Do you believe there is a leftist bias

[cawthon777 0]

the amount of oil under Iraq is staggering, and the money to be had from it even more so. We're talking trillions just in corporate taxes, and that's for proven reserves.

As he said, if it were about oil we would have done this a long time ago. And why Iraq when Saudi is right next door? Most of the hijackers were from Saudi and Saudi has more than twice as much oil as Iraq.

 

Let's go to war with Saudi Arabia!!!!!

 

 

 

...That's sarcasm. This is about American safety.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But the sheer number of viewers for them is embarassingly low.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/20...04-fox-news.htm

 

Latest ratings show Fox averages 666,000 viewers a day, compared with CNN's 546,000 and MSNBC's 290,000. By comparison, the evening newscasts on the Big Three networks draw in excess of 30 million viewers a day.

 

That was April of last year, when Fox's lead was at it's strongest. Everybody was checking it out. By now, people who have disagreed with some of it's "journalism" have left by now.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Whatever feeling you got from Bush was probably more frustration than anything else. From what I've read, most of the people on this thread know what they're talking about. However, how many people in the real world are really into politics or really watch the news (and can see through the news) on a regular basis?"

 

Just curious -- did you see a segment on Special Report this past week where some guy who runs a (political?) web site went to one of these protest marches and asked some people there their opinion of the Iraq/war issue -- Funny stuff.

 

And CNN is watched by a LOT of people -- at least when compared to MSNBC...

[cawthon777 0]

Just curious -- did you see a segment on Special Report this past week where some guy who runs a (political?) web site went to one of these protest marches and asked some people there their opinion of the Iraq/war issue -- Funny stuff.

lol No, but I can imagine.

 

I brought all that up from personal experience at college. We have an anti-war liberal student paper - which is fine, whatever - but the "facts" presented in supporting that argument are so flawed it's sad. For instance, the cover story in last week's edition claimed that the Bush Administration was finding European allies "few and far between". What bullshit. If these people knew the facts, they would have a much different opinion on the situation.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Dude, when it came to school newspapers, I read the editorial sections for a bigger laugh than I would the comics...

[cawthon777 0]

Dude, when it came to school newspapers, I read the editorial sections for a bigger laugh than I would the comics...

lol The sad part is this wasn't an editorial at all. This was a poorly-written (and as a journalism major I can say that) hard news piece. It was one of those hard news pieces with zero research put into it, though.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"I remember one semester I was an editor-elect (think second in command) and some chick wrote this HORRIBLE article reagarding some 1,000,000 man march-type event involving black women.

 

She had in her article as fact that the CIA tried to use crack to wipe out the black population.

 

When I talk her she needed to use the good-old "alleged" before this claim she threw a fit saying this indeed did happen.

 

To which I replied (the same way I usually do when faced with this conversation -- the following is paraphrased), "Well the CIA did a poor job at it since I see black people everywhere. Next time they should contract out to the private sector."

 

She stormed out. I got yelled at by my b*tch of an adviser and the article never got published.

 

Boo-hoo.

 

BTW: What area are you concentrating in -- I was a print man myself...

[cawthon777 0]

"I remember one semester I was an editor-elect (think second in command) and some chick wrote this HORRIBLE article reagarding some 1,000,000 man march-type event involving black women.

 

She had in her article as fact that the CIA tried to use crack to wipe out the black population.

 

When I talk her she needed to use the good-old "alleged" before this claim she threw a fit saying this indeed did happen.

 

To which I replied (the same way I usually do when faced with this conversation -- the following is paraphrased), "Well the CIA did a poor job at it since I see black people everywhere. Next time they should contract out to the private sector."

 

She stormed out. I got yelled at by my b*tch of an adviser and the article never got published.

 

Boo-hoo.

 

BTW: What area are you concentrating in -- I was a print man myself...

LOL That's great. I e-mailed the reporter in question and rather than her replying (I guess she was too busy) she had the news editor stick up for her and tell me that my opinion was only my own (well, kinda already knew that but whatever).

