Mending the rift

[Starboy]

Originally posted by lspiderl, wow where do YOU get your sources the majority of the media is liberal NOT conservative thats why most of the media was supporting kerry and dogging bush media elites like dan rather as well as the new york times are u realy ignorent enough to not realize that the conservatives have little to no say in the matter u simply spout names of one or two individuals who have had years of experince to keep them from being washed away in the flood of liberal media like they are the media rather that the few remaing bastians of conservative voice left to it

I didn't say ALL media. I said CONSERVATIVE media. It is out there. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich and so on. Then there is Fox news and all of the Christian channels that feed their viewers a constant stream of good and evil, with conservatives as good and liberals as evil. There IS a conservative media out there and their stock and trade is hate and division. And it has been going on for some time now.

Starboy

[OberonDOtherseid]

Attacking terrorists is not the same as attacking countries, ok?

[OberonDOtherseid]

Originally posted by Sonart, Better off than what? I'm hardpressed to see how things can get worse.

So, you're hard pressed, have a coke, eat a candy bar.

[lspiderl]

There IS a conservative media out there and their stock and trade is hate and division. And it has been going on for some time now

ans so your saying what that the liberal media DOESNT promote all hate and division
HA your sorely in need of a wake up call most conservative media even stated on various ocasions if the democrats had suplied a worth while canidate like lieberman or a few others they woulda steped aside to end the fighting even though they fully backed bush it would have at least ended the fighting but no instead they pull out there most liberal canidate
and start a massive I HATE BUSH campain

[Starboy]

Ispiderl, are you trying to tell me that there is not a conservative media that has worked hard for almost two decades to demonize liberals?

Starboy

[bishop]

this majority wasn't anywhere close to an overwhelming majority. also, i'd suspect that MANY people voted for bush believing that he was simply the lesser of two evils - rather than someone they enthusiastically supported. there's a lot about bush that people shouldn't be happy about - the only card he had was the terror card and he played that one as good as he could.

polls show that a majority of the country believes that we're on the wrong track and want to see it corrected. for whatever reason, they decided to give bush a second chance to correct the mistakes made during his first term... that's a lot of faith to give a man who sent us into war on a guess....

[Gorgo]

The problem isn't the rift between him and me. The problem is the rift between him and reality.

It is a fact that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq was a crime against humanity, as well as a violation of international and domestic law, and he couldn't even do it without massive problems. They are not only criminal, they are incompetent criminals.

What is there to argue about any of that?

Originally posted by tusaki, User Posted Image

[Mulkaccino]

I just don't see why it's so difficult for the leader of the free world to run a Presidency with more than 51% of the population aproves.

It's just amazing. Amazing that people can tote that "America can now head in the right direction" since the majority, an amazing 1% difference, said so.

I'd say the same thing if John Kerry won. 51%. 51% is an offical win but it's not a moral win. It's not a win suggesting you have America's best interest as a whole. It's a win saying you have your Political Party's best interest and anyone else can tag along if they'd like. That's not America. That your Politcal Party.

"I pledge allegance, to the flag,
of the Republican Political Party.
And to the Republic, for which it stands,
51% of the nation, who mostly voted because of God
now divisable, for liberty and justice for half of us."

[bishop]

EXACTLY!

there seems to be the assumption amongst the bushistas that because they won a SLIM majority, that now they have the mandate to run roughshot over the rest of the country that disapproves of their agenda.

it's ironic in a way... they complain about how "activist judges" affect their lives, about how certain government policies affect their lives... but what do they want to do? they also want government to affect our lives - just according to their own, often prejudiced, belief system.. here's a better idea - how about government gets the hell out of everybody's business and lets the state decide how they want to be. if alabama, and all of the solid red states want to become taliban reincarnate, then so be it. let civilization flourish up in northeast.

also, stop taxing all of us who live in the blue states and redistributing our wealth to the redneck red states.. i'm tired of my tax dollars funding operations in your states.

[Gorgo]

Reporter from Newsweek on how the far-far-right built their media powerhouse:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid...4/11/04/1621202

[Sonart]

Originally posted by Dieval+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Better off than having Kerry as President. [/b]

How do you know? Bush has been President for 4 years and things couldn't get much worse, particularly overseas.

Originally posted by Oberon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Oberon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, you're hard pressed, have a coke, eat a candy bar.[/b]

I see. So I should ignore the man behind the curtain.

Originally posted by Oberon Attacking terrorists is not the same as attacking countries, ok?

Is Bush aware of this? He seems to think they're the same thing.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ispider@
so your saying what that the liberal media DOESNT promote all hate and division[/quote]
Nothing near like what the right does. I guess they figure that most of the media is 'so lib'rul', they have to work twice as hard.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bishop
there seems to be the assumption amongst the bushistas that because they won a SLIM majority, that now they have the mandate to run roughshot over the rest of the country that disapproves of their agenda. [/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn't matter how slim their majority was. They're in power, with even more of the Congress. They're going to ram their agenda down our throats and all the Democrats can do is sit as minority members of every committee and watch it happen.

[bishop]

i guess once the public realizes the mistake they've made, they'll (hopefully) vote them out. hopefully they hurt the most from the bullshit they legislate. that'd be fair.

i prefer to have congress controlled by the party opposite that of the president. we've had republican control for several years now and look what that's done to our country's finances.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dieval Better off than having Kerry as President.

How do you know? Bush has been President for 4 years and things couldn't get much worse, particularly overseas. [/b][/quote]
Both are opinions. History will be the judge.

[Sonart]

Both are opinions. History will be the judge.

I'd say history has been judging quite loudly for the past couple of years.

"the liberal media"

is owned by megacorps. are megacorps "liberal"? obviously not. the media is george bush and the richie rich's bullhorn.