xxxx. In 1980 there were 50-something media companies controlling 90% of the US media. Now there are 6. I suppose eventually it will get down to one or two. When the president wants to get something put on TV, all he'll have to do is call the board of GE and/or Walt Disney Corp. and they'll send word down the pipeline to get it on without any critical analysis. In return, he'll see that they get a gov't contract for -whatever-. It's a dirty business, this image crap. I ain't buying it, 'cause it stinks to high heaven . . .

[hoss827]

I'll say this..I love my country, i'm even going into the Air Force after I graduate to defend it. But I don't like who is running it....

[Mart651]

I'll say this..I love my country, i'm even going into the Air Force after I graduate to defend it. But I don't like who is running it....

I thought it was the marines

[Tock]

I thought it was the marines

The Air Force has much better food, living quarters, working conditions than the other services. Harder to make rank, but then it's harder to lose it, too.
Some people like camping in mud holes in winter, I don't. That's why I enlisted in the USAF.

[Mart651]

The Air Force has much better food, living quarters, working conditions than the other services. Harder to make rank, but then it's harder to lose it, too.
Some people like camping in mud holes in winter, I don't. That's why I enlisted in the USAF.

Nothing wrong with the A.F. Maybe he changed his mind or maybe he forgot just got to keep up with Hoss he can be a little slippery.

[markas214]

thats because part of what they hated about Clinton was that he personally screwed up, lied and cheated - on Bush, they hate him personally for his policies
...
doesnt matter tho - scream allll you want - just get ready for 4 more years of Bush - and if you will scream loud enough, maybe we will get a super majority in the Senate so we can get some real judges in there instead of these idiots clinton and carter put in

Yeah in the mean time my kids will be saddled with trillions of dollars of debt to pay for King George IIs policies. That's what really gets me about Bush. Conservatives used to always moan about "tax and spend" liberals. But when they borrow and spend that seems to be OK for them. Clinton was hated from day 1 long before a 3 judge conservative panel hand picked by Newt and co. appointed Kenneth Starr to start diiging up dirt. None of his "investegations" resulted in charges. It wasn't until Clinton was set up by America's ugliest woman Linda Tripp that they "got" him for lying about a blowjob. Everybody I know made a lot of money in the 90s. Under Bush only the very richest are getting a piece of the pie. History will judge who was the better president.

[Mr. Death]

==================

Um, the media is 90% liberal Democrat, and there are independant polls to prove it? Ummmmmm . . . I don't think so. Last I heard, there were 6 or 7 multi-national corporations that owned around 90% of the news outlets in the US.

Sure, I agree that companies that own many media outlets are conservative, as well they should be with the Democracts trying to restrict their every movement with socialist policies. Clearly, I was talking about the media. Let me say it slowly. Me-di-a. In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way) of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.

[Dude-Man]

I just hate that fat sommabich moore.

He talks and talks, but in a situation where he was given power he would **** it up worse than we could possibly imagine.. he'd make guns illegal, which would cause crime to skyrocket for many reasons.. among many other idiotic things.

Moore makes me sick to my stomache... but i'm sure soon he'll die of a coronary and we'll be rid of this lice infection that he calls his own form of independant film.

[mfenske]

Posted by chrisAdams - Today at 11:54 AM
I just hate that fat sommabich moore.

He talks and talks, but in a situation where he was given power he would **** it up worse than we could possibly imagine.. he'd make guns illegal, which would cause crime to skyrocket for many reasons.. among many other idiotic things.

Yes Michael Moore is fat. I may be mistaken but I think he is a member of the NRA and I believe on top of that he might be a hunter. What I think that a lot of people fail to see is that he isn't saying that his way is the correct way, but that what we are being fed by society and the media might not be entirely true. It seems to me that was the point of Moore's letter and Tock's post. Mark

[chicamahomico]

I just hate that fat sommabich moore.

He talks and talks, but in a situation where he was given power he would **** it up worse than we could possibly imagine.. he'd make guns illegal, which would cause crime to skyrocket for many reasons.. among many other idiotic things.

Moore makes me sick to my stomache... but i'm sure soon he'll die of a coronary and we'll be rid of this lice infection that he calls his own form of independant film.

I assume you are referring to Bowling for Columbine. The point of that movie was not to say "outlaw guns" or "guns are bad" or any other such nonsense. Canadians have more guns per capita than Americans and the crime rate in Canada is non existant compared to the USA. But that's not the real issue. The point of that movie is to get Americans to introspectively look at their society, which is a good thing.....for everyone in every society to do.

