righturnonred

I speak for myself. I thought it was clearly implied both Craig and I had obtained our figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics since it is that organization that conducts the Household and Employer surveys, of which this topic of discussion was originally based upon. It's all quite complicated. I not surprised in the least that you referenced the wrong figures. Look again, the numbers are correct. Of course not. As I said before, you knew where the numbers came from, you could have checked it. So that's it. Everytime you can't win on the issues, you're going to throw that in his face? Hardner, both you and I know you made that determination about Craig far before the incident with the WSJ editorial. You're using it as an excuse now to discredit him. It's flimsy and It won't work. Just because the man failed to credit the author on a post doesn't mean the he can be deemed untrustworthy and immoral from this day forward. Like a child, you're attempting to rub his nose in this because your arguments are miserably weak, so instead of trying to fight fire with fire, you're fighting fire with dog sh*t. Real classy. This must be an example of that famed liberal compassion we all hear about but never see. I guess Clark's qualified to be President soley because he's a general. I guess Newt Gingrich is a complete untrustworthy moral degenerate because he committed adultry.

As if it's not an insult to insinuate that my President is a liar and war criminal. But anyways Hardner, I think I got one for you to use. How's this....Retardican! Go ahead, it won't hurt my feelers one bit.

For Christ sake give it a rest, will ya? Indeed, for you liberals are always so diligent about sighting sources and providing evidence for outragous accusations. The figures are from the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, why don't take yourself down to their website and have a look around. Dept of Labor-BOLS You think you can figure that out, or do we need to tie your shoe laces for you as well?

Very good. I was impressed by the passion displayed by Bush. Pushed for permenant tax cuts, extention of Patriot Act, privatize social security, continued commitment to the war on terror. However, he didn't give a good explanation of his immigration plan, something that really bothers me.

The UN is considered benevolent according to who, two thirds of it's own membership which consists of rouge nations and dictatorships? absurd. The US pursues global security, not global domination. equally absurd. I understand that you oppose the policies of the Bush Adminitration but you need to operate within the realm of reality. We know for a fact that nations such as France, Russia, and Syria were supplying arms to Iraq up until the start of the war, for example. What evidence do you have that the US currently supplies dangerous regimes with weapons of any sort? Judging from your rhetoric, not even Dean is radical enough for you.

That's a legitimate question i suppose, but the election is still 10 months away and you have not even seen the beginning yet. The President will not let his economic record be trampled by the individual leftist ideoluges in the media. (there is no liberial conspiracy). Wait and see. Craig's numbers for the Household Survey are more or less correct. I come out with roughly 2.1 million jobs created during the same period. Regardless of minor differences in arithmatic, the statistics produced from the Household Survey (Current Population Survey) offer a far more accurate representation of employment and job creation than the Establishment Survey (Payroll or Current Employment Statistics Survey). Here's why: Furthermore... While you're never likely to see Bush sit down with Tony Snow to "do the math", I'm pretty sure I've heard the President in the past, quoting the accurate numbers. Besides, when was the last time you saw anyone on the Dem side sit down and do the math to support their use of convienent labor statistics for politcal purposes. Companies throughout the US have increased capital expenditures and begun hiring workers in preparation for the economic upturn and you're telling me there's been no job growth on the books? I find that hard to believe. And the real data would seem to support my suspicions

after viewing the recording repeatedly, it is impossible to assertain for certain the status of those being fired on. All that I can reasonably determine is: 1. the vehicle to the far left appears to be a tractor plow that has been in recent operation as is evidenced by the hot exhaust stack and the temperature of the soil aft of the vehicle. 2. the individual closest to and left of the largest vehicle during the first volley may appear to be armed. 3. the two individuals aproaching the "tractor operator" appear to be rushed. 3. The tractor operator has been instructed to exit the vehicle. 4. time unknown. 5. location unknown. There is simply not enough information to make a definitive determination about what is going on here. What is certain in that the fog of war is an everpresent reality during combat and adds a level of unpredictability.

Four star jack-ass Weasily Clark has flip flopped on and lied about his position on Iraq over the past year. Does this guy stand for anything? Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection Statement made by Clark in October 2002 during his endorsement of a New Hampshire candidate for Congress: Clark's own comments at a town hall meeting on Janurary 2004 suggest otherwise: Justification for Iraq War Clark makes these comments as part of his testimony before the US HOR Armed Services Committee in September 2002: In addtion, Clark makes these comments in April 2003 as part of a London Times op-ed piece: Now we hear this, said by Clark at a Democratic debate in Detroit at the end of last October: Now just what the hell is going on here. Either Clark in incredibly confused, or he's thinks he can lie to the public and get away with it. Whatever the case, this dipsh*t is definately not Presidential material. Take note liberals, Clark is a perfect example of a proven liar.

