Charles Gibson...ABC News.

[KCFlyer]

You care to explain?

The transcript looked worse than what was quoted "out of context". It did seem like an awful lot of words for "yes" or "no" answer.

And if Cowboy W's goal was " rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better." (her words, not out of context I hope) then why did he invade a SECULAR nation? Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade a country that housed "Islamic Extremists"?

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Baroque believes in attacking sovereign countries the same as Bush/McCain/Palin/Biden do. What’s your point?

Is it safe to say you will not be saying a prayer to God on tech2101’s behalf?

The point is, he didn't need Charlie Gibson to explain the doctrine to him.

It is safe to say that what I pray for and who I pray to is none of your business and irrelevent to this thread.

Nice try though.

By the way, you do know that Baroque is a form of art and scupture used in many churches don't you? It's not really an insult.

 

[delldude]

Well gosh-golly...you have me convinced. Try this link:
"Media Watch Dog group created and run by NeoCons"

But I really want to thank you for the correction you provided about media bias. As always...you pick a totally unaffiliated website.

Rasmussen no good either?

Half of Americans think the press is trying to help Sen. Barack Obama win the presidential election, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports.

In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month.

. If anything, Rasmussen said, he was surprised that there weren’t more respondents alleging that the media supported McCain. 😱

Duh

Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches.

While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a conservative bias. Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

Last year study

Make you feel better old buddy?

 

[Ralph]

Well, is everyone going to try to "push the envelope" today? Attempts to identify a forum member as someone else is considered an attempt to "out" that member, and will earn time off. Please do not do this. If you suspect that someone has registered under more than one name, please send a pm to the moderators. Thank you.

P.S. We have already been pm'd about the member in question.

 

[delldude]

The Los Angeles Times was among the news outlets crying foul after ABC's interview yesterday with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her first since Sen. John McCain named her his running mate.

The Times took Charlie Gibson to task for distorting statements Palin made about the Iraq war at her former Assemblies of God church in Wasilla, Alaska.

Source

 

[cooper43]

Rasmussen no good either?





Duh





Last year study

Make you feel better old buddy?

Maybe ther right is just more paranoid that everyone is out to get them. LOL

 

[Ch. 12]

Delldude-

Just like the lies that the swift boaters had the public believing... The Rep party is an EXCELLENT marketing group and can sell anything. Hell...any group that can get Bush re-elected after what he did in his FIRST four years in office is excellent at deception and selling their story. The Reps have been SO GOOD and own so much of the media that they have created the feeling among lemmings that the media is slanted. Your innocent looking website that is supposed to look unbiased (until you read about it's history and who supports it) is one of many examples of the methods employed. You see...the whole 'media bias' issue is a paradox. Reps have stated it so often and with the only facts showing the exact opposite (Murdoch and co own the majority of the press and Bush and co 'flushed' PBS and put in only conservatives to run it) that the public has begun to believe it. The Reps have USED the media to pitch this ad. So thanks the the Rep bias, the world thinks that the media is biased towards the Dems. How is that for a paradox???

 

[delldude]

Like.....Duh...man.

If you insist....see you on the back side of the weekend

 

[KCFlyer]

P.S. We have already been pm'd about the member in question.

Why would anybody pm a moderator about anybody else who posts in the Water Cooler? If you don't have a thick skin, stay out off the political threads.

 

[eolesen]

Just a hunch, but I don't think the moderators were referring to content as much as they were alluding to someone we know who is posting under a new ID. If you're sent to the cornfield, creating a new user ID isn't too difficult, but it's probably grounds to get you more time picking corn...



What Gibson was hoping for as a "Gotcha!" moment fizzled. Palin didn't gaffe, nor did she cave in under pressure. She gave a long response (funny how when The One gets lost in one of his sermons, the media are too bedazzled to ever comment on it....).

One of the nutjob blogs I was reading clarified that there have in fact been three Bush doctrines in the past eight years....

1) American Unilateralism (with regard to not ratifying Kyoto or the ABM treaty)

2) "You're either with us or against us"

3) Anticipatory Self Defense (what Gibson was trying to get)

and

4) Expansion of Freedom

Read for yourself...

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrau..._gibsons_gaffee

 

[cooper43]

Just a hunch, but I don't think the moderators were referring to content as much as they were alluding to someone we know who is posting under a new ID. If you're sent to the cornfield, creating a new user ID isn't too difficult, but it's probably grounds to get you more time picking corn...



