Replies

If you have a moment, please surf out my research thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1209454/posts

There is some research that seems to coincide with your links up there!

I'll get to it at some point. Some of the posts in this thread have taken a while to surf for.

I don't intend to take this thread off topic (much) and use it as a general discussion of the disortions in the media although I have put a link to it on my profile page and may from time to time use this thread as a clearing house for information on the "2003-2004 Campaign Against Bush" bias.

Pretty much I stuck to Hollywood, phoney media "outrage", and hoaxes.

The LACK of coverage on John Kerry, prosecution of terrorists like the DC sniper duo, Sgt. Akbar who killed/injured troops in Iraq (his trial has been postponed until next year citing sleep apneia and bad legal counsel I think), and other stories that could have influenced the election is a whole 'nother element of the media bias. Not to say that is or isn't "Zogbyism", I was just sticking with the fabricated and exagerated stories (some of which played out in movie theaters).

The revisionist history of John Kerry's past IS more propaganda designed to win the election. No doubt about it.

People need to realize that the Democrats wanted to win the election more than they want to win the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. THINK of all that misplaced energy and wasted time and money.

"There has to be a morning after"...

The left ran their snow job campaign like there was no tomorrow. They thought that they could shout in our faces, spit on us, call us "fascists", vandalize our homes, cars, businesses, & campaign offices, etc.

When angry Democrats attack - MN Republican Party website documents multiple incidents
keyword: BrownshirtsForKerry ( Will we hear ANY outrage from the ACLU or Southern Povery Law Center?)

Now they want us to act as if it never happened? This is why we believe in boycotts of such outspoken entertainers. What good did they do America? They divided the nation. Some even said that they did not like hearing that they had conservatives in the audience. Screw them, we'll take our business elsewhere. Some of us used to enjoy some of these performers in spite of their political views. Now it is a lot harder to separate the politics from the performance. Not every one who went on the campaign trail or appeared at a fundraiser publicly humilated themselves but there is quite a list of those who did.

We won't forget just like we won't forget 9/11. It is one reason why I log such information in this thread. So we DON'T forget. People must wake up to what was attempted.

If not they are sure to try it again. It is unAmerican.

Tell them to focus their efforts on the real problems of this world. If health care insurance is such a problem why don't they work to start a corportation to provide low cost health care to people? They are all millionaires. Why should the government have to administer such a system? Why can't the private sector address it?

There is no barrier to them establishing the socialist womb to the tomb paradise that they envision in the private sector. They have the capital. They have the clout. The problem is that their ideas are not financially sound and giving people the option of "something for nothing" and "paying for it" will have more people lining up for the handout (even if they complain that the one that costs is better).

Hillary Clinton knew this. Hillarycare would not have permitted you to privately pay for medical care. Paying for a doctor visit would have been on par with visiting a prostitute.

Never forget:

CONTROVERSY HITS ABC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MARK HALPERIN (Posted on 10/08/2004)

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004
It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

I've hit upon a good book title if someone wants to blow the lid off of the media shenanigans...

Power Ghraib

They exploited a criminal investigation to smear the administration and the war effort.

They did it to try to seize power of the government.

They "raped" the President and his supporters' character to do so.

Unfortunately, the left didn't pay attention to the Bride in Kill Bill...

We're still here (the pajama people) and we will see the media pundits ousted from their desks if not put in jail over the collusion with the DNC. It was pure abuse of power and possibly criminal (what else are forged documents containing the signature of a military officer)?

This could be bigger than Watergate by the time it is over.

Ain't payback a b!tch?

Compound this eye opening news with the Oil For Food scandal (UN and non-Ally corruption) and the whole policy against going to war in Iraq blows up in the left's face.

We've got to get the world on the same page politically (America is not the "ENEMY" and neither are "CORPORATIONS") so that we can fight side by side against the current threat to Western civilization and that is Islamic terrorism.

Does this mean we have to agree on domestic issues? No. Lawmakers will still debate laws on the floors of Congress (state and federal).

Does this mean we have to rout out all of the corrupt politicians in Europe? That is for their citizens to decide in elections or criminal proceedings.

Does this mean we have to bring about regime change in the muslim nations? Not at all. We DO need to eradicate state sponsorship of international terrorism (this is what is meant by "you are either with us or against us").

Does this mean that there will be world peace when the "war on terrorism" is finished? No. There are currently 34 armed conflicts (wars) going on in the world (at least by several tallies), some are internal to a nation. War will continue to be with us unfortunately. A more pressing question is how many of those conflicts are we currently involved in and how many of them involved muslims?

One of the things that must occur in order to end the war on Islamic terrorism is for muslims to have an Islamic reformation movement. Some will say that they have no association with radical Islam but that does not go far enough. They need to bring about change from within. No more jihad (physical holy war), no more nations under Islamic law (end the 3 classes of people under Islamic law: muslims, Jews/Christians, and "everybody else"), religious freedom for all (free to convert in and out of Islam, free to depict Mohammed any which way).

I see far more outrage and outspoken muslim critics of mosques/clerics that accept practicing homosexuals than I do of those mosques/clerics that teach violence, dominance, superiority, antiSemitism, etc. This is the "religion of peace"?

Some may bring up Christianity's own unappealing periods. Christianity WENT through a reformation hundreds of years ago. Islam has not (and some say that a true reading of the Koran PREVENTS such tampering).

Other organizations/practitioners besides muslims engage in terrorism but the chief threat to continued existence comes from the Islamic terrorists. Some may point to the Oklahoma City bombing as evidence of another looming threat but there are still some unfinished threads in that attack (John Doe #2). Also Bill Clinton's administration hounded "right wing extremists" for years after that. Where was the "next attack" (or even "big catch") as he harassed his political critics? Don't forget to include the environmentalist movement's terrorists, PETA's terrorists, the antiglobalist anarchists' terrorists...

No the war on terrorism is not just a war on Islamic terrorists. Unfortunately with state sponsorship of Islamic terrorism (seeking weapons of mass destruction that are biological, chemical, and/or nuclear) it remains the terrorist threat poised to do the most harm to the most people.

Some leftists may state that corporations affect more people. Do these corporations/governments DELIBERATELY poison rivers or gun down children?

To keep infighting while the wolf is at the door is at our own peril.