Guess who replaced Robert Novak at CNN?

[libertarian_knight]

Most are not aware of military presence abroad, but since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military had been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. Yet the resources available to fund these missions had steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel had decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services had decreased 16 percent. The military got used to deploying with insufficient and antiquated equipment.

That's, in effect, a 20% increase in funding per active personnel. (84% funding divided by 70% personnel)

 

[KCConservative]

Yes, in fact, most people, when speaking, have sound particles travel from their entire mouth. :roll:

What's it called when a person's 'sound particles' say opposite things?

 

[hipsterdufus]

What's it called when a person's 'sound particles' say opposite things?

Hmm...
Neo-con men?
Busheviks?
Faux Newz?
Darth Cheney?
Puffy McMoonface?
Bill O'Really?
Clean Air Act?
No-Child Left Behind?
"Clear Skies" initiative?
"Healthy Forests" program?
Heckuva job Brownie?
"We do not torture?"
"By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."?
"The administration does not comment on ongoing investigations" ?
"Smoking Gun - Mushroom Cloud"?

Thanks for the set-up. :mrgreen:

 

[libertarian_knight]

What's it called when a person's 'sound particles' say opposite things?

Sheesh, shoulda spent time correcting him on the physical properties of sound, since sound is a wave, and the particles don't "travel." (expulsion of air from breathing travel, but not due to, or as part of, sound)

But, what do you call talking about both sides of the mouth? Bushspeak.

no nation building - rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.
We do not negotiate with terrorists- we are in negotiations with terrorists.
You're with us or against us - but some of those against us, are with us, and some of those neither with or against, are against, but those with, are also against too.

 

[jallman]

Hmm...
Neo-con men?
Busheviks?
Faux Newz?
Darth Cheney?
Puffy McMoonface?
Bill O'Really?
Clean Air Act?
No-Child Left Behind?
"Clear Skies" initiative?
"Healthy Forests" program?
Heckuva job Brownie?
"We do not torture?"
"By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."?
"The administration does not comment on ongoing investigations" ?
"Smoking Gun - Mushroom Cloud"?

Thanks for the set-up. :mrgreen:

:rofl :applaud Not that I agree totally with what you are saying...but God I love seeing KC set himself up and then take it with no lube and no kiss...Good Job!

 

[hipsterdufus]

:rofl :applaud Not that I agree totally with what you are saying...but God I love seeing KC set himself up and then take it with no lube and no kiss...Good Job!

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Matinee on Sunday. Try the veal, it's the best in the city....:mrgreen:

 

[KCConservative]

:rofl :applaud Not that I agree totally with what you are saying...but God I love seeing KC set himself up and then take it with no lube and no kiss...Good Job!

That's disgusting, but not surprising coming from you. What hipster is playing dumb about is speaking from both sides of his mouth. Instead of refuting it, he ran over to MoveOn.Org for some catch phrases.

 

[hipsterdufus]

That's disgusting, but not surprising coming from you. What hipster is playing dumb about is speaking from both sides of his mouth. Instead of refuting it, he ran over to MoveOn.Org for some catch phrases.

Did you get the NSA to transfer over my Google search parameters? :mrgreen:

Have you no sense of humor my good man?

I laughed when my Repub pal wore a shirt with Monica Lewinsky's pic on it that said "I'm voting Republican because the Dems stained my reputation."

 

[cnredd]

Did you get the NSA to transfer over my Google search parameters? :mrgreen:

Have you no sense of humor my good man?

I laughed when my Repub pal wore a shirt with Monica Lewinsky's pic on it that said "I'm voting Republican because the Dems stained my reputation."

But the problem here was that what the Republican wore was a lie...

You laughed when you should have corrected him...Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with sex or a "stain"...It had to do with lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury...Unconcionable for a politician, let alone a former lawyer...

AND it was all for personal reasons...No national security issues...no foreign policy...just to save his own ass...

For you to laugh at that is weak beyond measure...