What Gibson was hoping for as a "Gotcha!" moment fizzled. Palin didn't gaffe, nor did she cave in under pressure. She gave a long response (funny how when The One gets lost in one of his sermons, the media are too bedazzled to ever comment on it....).

One of the nutjob blogs I was reading clarified that there have in fact been three Bush doctrines in the past eight years....

1) American Unilateralism (with regard to not ratifying Kyoto or the ABM treaty)

2) "You're either with us or against us"

3) Anticipatory Self Defense (what Gibson was trying to get)

and

4) Expansion of Freedom

Read for yourself...

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrau..._gibsons_gaffee

Your source and the author of the story are both well known for being biased. Also all four of these are related to the core meaning of the bush doctrine so just breaking them down into four different sayings does not mean that she knew what Mr. Gibson was referring to. Basically the bush doctrine means that as long as we fabricate fake evidence we can attack anyone we want to under the gise of self defense. We do not have to obey any UN rules or the Geneva convention if bush says that it interfears with his plans.

 

[TheNewUSAirways]

Gotta luv the Demorats ! The Rep. V.P. nominee, Sarah Palin has better credentials to be Pres. of the U.S. than their Presidential nominee, Nobama and then they want to question her credentials............what a joke !

Exactly WHAT qualifies here to be POTUS? Running a town of 6000 or a state of 600,000?

Yes, Obama's time in politics is about equal to hers. And yes, she has more 'executive experience'. But to me, that doesn't matter all that much. She has demonstrated NO knowledge of foreign policy. Obama has served on the senate foreign relations committee, so has regular briefings in that regard. She "lives right next door to Russia'?? come on now!

Any president will rely heavily on advisors. But in the end, the president has to have intelligence, as well as a basic understanding of the issues, to make an informed decision. I believe Obama (and yes, McCain also) have those qualities--I don't believe that's true of Palin. At least I haven't seen any evidence of that fact. If you believe McCain has those qualities and Obama doesn't, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But everyone on the Palin bandwagon just automatically believed she was qualified becuase they were told she had them.

It's hard for anyone to argue that this was a PURELY political choice. For sake of argument, I'll say that Palin does have more executive experience than Obama. I'll also, for sake of argument, say she has more knowledge of foregin policy than it would seem. But, WHY did McCain pick her? Even if her experience IS more htan Obama's, you have to concede it's not that much. For months McCain has criticized Obama's experience, so why would he choose someone with the same amount of experience to be his # 2? Why didn't he choose Libeerman, Romney, Huckabee?

 

[TheNewUSAirways]

This will get a lot of play by the left in this country, no doubt. However when Biden tells a fellow politician in a wheelchair to stand up, it's pushed aside as being a human error. In this country the GOP must be in God mode and if not they are picked to pieces.

The Deems tell everyone the GOP is for the wealthy and they themselves are wealthier in many instances

Palin might not have the experience but neither did anyone else who first started out. Palin unlike most came from a solid foundational structure that is Godly and worthy. She has more brains than the ones picking her apart. Her mistake was being naive thinking the press was her friend, that was a calculated trashing by the media made to make them look totally innocent. The media is full of leftists and if they are not they are fired. My son dropped out of journalism in college because of that fact.

Then you have Matt the Demon who hates this country given free air time to further bash Palin. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see how far this is twisted and how scared the deems really are feeling they must go to these measures to assure their guy becomes the next president.

Well, the dems may be very weatlthy, but at least they look out for those that ARENT wealthy.

What the hells does a "solid foundational structure" mean?? And "godly and worthy"?? So if someone is agnostic or atheist, they aren't worthy? Worth of what?

And you said "Palin might not have the experience but neithe did anyone else who first started out". That's true, but for months McCain led us to believe that experience is important. He spent a lot of time criticizing Obama's. So all of a sudden, experience is NOT important to McCain???

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

The Democrats are panicking because of their catastrophic response to Sarah Palin's nomination.

Can you imagine the response if Palin implored a wheelchair-bound audience member to rise??

Biden most certainly will make some wacky statement (the guy is a hair-plugged, plagiarizing has-been of 35 years who drew less than 1% of the vote for a reason) and this will be fun?

Ask yourself one question: who would you rather go to war with: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

 

[KCFlyer]

Ask yourself one question: who would you rather go to war with: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

I'd prefer to ask "which one would work hardest to AVOID going to war". We already have seen what a "war president" can do...