[Tock]

Sure, I agree that companies that own many media outlets are conservative, as well they should be with the Democracts trying to restrict their every movement with socialist policies. Clearly, I was talking about the media. Let me say it slowly. Me-di-a. In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way) of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.

==========================


Ok, because a previous statistic you quoted without a reference was in error, I'm gonna call you on this statistic you're citing:

"In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way) of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted for Bill Clinton in 1996."

I don't beleive that statistic is true. Perhaps Slate.com had an un-official poll thing they did just on their website, similar to the polls that appear on this website from time to time, asking people to identify their profession and who they voted for (but I doubt that, as well). Or, the poll may have had other peculiarities that would rule it out as a valid sampling of American journalists. So, I'd appreciate it if you post the specific page where the information you claim can be viewed. Otherwise, If you can't, I'll just assume you pulled this claim out of xxxx xxxx like the other claim.


Again, the people who decide what gets published are not the lower-level journalists, but the owners of the press itself, the publishers. They set editorial policy, editors and journalists abide by it, else they're out of a job. Maybe you can cite a statstic that identifies the political leanings of publishers . . .

--Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

If people wanted to hear more liberal talk then there would be more liberal broadcasting going on. It's called supply and demand. Something that doesn't exist in a socialist mindset.

As far as asking the hard questions...they could just answer with lies like Clinton did.

"Canadians have more guns per capita than we do..." That is way off base. Owning a gun in Canada is a VERY difficult process. You have to get "permission" to transport a gun to go hunt, etc. Talk with RedKetchup about what all is involved with owning guns in Canada. I'm not sure but I don't think handguns are allowed.

All this talk about GW and a fake turkey. Do we not want to talk about an economy that was already on the tumble that GW inherited from Clinton and has fixed with his tax cuts. NO....let's talk about him holding a fake turkey (which by the way, was mainly for the pictures that were taken with the soldiers...which most dems won't even recognize as being the important reason he was in Iraq to begin with.)

While we are on the Clinton subject...why doesn't anyone mention how bad he cut the military back to basically nothing. Thank goodness GW has come back in and fixed that little screw up also!

And regarding the economy in the 1990's...you are right, it was a GREAT economy. Of course we had a republican house and senate passing all of the laws. How could it not have been a good economy?

Does no one want to talk about backstabbing Al Gore? Wow...what a good friend he is. Sure wish he was running the country????????????? NOT!

peace,

ttgb

[Gmill13]

A good example of Liberal controlled MEDIA. GO TO GOOGLE and TYPE IN MISERABLE FAILURE in the search key , Then instead of hitting search hi"feeling lucky"
Check that ****e out.

[Dude-Man]

Yes Michael Moore is fat. I may be mistaken but I think he is a member of the NRA and I believe on top of that he might be a hunter. What I think that a lot of people fail to see is that he isn't saying that his way is the correct way, but that what we are being fed by society and the media might not be entirely true. It seems to me that was the point of Moore's letter and Tock's post. Mark

He is definitely not a member of the NRA. He went to charlton heston's house in bowling for columbine and berated the NRA. He also does not own a gun... so he can't be a hunter.

[markas214]

If people wanted to hear more liberal talk then there would be more liberal broadcasting going on. It's called supply and demand. Something that doesn't exist in a socialist mindset.

As far as asking the hard questions...they could just answer with lies like Clinton did.

"Canadians have more guns per capita than we do..." That is way off base. Owning a gun in Canada is a VERY difficult process. You have to get "permission" to transport a gun to go hunt, etc. Talk with RedKetchup about what all is involved with owning guns in Canada. I'm not sure but I don't think handguns are allowed.

All this talk about GW and a fake turkey. Do we not want to talk about an economy that was already on the tumble that GW inherited from Clinton and has fixed with his tax cuts. NO....let's talk about him holding a fake turkey (which by the way, was mainly for the pictures that were taken with the soldiers...which most dems won't even recognize as being the important reason he was in Iraq to begin with.)

While we are on the Clinton subject...why doesn't anyone mention how bad he cut the military back to basically nothing. Thank goodness GW has come back in and fixed that little screw up also!

And regarding the economy in the 1990's...you are right, it was a GREAT economy. Of course we had a republican house and senate passing all of the laws. How could it not have been a good economy?