 

[libertarian_knight]

But the problem here was that what the Republican wore was a lie...

You laughed when you should have corrected him...Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with sex or a "stain"...It had to do with lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury...Unconcionable for a politician, let alone a former lawyer...

AND it was all for personal reasons...No national security issues...no foreign policy...just to save his own ass...

For you to laugh at that is weak beyond measure...

Yeah, but the shirt didn't have anything to do with impeachment either.

How did you feel about Bush's "The Consitutition is just a [blasphemy] piece of paper?"

 

[hipsterdufus]

But the problem here was that what the Republican wore was a lie...

You laughed when you should have corrected him...Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with sex or a "stain"...It had to do with lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury...Unconcionable for a politician, let alone a former lawyer...

AND it was all for personal reasons...No national security issues...no foreign policy...just to save his own ass...

For you to laugh at that is weak beyond measure...

Methinks you're trying to bait me. :2wave:

 

[cnredd]

Yeah, but the shirt didn't have anything to do with impeachment either.

How did you feel about Bush's "The Consitutition is just a [blasphemy] piece of paper?"

I'd need to see the context...

Reagan once said the US is gonna start bombing the Soviet Union in 5 minutes...

Pretty scary...until you find out he was just testing a microphone...

See?...Context is everything...Distorting the context is called "A Michael Moore movie"...

 

[cnredd]

Methinks you're trying to bait me. :2wave:

If, by baiting, you mean I'm trying to show you truth, then "Yes"...I'm baiting...

 

[MSgt]

That's, in effect, a 20% increase in funding per active personnel. (84% funding divided by 70% personnel)

It's not that simple. This money is used for paychecks, benefits, equipment, research, government contracts, ammo, fuel, housing, equipment maintenance, ship maintenance, technology purchases, supplies, air craft maintenance, vehicle maintenance, etc.

The government doesn't buy us most things. They give us the funds and we use it as needed. It's not split up just amongst the personnel. For some time, the funds just weren't there to do what all we needed.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I'd need to see the context...

Reagan once said the US is gonna start bombing the Soviet Union in 5 minutes...

Pretty scary...until you find out he was just testing a microphone...

See?...Context is everything...Distorting the context is called "A Michael Moore movie"...

Context was a meeting between Congressmen and the President in the Oval office, discussing renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a *******,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a *******ed piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a *******ed piece of paper.”

FYI the Blasphemy is realted to the 3rd of God's Commandments given to Moses.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.shtml

 

[cnredd]

Context was a meeting between Congressmen and the President in the Oval office, discussing renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.



FYI the Blasphemy is realted to the 3rd of God's Commandments given to Moses.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.shtml

I was reading this...and something just felt wrong...

And then I remembered why...

Doug Thompson...That name rings a bell...

Doug Thompson appears to have credibility issues. He self admittedly printed many stories over the course of 20 years based on discredited information.


"The bottom line is that someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme."

"Any news publication exists on the trust of its readers. Because I depended on a source that was not credible, I violated the trust that the readers of Capitol Hill Blue placed in me.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2529

It was pretty big of him to admit hes been printing inaccurate stories for 20 years.

How ironic it was revealed from a forged document story he had just submitted.

Also, please take a look at what's in his portfolio...

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

GOP disillusionment with Bush grows

Time to impeach a President

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

A vet speaks out about Bush

Is Bush Out of Control?

Do you notice a pattern yet?

Have you ever heard the phrase "consider the source"?...

We have a guy who continually posts Bush-hate articles who, in this instance, is more than happy to claim three people confirmed what GWB said, but all are unnamed...

And this is the only one who reports it...no MSM...just bloggers who link to it..

This doesn't raise a flag to you?...

Want some swampland cheap?...

 

[jallman]

That's disgusting, but not surprising coming from you. What hipster is playing dumb about is speaking from both sides of his mouth. Instead of refuting it, he ran over to MoveOn.Org for some catch phrases.

