General discussion

Toni, back about 2004 2005 I posted a list of 44 undeniably

conservative main stream media hosts, journalists, and talking heads called upon daily for their opinions, and asked for a similar number of liberal mainstream journalists. I got lots of abuse, but I never ever got even one name of a liberal. Now I can offer the names of Liberals, mostly on MSNBC, and at small magazines like Mother Jones or The Nation, or the New Republic, and a couple like Krugman at the NYT, though I don't think he'd accept the categorization. I think he'd say "he calls it as he sees it" and has certainly criticized President Obama and those around him roundly for insufficiently decisive action.

I'd be happy to accept your accusation that All Main Stream Media is biased if it were true. But if it were true, Why did Fox start out with so many journalists from the Main Stream Media as its hosts? People like Chris Wallace and Bernard Kalb, and dozens of others.

In fact I would be happy if it were true, and I were happier with the content I read or hear in the MSM. (and may we please dispense with the Sarah Palinism you use so often?). I'm not happy with what I read. It is neither critically written, by which I mean using the brain to try to see what is behind or wrong with what is being presented as a news story or a White House Press Release, nor does it look forward enough to see impacts in the offing. Most often it is the Mimeograph machine for the Administration repeating uncritically and unthinkingly what it is fed.

Nothing could represent this better than the reporting going into and coming out of Gulf War 2. The idiocy about WMDs which were never found (except for a large pile of unrefined Uranium ore called Yellow Cake, which could have been for creating nuclear fuel for their reactors). No refining facilities, no parts for Nuclear Refining Facilities, no stockpiles of Nerve agents, nothing despite a lap dog press that repeated every lie as the truth. And the fictiious linkage of Saddam Insane with Al Qaeda which even I knew was not true, because of news stories of Iraq hunting its members inside Iraq, which was in British Papers but, I gather, not American ones.

That is the Main Stream Media I'm complaining about. No questions, not even the simple one of "Is there a refining site for all this Uranium Ore?" " Is there a facility even being built?" "Is there any evidence of an Iraqi Nuclear Program?, and if so please show us." The same was true for nerve agents. Small scale trials, no stockpiles. There were stockpiles of Poison Gas from the Iran Iraq war, which were not used against Americans that I ever heard except in IED's.

Colin Powell whom I respect greatly, was driven out of the Bush Administration because he didn't believe what he was being told, and couldn't therefore put it forward with the enthusiasm of the admirable but gullible Condoleeza Rice. She's a great American, and a credit to the Republican party, but she certainly became little more than a shill for Cheney and Rummy and all the Neo Con Cold Warriors who were desperately searching for a new enemy to justify their existence.

But compare the Spending figures from 2000 and 2012:

Health, rose 2% of Gross Domestic expenditures. Pensions were reduced by 2%
Education was reduced by 2%
Defense rose by 3%
Welfare rose by a whopping 1%
Remainder reduced by 5%

and should you think I'm quoting Liberal statistics, this is from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

The Home page said:
"Hi, I'm Christopher Chantrill and I'm a conservative"

Now having done all that, including recording the percentages side by side for comparison, I returned to get the web address and to copy and paste the Christopher Chantrill info from the Home Page. What I got was a whole different presentation. Nor could I get clock pie charts in different colours with the figures I quoted above, I got sloped oval pie charts in barely distinguishable shades of orange, with different figures. Welfare for example was quoted as 11% not 10%. If that doesn't show you what the Conservatives are doing (i.e. making up their statistics and obfuscating the truth) I don't know what will. Different statistics in two different pie charts for the same year??? Sound like a presentation on FoxNews.

Nevertheless, even using his own figures he shows spending hasn't gone wild, it is barely increased over late Clinton Percentages. What has dropped is Revenue. Check out Corporate Taxes versus Personal Taxes for 2010 or 2012. I think we can agree that all Corporations taken as a whole are at least as wealthy if not more so than the American people as a whole, but they pay barely 18% of Incoming Revenue. It's you and I who carry the government, paying over 50%. Corporate Taxes have shown a steady, and fairly steep decline since 1981. Gee, what happened then, I wonder? Use his site and compare the Incoming Revenue from the 50's or the 60's, or even the 70's.

