What happened to the good old days when the News was factual and the Entertainment programming was politically neutral?
RATmedia never runs out of juice. It makes up whatever it desires and then pounds the hell out of the national consciousness with it as long as it wishes.
I know I have gotten a bellyful, I used to be pleasant and try to explain the truth to Liberals I know, now I get nasty.
The Summer of Security has begun, the next few months will test conservatives' nerves. I hope to see signs and bumper stickers that engage the Left all over America. I created this site, which offers intellectual ammo:
www.winwithhumor.com
To use the sports analogy: this is nothing but the undercard. Post-conventions will be the Main Event.
The Sheep have been steadily programmed all this time. All this has been, is the foundation work for what is to come: an all-out slam of the hated President and the hated military, and the return to power of Socialism.
The Sheep will believe whatever is told to them.
I once sent an email to a sports columnist here in Dallas objecting to an anti Bush jibe in one of his columns.
I merely said that if I wanted a political opinion I would go to the editorial page, or any New York Times news story.
This moron wrote back that he had the "right" to print any thing he wanted.
They just don't get it. I wasn't arguing his right to say what he said. I was arguing the wisdom (or lack thereof) of injecting a political opinion into a sports story.
I say let them keep it up. This abject hysteria over Bush and the war cannot possibly help with the average American voter. If I am wrong then we surely are doomed.
The neo-socialists will never learn.
Whenever I am accused of advocating "censorship" by the Bush/America haters, I wimply tell them that I don't want to cesnor them, I WANT their screaming, spittle flecked face seething with hatred and spewing vile pus in front of every camera in the U.S. between now and Novermber.
I think I will e-mail this to some venemous liberals I know just to see if I can get a rise out of them.
I'm a regular view of Stargate SG-1, and I have to say that despite the points raised in this artcile, it's generally a pro-military show. VP (formerly Senator) Kinsey also reminds me far more of John McCain (?-AZ) than Dick Cheney...
The O'Neill "shrubs" comment was most definetly a swipe at this Administration, and totally out of character for O'Neill. No doubt about it.
But that said, claiming Kinsey represents Cheney is just plain silly. There is no likeness (and never once have I seen Kinsey tied to "big business" either). And if you're going to accept that Kinsey is Cheney, then you also have to accept that Bush is portrayed as a great guy, cause the President to Kinsey's VP in SG-1 is a great guy who made all the right decisions and even brought down Kinsey.
The "shrubs" criticism was a valid one, but the other just makes him look silly.
Qwinn
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Not Col. O'NEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!!!
It would be one thing if the media was just bias; unfortunately, they are deceptive and outright liars. From the distortions over the "16 words" to accusations that Bush lied, the media has made a deliberate attempt to hide the truth from the American people.
As they chastize and redicule Foxnews viewers as ignorant for accepting a Saddam/terrorist connection, it was they themselves who made these very connections when "their guy" was president. From a great article at Frontpagemag, called Untelling the Truth...http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles.readarticle.asp?ID=13589
"Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:
"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. --ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
These are just two of the several stories the big media ran as they sought to lend support to Clinton's aggression against Iraq. Since the election of Bush, it has been the MEDIA that has changed the storylines and consistently moved the goal-posts in an effort to discredit Bush. The very lies they attribute to Bush, were once facts that they and the Democrats used to justify Clinton's actions in Iraq.
As they often misquote Bush, they conventiently leave out statements made by other Democrats, the UN and other intel agencies that often said the same...and even more, than what Bush said. As this media attacks American companies like Halliburton and accuse them of only wanting to profit from oil interests, they intentionally ignore the biggest scandal involving oil from foreign interests such as the UN and France.
The entire liberal establishment in this country...from academia to the media to Hollywood to the abundance of so-called authors who have sprung from the woodwork, have deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented to the American people both the important aspects of the WOT and the reason why Saddam was a threat. These are people who can dig up a 25 year old DUI charge but for some reason can't locate a quote from a democrat only a few years ago.
And the same is true for Kerry, as this media has intentionally hidden his relevant views from the past...and gafs of the present, as they rant on about Abu Ghraib...in some cases, for 28 straight days. I am fed up with this liberal media, who in their zeal to destroy Bush, has endangered and obstructed the war on terror...and thus, endangered us all.
THis is an example of where the left is spending its money now that McCain-Feingold is on the books. ie. The day after tomorrow. I've also seen several episodes of prime time where dialog between characters say things like 'no WMD' ...
A year and a half ago they were going to be consensual on the war but run against Bush on the economy. But the economy is responding to the tax cuts and recovering from the 9-11 shock, weathering high oil prices, and still growing strongly. That game plan clearly failed.
Dean dragged them to their whacko left on the war. All their professional pols were reluctant to go there, considering it political suicide to run against a popular president conducting a successful and necessary war against a deeply unsympathetic enemy, on the specific issue of that war, and on a platform of defeatism and pacifism and retreat. To get the nomination, their pols had to run hard left. They still knew enough to dump Dean, but they saddled themselves with hatred of Bush over the war.
And so this year they are trying to turn that into a self fufilling prophecy, using nothing but wind. The activists stumping for Dean who knew he was unelectable just three months ago, are not salivating over the prison photos and their chance to righteously hate Americans in uniform. As they hoped for "quagmire" a year ago, they hoped for a national uprising and Tet II from Fallujah and Sadr. They are openly calling for US defeat and retreat. And excoriating the men who won two wars in as many years against foes so evil they could have come straight out of central casting.
They aren't going to get a US defeat on the ground in Iraq. They are betting on hopelessly weak foreign allies. The Iraqi people are going to follow their own government to pro-US policies. Only tiny minorities are going to oppose this, as it becomes clear they really have achieved sovereignty and their own government, and don't need to fire a single shot to get it. Those minorities are going to get it in the neck from all sides. Indeed, they already are. They aren't going to crescendo through the summer and fall. They've already peaked, in April.
By the time the fall arrives, the administration is going to be standing on two large wins and a roaring economy. All the left is going to have done for 3 solid years of war is moan and bitch and carp and scream that the sky is falling. And the sky isn't going to fall. Right now, the press is so loud they have some in the broad public actually scared that it might, and that is the reason for wavering in support for Bush. But it is noise, not substance. It cannot possibly compete with substance and last.
Kerry already knows this. Watch his positioning. He is trying to portray himself - laughably - as tougher on terrorism and more effective. He is running right as fast as he can. He cannot possible make it all the way from Dean to Bush in 9 months, amid the cacophony of defeatism the left is emitting. Nobody will believe a word of the repositioning. Only some outright disaster can save Kerry now. Not on spin, on substance. And Bush is pretty well positioned against that, on the ground. Even a disaster has to come in a particular shape, if it is to help Kerry, rather than just reminding people they really want a serious commander in chief, not top spun by a defeatist press.
i went into barnes & noble sunday and found a dozen hate-bush books prominently displayed on a center table across from the store entrance.
sean hannity's book was on the other side.
it's obvious where barnes & noble's interests reside--with the left.
i did not buy anything and continue to patronize internet book sellers.