Yeah, but you did give him a beautiful set-up and I must say you bit it hard this time. And whats this "not surprising coming from you" BS? Did you get your wittle feewings huwt? LOL

 

[KCConservative]

Did you get your wittle feewings huwt? LOL

Come on, jallman. You're old enough to sit at the grown up table this year. Join us.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This only confirms my belief that all news stations are beginning a transformaton from reporting real news to reporting a bunch of editorialized garbage. I think we're going to have to abandon CNN and other news stations like it and find more reliable sources of information.

This should keep the conservatives happy though, if what their looking for in CNN is more conservatives.

What we should be looking for in all news sources is the whole perspective and the whole story about anything. You can't get that by having all right wing fanatics or all left wing nuts. That ANY conservative content is condemned by some on the Left says volumes about the Left not wanting good information. That ANY liberal content is condemned by some on the Right says volumes about the Right not wanting good information.

Honest people resist being told what they should believe and want it all so they can arrive at an informed opinion.

I think we should be encouraging more of that.

 

[FinnMacCool]

What we should be looking for in all news sources is the whole perspective and the whole story about anything. You can't get that by having all right wing fanatics or all left wing nuts. That ANY conservative content is condemned by some on the Left says volumes about the Left not wanting good information. That ANY liberal content is condemned by some on the Right says volumes about the Right not wanting good information.

Honest people resist being told what they should believe and want it all so they can arrive at an informed opinion.

I think we should be encouraging more of that.

We're in agreement then. . .the only problem is that the major corporations have money that they can use to advertise and draw people into watching them. The only thing that would protect this is state intervention which could be as bad, if not worse, then corporations running news stations.

 

[AlbqOwl]

We're in agreement then. . .the only problem is that the major corporations have money that they can use to advertise and draw people into watching them. The only thing that would protect this is state intervention which could be as bad, if not worse, then corporations running news stations.

As a former card-carying member of the media, and quite familiar with both television and newspaper news desks, I can assure you that those corporations have little or no influence over the news content which is mostly in the hands of left leaning or far left advocates. The news content will largely depend on the character of the managing editor as to how responsible he is willing to be re reporting all the facts.

No media source is likely to run a documentary directly smearing a large advertiser unless it is obvious the advertiser is going to be destroyed anyway. They gon't give a flying fig about the politics of the advertiser, however, especially when they are the only game in town and the advertisers have to have them.

Radio is some different. A radio station that leans left appeals to one group of advertisers and tries not to tick them off, but most 'liberal' radio has so few listeners that it can't make it without government subsidies or contributions. Most successful radio these days tilts right as right leaning listeners were hungry for an outlet friendlier to them and that bumped up the demographics to be appealing to advertisers.

The result is that you are far more likely to get the 'whole story' by watching the network news or reading your local newspaper supplemented by talk radio and the blogosphere. You probably won't get it from a single source.

 

[cnredd]

As a former card-carying member of the media, and quite familiar with both television and newspaper news desks, I can assure you that those corporations have little or no influence over the news content which is mostly in the hands of left leaning or far left advocates. The news content will largely depend on the character of the managing editor as to how responsible he is willing to be re reporting all the facts.

No media source is likely to run a documentary directly smearing a large advertiser unless it is obvious the advertiser is going to be destroyed anyway. They gon't give a flying fig about the politics of the advertiser, however, especially when they are the only game in town and the advertisers have to have them.

Radio is some different. A radio station that leans left appeals to one group of advertisers and tries not to tick them off, but most 'liberal' radio has so few listeners that it can't make it without government subsidies or contributions. Most successful radio these days tilts right as right leaning listeners were hungry for an outlet friendlier to them and that bumped up the demographics to be appealing to advertisers.

The result is that you are far more likely to get the 'whole story' by watching the network news or reading your local newspaper supplemented by talk radio and the blogosphere. You probably won't get it from a single source.

This is so true...