If you remove two major sources of revenue, and give a tax holiday while fighting two wars on the Nations Credit Card and crashing the economy to boot, then there's liable to be a Revenue Shortfall. Call me a heretic but when you've got a horrible fever and an infection (and current Republican thinking is that infection) you don't pile on the bed clothes send your temperature higher and fry your brain, you get some medicine, choke it down and shiver under a single sheet until the fever breaks. In hospitals they have rubber cooling blankets that circulate cold water through tubing to bring the patient's temperature down, or to warm people up if their temperature drops during surgery.

So far the Republicans have been immune or afraid to recognize that their policies brought us to this mess. They think more tax cuts will solve the problem. They are clearly old fashioned absinthe drinkers, or meth smokers who think they can fly off the World Trade Centre (oops, they destroyed that too, didn't they). The Sears Tower then. If they weren't proposing to take the country with them, I'd say fine, Happy Landings, but I'm not eager to become a cement pizza along with them, and neither should any of you.

If Romney is elected, his first statement will be to say "It is far worse than we were led to believe, and we can't do what we promised," his first lie in office, but all the while giving breaks to his donors and probably reversing the prohibition on Off Shore Accounts out the back door of various Government Agencies.

Americans have been buying "pie in the sky" from a sequence of Slick Polished Heavily Scripted Medicine Show artists, and I don't exempt Bill Clinton from that category (though George H.W. Bush was anything but slick). Even Barack Obama is a great speaker, but he has at least been talking about reality, and programs desperately needed, like the Health Care Plan, and the still to be enacted Infrastructure Plan and has done what he had to to avert 1929, and most of its calamities. Hope and especially Change is what the US desperately needs.

Go ahead, though, elect Mitt Romney. I won't be there to suffer with you, but the collapse of the US economy which I see as the likely result, will damage the whole world, though not quite as badly as 1929. For America however it will mean Third World status, and crime statistics through the roof. Welcome to the realities of Honduras folks.

Rob

And since you care so much, Toni, Yes, I'm taking my anti-depressant regularly every day. I just wish it worked better and could cushion me from all this worry for my Country.

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Toni, back about 2004 2005 I posted a list of 44 undeniably
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Toni, back about 2004 2005 I posted a list of 44 undeniably
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Have you watched BBC America? and do you find their reportin

g liberally biased? If so, then I'm afraid that the problem lies in the eye of the beholder, not in the bradcaster.

Rob

- Collapse -
Note please the first graph in 2. National Budget.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

You will see that revenue kept pace with outlays until Reagan, recovered briefly under Clinton and took an appalling hit under Bush, which is closing somewhat. Had the Clinton budget been continued, and had Bush not bought the election with the taxpayers own money (Hey, I'll cut your taxes) there's even a chance he could have managed the Afghan war within the budget. But Tax Cuts and Two Wars? Impossible.

The only thing wrong with the chart is that it stops at January 1, of 2009, and doesn't show subsequent movements.
Note that the red line indicates deficit. Relate it to the dates, and you can read the whole thing clearly. The dates are slanted, and the tick below the line is the date referred to in the date preceding it.

Rob
- Collapse -
And another source, The American Presidency Project from

UC Santa Barbara. Of course that's probably too liberal for you too. It runs from Coolidge to Obama, includes projections for the next 5 years including 2012, and credits the 2009 Budget to Bush, just as it always credits the first year of a President's tenure to his predecessor. This is far more realistic than starting Obama off with the fall out of the Bush Presidency.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

No graph, but columns 5 (4 if you Ignore the President's name Column), Surplus or Deficit under Total Budget, and column 9 (last column) Surplus or Deficit as % of GDP show improvement. Digging out of the hole Bush put us in is a long term situation, however the projection suggests that the deficit will be back to 3% of GDP by 2017. If Hillary gets elected in 2016 and is as astute as her husband we could see surpluses again. But that's just my hope. To use those surpluses which Republicans have avoided like the plague for eons, to dig out of the National Debt will take a very long time.