 

I think the way he put it was "It's clear to me that you're a very talented writer and if you would ever like to write for the paper I would encourage it ... but keep your opinions to yourself." (paraphrased of course)

 

I'm also print.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"For instance, the cover story in last week's edition claimed that the Bush Administration was finding European allies "few and far between".

 

Perhaps they were going between Paris and Strasbourg. Did you run a list of what European countries support the U.S. and what ones don't, or did you just write and complain. (PM me so we can take this further and not needlessly extend this thread any more than we already have...)

[Guest JMA]

Well, a lot of us have several posts in this thread already. I guess I'll just say how I feel (based on the topic).

 

Question presented: Do you believe there is a leftist bias in the mainstream media?

 

My answer: No. I do not think that there is.

[cawthon777 0]

Question presented: Do you believe there is a leftist bias in the mainstream media?

 

My answer: No. I do not think that there is.

Hmm, didn't see that coming lol

[Guest JMA]

Hmm, didn't see that coming lol

I thought I'd just get straight to the point.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

...That's sarcasm. This is about American safety.

Did I ever say Saddam never was a threat to safety? No. I said he presented a minor threat (especially since North Korea) and one that we sure took a long time to get to taking care of.

 

The fear is that American oil companies don't have to even match offers make by French or Russians, as any government in place after Saddam would want to appease the U.S. as not to possibly hinder rebuilding efforts.

 

I don't think the war is about oil, and the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" people are idiots, but saying that it's not in the interest of oil companies for the U.S. to go to Iraq is false.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

And, as several have pointed out, if this was "About oil" --- we'd have done this a long time ago.

Woah fuck, are you serious?

 

Shit, I'd better scratch the "No" off these "No War" banners.

 

 

 

 

The point is not to get improved or cheap access to Iraqi oil, the point is to put Iraqi fields under the control of American companies and

 

A) Have control of the oil, and thus a massive chip against OPEC, and a military toehold in the whole region, enhancing America's "don't fuck with us" status.

B) Sell the oil at a massive profit to other people

 

the amount of oil under Iraq is staggering, and the money to be had from it even more so. We're talking trillions just in corporate taxes, and that's for proven reserves.

OK, simple question --- If this was all about oil, why didn't we do this 2 years ago?

 

Why not 4 years ago?

 

It's not like we couldn't have wiped Iraq off the map if we chose.

 

We want to get rid of Saddam because he has shown himself to be somebody thoroughly untrustworthy and somebody who could be a huge problem for world stability.

 

And increasing the "Don't Screw With Us" status in that region is VERY much in our best interests.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"For instance, the cover story in last week's edition claimed that the Bush Administration was finding European allies "few and far between".

 

Perhaps they were going between Paris and Strasbourg. Did you run a list of what European countries support the U.S. and what ones don't, or did you just write and complain. (PM me so we can take this further and not needlessly extend this thread any more than we already have...)

Unless I'm totally off, I remember reading that 16 European countries are behind us.

 

E. Europe is DEFINITELY completely behind us.

 

Heck, Germany isn't so much against us as Schroeder is simply looking to cover his BUTT right now.

-=Mike --- Honestly, with Britain and Israel, do we NEED more allies?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

the amount of oil under Iraq is staggering, and the money to be had from it even more so. We're talking trillions just in corporate taxes, and that's for proven reserves.

As he said, if it were about oil we would have done this a long time ago. And why Iraq when Saudi is right next door? Most of the hijackers were from Saudi and Saudi has more than twice as much oil as Iraq.

 

Let's go to war with Saudi Arabia!!!!!

 

 

 

...That's sarcasm. This is about American safety.

Actually, seeing as how Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest exporters of Wahhabist Islam --- going after them wouldn't be a bad idea. They are one of the more consistent proponents of Islamic terrorism.

-=Mike --- The Saud family would fall tomorrow if we pulled out of the country today