It's pretty funny that people will spout that Rupert Murdoch must have some sort of political agenda because he owns FoxNews, but nary a word about the fact that most of the things he owns are of a Liberal nature...

here's a list of what he's got a hand in...

How can someone says he's trying to push a "Conservative" agenda when more than half of the things he owns either portray or report on portrayals of explicit violence, nudity and what "Conservatives" are accused of saying..."The downfall of Western Civilization and morals"?...

Remember...the same guy that brought you O'Reilly & Hannity also brought you Al Bundy, "When Animals Attack", and "Temptation Island"...

He's playing both sides of the aisle, but most hear "FoxNews" and the kneejerk spasm is to accuse him of being some sort of right-wing hack...

He could care less...he's in the media mogul business for one thing...profit...

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is so true...

It's pretty funny that people will spout that Rupert Murdoch must have some sort of political agenda because he owns FoxNews, but nary a word about the fact that most of the things he owns are of a Liberal nature...

here's a list of what he's got a hand in...

How can someone says he's trying to push a "Conservative" agenda when more than half of the things he owns either portray or report on portrayals of explicit violence, nudity and what "Conservatives" are accused of saying..."The downfall of Western Civilization and morals"?...

Remember...the same guy that brought you O'Reilly & Hannity also brought you Al Bundy, "When Animals Attack", and "Temptation Island"...

He's playing both sides of the aisle, but most hear "FoxNews" and the kneejerk spasm is to accuse him of being some sort of right-wing hack...

He could care less...he's in the media mogul business for one thing...profit...

Fox News is definitely an anomily in the television world. If you sit and analyze their straight newscasts for several days, it is about as balanced as you can find anywhere. But because Fox doesn't automatically report two bad things about Bush if it reports a good thing, etc., leftists who are used to seeing their opinions reinforced in news casts think the entire Fox news report is flaming right wing propaganda or that Fox News is an extension of the Republican National Committee. Fox reports all the bad news the other networks and news channels report, but it reports good stuff too.

Again rightwingers hungry to see their perspective reinforced flocked to Fox and took it to No. #1 in its class in a couple of seasons. Leftwingers found this 'good news' policy to be unacceptable and have been condemning Fox News almost since its inception.

Fox does have more right tilting editorial programming than does CNN or CSNBC, and is proud of their rogue, badboy image. Being No. #1 tends to make em a bit proud and sassy. :smile:

And you're right about Murdoch. He's found conservatism sells and he sells it wherever there's a market. And he'll sell any Leftist program available that has a chance to gain market share too.

 

[akyron]

I was reading this...and something just felt wrong...

And then I remembered why...

Doug Thompson...That name rings a bell...



Also, please take a look at what's in his portfolio...

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

GOP disillusionment with Bush grows

Time to impeach a President

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

A vet speaks out about Bush

Is Bush Out of Control?

Do you notice a pattern yet?

Have you ever heard the phrase "consider the source"?...

We have a guy who continually posts Bush-hate articles who, in this instance, is more than happy to claim three people confirmed what GWB said, but all are unnamed...

And this is the only one who reports it...no MSM...just bloggers who link to it..

This doesn't raise a flag to you?...

Want some swampland cheap?...

Well does that make Doug Thompson (and everyone who quotes him as a source)
A)a liar
B)delusional
C)simply perpetually mistaken since the 80's.

 

[Stinger]

This only confirms my belief that all news stations are beginning a transformaton from reporting real news to reporting a bunch of editorialized garbage. I think we're going to have to abandon CNN and other news stations like it and find more reliable sources of information.

This should keep the conservatives happy though, if what their looking for in CNN is more conservatives.

I watch in order of preference FOX, MSNBC, CNN and rarely the networks. Seems to me they are striking a pretty good balance of hard news and commentary/editoral. Who wants 24 hour hard news? Guess you could watch CNN Headline news. Political editorializing goes back to the very founding of this country, it's the basis of the 1st Amendment, not hard news reporting.