But I repeat. You elected W, you bear the responsibility for his stupidity. It wasn't as if it was a surprise, he'd already made a dogs breakfast of Texas as Governor.

Rob

- Collapse -
Your barrage leaves me to wonder

what in hell you are trying to say other than the bottom line of 'you don't like Romney, you love BO, and you won't be coming back to the USA any time soon no matter who gets in'.........so what is your point in talking to yourself over and over in this thread?

I couldn't make hide nor hair out of any of your ramblings, so won't/can't comment on most of it.

The only ONE thing I could find anything that even resembled something I could respond to is regarding the journalists that left the LSM and joined Fox. Most have said that they were being intimidated by higher ups at those stations to only report on what the station wanted reported on and that they felt so stifled at not being able to report BOTH sides of the news that they made the decision to leave and go to Fox where no matter which side they personally landed on, they could do what they were educated to do.......report the news........ALL of the news. You don't like Fox....I don't care. I personally long for the days of REAL investigative reporters like Bob Woodward....he brought down Nixon (a Republican and a real sorry excuse for a President who was later treated like royalty and that made me sick), and he now has a book out all about BO and what a piece of work HE is and how unhappy everyone should be with him at the helm. The days of real investigative reporters are dying off.......they are a breed all their own and we don't have anywhere near enough of them.

- Collapse -
darn, you ruined it

I wanted to see how many more times he kept replying to himself.

- Collapse -
I wasn't replying James, as you would have known had you
read the posts, but was posting further statistical evidence about the disaster that was the Bush Presidency. Now I know your brain has some sort of immune problem which renders you blind to such evidence, but it is freely available, and I don't write for you, or Toni, or Steve H (with whom I respectfully disagree, because he is respectful to me when he disagrees) or Edward O'Daniel or any of the True Believers. I write to express my opinions, and to try to back them up with facts, instead of simply bad mouthing the President or even the posters until I have been sufficiently overwhelmed by insults to preceding posts of mine. Both you and Toni have been sufficiently unpleasant in the past that I don't go out of my way to be pleasant to you, knowing in advance that you won't read the post but will just find something in it you disagree with and then slag me with everything you've got.

If you want to read an example, I suggest you read my replies to lylesg here, which have been respectful, even though he and I see things very very differently. Were he to address me as you and Toni have, I'd probably stop making the effort to be pleasant when disagreeing.

Rob

Rob
- Collapse -
You have a selective memory, Rob

When I first came back here after a very lengthy self-inflicted time out, you were the first to immediately charge at me like a bull even though I tried repeatedly to be cordial and respectful with my replies to you. I asked you repeatedly to tone it down and stay on topic instead of personally attacking me. I even suggested that you take the same type of time out that I took because you were over the top with me. You did take that time out.......however, when you came back recently, you were worse than before you vacationed away. You can't have it both ways, Rob....although liberals have a tendency to try to do just that. I multi-task just fine, btw.......I just refuse to spend much time and effort trying to sort out the nonsense in your ramblings to actual information to discuss/debate. Also, btw....you personally addressed the original post in this thread to ME........I read the first couple of sentences, realized that you were beginning to ramble again with multiple topics and chose to reply to only what I wanted to address. If you aren't happy with that, then try breaking your topics up into ten or twenty direct and separate topic posts. That way I can pick and choose topics instead of having to read thru a litany of ramblings in one post and try and decode your "Da Vinci" thoughts......and subject lines like "(NT) So sorry you have trouble with English, Toni" don't endear me to you........when's the last time I personally went out of my way to insult YOU, Rob, in a subject line?