Does no one want to talk about backstabbing Al Gore? Wow...what a good friend he is. Sure wish he was running the country????????????? NOT!

peace,

ttgb

Ha. How could Clinton unilaterrally cut back the military, which he didn't, without the aproval of the Republican legistature who as you point out had control. Bush has not added one soldier since taking office. In fact if you have any friends or family, I have 2 nephews in the 82nd Airborne, one in Mosul, you would know these guys are demoralized and aren't reenlisting. I would imagine a manpower shortage and reinstitution of the draft if there is a GW part II in the Whitehouse in 2005.

[Tock]

If people wanted to hear more liberal talk then there would be more liberal broadcasting going on. It's called supply and demand. Something that doesn't exist in a socialist mindset.
ttgb

==================

There's an interesting point . . .
What's with all the complaining about "The Liberal Media" when all that's on talk radio are whiny conservatives obsessed with "Billery?" Do ya think it's some sort of a "Liberal Democrat" inspired plan to take over the country?

Geez . . .
First the the media is too liberal, run by Liberal Democrats, then it's mostly conservative, thanks to supply and demand.

Hah . . .

--Tock

[Mr. Death]

==========================


Ok, because a previous statistic you quoted without a reference was in error, I'm gonna call you on this statistic you're citing:

"In a poll taken by slate.com (a liberal website by the way) of reporters from all sections of the media, over 90% had voted for Bill Clinton in 1996."

I don't beleive that statistic is true. Perhaps Slate.com had an un-official poll thing they did just on their website, similar to the polls that appear on this website from time to time, asking people to identify their profession and who they voted for (but I doubt that, as well). Or, the poll may have had other peculiarities that would rule it out as a valid sampling of American journalists. So, I'd appreciate it if you post the specific page where the information you claim can be viewed. Otherwise, If you can't, I'll just assume you pulled this claim out of xxxx xxxx like the other claim.

It took me a while, but I found it. It had been a few years so my information was a little off. The survey was by The Roper Center not slate.com, and it was 89% instead of 90%. I couldn't get the entire information because you have to pay to access it. http://www.aim.org/publications/spec...orts/bias.html

[Cycleon]

well, the print media is mostly liberal - especially editorial staff at most big newspapers - only exceptions are NY post and Wall jounal. IN TV it is mostly liberal but with the success of fox, there have been more conservatives starting to get on and even CNN and the networks are trying to sound a little more conservative to respond. - Now in radio it is mostly conservative - because they were largely shut out of the print and tv so this was a place for them to shout their angst - truth is Rush did a pretty good job of blazing a trail there and although he is a bombastic fellow, he does give good analysis when he isnt patting himself on the back.

in mags it is probably a 25/75 advantage to libs - all the glitz mags are pretty liberal but the policy mags are fairly split - current event mags (time, us news, etc) are medium with a slightly liberal bias - but much less so than most news editors

[chicamahomico]

A good example of Liberal controlled MEDIA. GO TO GOOGLE and TYPE IN MISERABLE FAILURE in the search key , Then instead of hitting search hi"feeling lucky"
Check that ****e out.

OMFG!!!! This is the last shred of proof I need that Google is the all-knowing all-seeing oracle.

Funny, and has NOTHING to do with Liberal media. Here's how it's done: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-b...ness-headlines

[Mr. Death]

well, the print media is mostly liberal - especially editorial staff at most big newspapers - only exceptions are NY post and Wall jounal. IN TV it is mostly liberal but with the success of fox, there have been more conservatives starting to get on and even CNN and the networks are trying to sound a little more conservative to respond. - Now in radio it is mostly conservative - because they were largely shut out of the print and tv so this was a place for them to shout their angst - truth is Rush did a pretty good job of blazing a trail there and although he is a bombastic fellow, he does give good analysis when he isnt patting himself on the back.

in mags it is probably a 25/75 advantage to libs - all the glitz mags are pretty liberal but the policy mags are fairly split - current event mags (time, us news, etc) are medium with a slightly liberal bias - but much less so than most news editors

I would agree with your assessment CYCLEON. I'll add The Washington Times to your list of large conservative newspapers.

[cooksbrut]

my boss/broker just spent a few thousand dollars a plate to dine with GW and friends a several days ago. she said he was amazing .. carismatic and graceful.. took time to speak with everyone... wonderful evening were her words .. just figured id add that even though it has no purpose