- Collapse -
(NT) So sorry you have trouble with English, Toni.
- Collapse -
Rambling is NOT ENGLISH ...

nor is blather although both can make use of English words as a verbal cacophony.

Here is some advice you might carve into your forehead so you don't forget -- If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind - give it more thought.

- Collapse -
Actually, what I meant to say was sorry you can't deal with

more than one issue at a time in a post.

First Six Paragraphs were about the press's non-liberal failure to examine Bush press releases about Gulf War 2, but to simply publish them as though they were Moses Tablets from the Mount.

The Second Half was about the Economy beginning "But compare the Spending figures from 2000 and 2012:" which seems a pretty clear clue to me, but since you missed it, let me emphasize the Republicans' failure to address the shortfall in Revenue created by the huge outlays in Military Spending for two wars. Republicans criticized LBJ up the wazoo for fighting the Viet Nam War, and The War on Poverty at the same time without raising taxes. I oughta know, I was in University, and followed the issues closely at the time. Come Gulf War 2, utter silence, not just from Republicans, and most Democrats, but from the MSM as well. So there's the Main Stream Medium not only avoiding criticizing your boy George, but avoiding doing it's job of analysis of what was likely to be the result as well. Only a few liberal journalists outside the MSM were saying, "What's going to happen with the deficit?" "We're drowning in Red Ink here." Those journalists worked for small magazines where they weren't paid a huge sum of money. The NYTimes, the Washington Post and any of the Networks were just printing or broadcasting the Bush Press Releases and statements by Colin Powell and **** Cheney, and Wolfowitz and all the other Neo-Cons, as if they too were either Tablets from Mt Sinai, or the Sermon on the Mount. There was very little mention of the subsequent cost to the country.

So, now you've got the Cliff Notes version, maybe you'd like to read what I really said. I don't expect you to agree with it. It's entirely contrary to your belief system where George W. Bush = God, but you still might learn something.

Rob

- Collapse -
This is ridiculous........

>>>>>>First Six Paragraphs were about the press's non-liberal failure to examine Bush press releases about Gulf War 2, but to simply publish them as though they were Moses Tablets from the Mount.>>>>>>>

If I recall correctly, there was a majority vote....bipartisan all the way....regarding what you refer to as "Gulf War 2". It wasn't until the 2004 campaign that the press started swinging away from Bush about that war and ONLY because so many Dems all of a sudden were running for office and their political lives and all of them came out against that war in order to sway votes. (Remember the infamous words "I voted FOR it before I was AGAINST it"?) That was the battle cry of every Dem who wanted to keep or get a new seat at the table. If the Dems had still been OK with that war, the press wouldn't have said a word......liberal rags will always stay silent when it is in the Dems interest to do so....just as they have done for BO, even though they have taken it to the extreme of slobbering over his every word. They treat him like the second coming and always have.

So once again....you want to have your cake and eat it to.......but only if it benefits a liberal Democrat. Over 8% unemployment has become their new 'normal' and they never say a word against BO's policies that have not only not worked, but he has single-handedly CREATED the situations that have contributed to that number and continues to do so.

- Collapse -
Look at how the MSM....

in 04-05 slammed the Bush Admin when unemployment reached 5% and compare to how they walk on eggs with Obama's 8+%. That's one indication right there.

- Collapse -
It's not the same situation. There had been no crash in 04-

05, plus a lot of people were in the Military and out of the country, and jobs needed filling, but weren't being.

Lyle, there were endless reasons to criticize the Bush Admin, but I saw very little of it, except for that particular issue. The flight of Muslims out of America following 9/11 before anyone could be interviewed by the FBI? The crappy building by KBR which electrocuted American Soldiers? the massive overcharging by Halliburton, which had to be repaid? We didn't find out about that until after it happened.

And where was the "Wait a minute !! We can't fight two wars without ending the tax cuts !! We'll be cutting our own throats." And so it went.

Rob

- Collapse -
"I have in my hand a list of 44

agents of ..."
Happy

CNET Forums

Forum Info