1. Bush's Entitlement spending: Yes, Bush's high level of domestic spending on entitlement programs, most notably the expansion of Medicare, is politcal pandering. But let's not forget that that Congress spends, not the president, and if this were a Dem president, spending would easily be three fold of what it is now. The size of those programs were kept, by the Republican's, with in the realm of quasi responsible. 2. Regime Change (savior of the downtrodden): I don't see it, Bush becoming a bleeding heart that is. I think that he is, among other things, highlighing the human rights argument as one of the justifications for the war. I think he see's the importance of showing the world and the Iraqis that he cares genuinely about creating a successful, relatively prosperous Iraq. He's is trying to send the message that this will not be an American hit and run operation but that we are invested in the long haul. 15 billion for AIDS money to Africa: Karl Rove talking, poltical pandering, huge waste of money that will not realize any politcal benifits whatsoever. Bad. 3. Amnesty: Frankely, I don't know what the hell is going on here. The more I listen to both sides, the more I become unsure as to the validity of Bush's plan. Bottom line, I am highly skeptical of any immigration reform because of the highly unlikely prospect of actually having the borders sealed in a real and effective way. My immigration reform plan would look like this, very simple: a. Seal both the northern and southern borders with the national gaurd. Bring millitary survailance technologies to the fight to provide a high tech electronic barrier. (siesmic sensors etc.) b. No active sweep for illiegals currently in the US, but when they are encountered, throw them out. (enforce current immigration laws). c. Establish heavy fines for businesses who employ illegal workers. d. Abolish the birth right for the children of illegals. e. Create a guest worker program to satisfy the legitimate demand for mexican labor. I think the suggestion that the Bush team is deliberatly attempting to fracture the Republican party to drive out the "xenophobes" is pretty outlandish. It's far more likely that Bush knows this proposal will go nowhere and is simply trying to remove the possiblity of this issue becoming relevant in the election. Basically so he can say,"look, at least I tried." 4. Bush a Socialist?: Not likely. He's trying to get cooperation for Martinski and Fox on the immigration issue. If Bush has to put his arm around these jokers to do it than so be it. Fox is the one actually proposing "open borders". outragous. Univeral Healtcare: I haven't heard those comments before but it certainly doesn't look good. Simple tort reform would solve much of the problem. Insurance rates would fall immediatly. Overall, I think what we're seeing here is classic Bush strategery.

That's how I see it, Take it or leave it. I made no definitive connection between opposition to Isreali government policies and anti-semitism however the two, more often then not, tend to coincide. I think this is evidence of part of the problem. A person's right to chose the religion of their choice is not the issue. That fact is that not all religions are morally equivlant, some deserve more respect them others. While Christianity is certainly flawed in some repects, Islam for example, is clearly a repressive and morally bankrupt culture/faith and therefore does not deserve the same respect. Islam is not the "religion of peace" as some try to claim. While there are undoubtably some decent Muslims who are opposed to violence against Christians and Jews, the majority are, at the very least, complacent towards it. How many Muslim clarics, Imams, and Ayatollahs have you heard renounce the September 11 attacks or the suicide bombings against Isreal? It's far more likely you'll find them praising such acts of terror. Liberals by their very nature cringe at the thought of having to make determinations about good and evil, right and wrong. Liberals believe that it's appropriate for everyone to decide right and wrong according to their own individual interpretation. This flawed philosophy, which is often indicative of "multiculturalism" discourages cultural assimilation and promotes racial and cultural divisions. Long gone is the melting pot mentality that so charactarized America in it's infancy. Blair, who is understandably uneasy at the prospect of a Dean presidency, is overly concerned than he should be. It may appear, particularly to an outsider, that Dean could threaten President Bush in this election, but anyone who realistically understands the American politcal climate knows that Dean's chances are very slim. Dean has a great deal of support from the left wing of the Democratic party, socialists, angry anti-war types, but he it totally unelectable by the broader segment of American society. All the polls show that Bush would trounce Dean if the election were held today. It's a pretty common sentiment here in the US, even among Dems, that if Dean is the nominee, he will lose big against Bush. But the election is still 9 months away and it's all speculation until the news organizations call the winner before the polls are closed.

There is absolutely nothing new about this revelation as Jews have for many years voted strongly Democratic. This trend seems to defy logic given that, as it concerns Isreal anyway, Christians and conservatives are the Jews biggest allies while liberals are typically pro-Palestinian and possess a greater tendancy towards anti-semitism. Go figure.

How so? Let me ask you something: If you're one of Saddam's minions fighting to reinstall your fallen Baath regime to power and you're leaders are being systematically killed and captured to the point at which a return to the "good ol' days" is seeming less and less likely every day, how much willingness are going to have to continue to fight for an increasingly hopeless cause? The answer is little to none.

The US military in Iraq is seeing positive results stemming from the capture of Saddam. Indications are that the insurgency is slowly collapsing. Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture Commanders have set their sights on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam's number 2 man, who is now believed to be directing the resistence. Coalition forces are slowly eliminating the critical elements of the resistence: leadership, money, and the will to fight. It is only a matter of time before Iraq in stablized, paving the way for a new constitution and general elections.

Regime change has been the offical policy towards Iraq since the Clinton Administration. This strategy was not invented by Bush and his oil men down in Texas. Yes, as you've posted literally hundreds of times, this is what you believe to be the case. However, although the intelligence may have been faulty, an assertion that is premature at best, their is absolutely no evidence to suggest that evidence was manufactured and used to mislead the American people. If it is found that Bush has mislead the nation with conjured evidence, I will be the first to admit his wrong doing. But you are way to eager to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon and dump on Bush and this administration based soley on emotion, absent any evidence whatsoever. Al-Sisanti's comments are obvious politcal grandstanding. Of course the US wants to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis as soon as possible, but to do so prematurely would endanger the progress that has been achieved there. The solidity of the Iraq is extremely precarious. A strong central leader is needed to prevent a divided nation from fracturing, a circumstance that would be disastrous for Iraq and for the war on terror. The United States is not about to sacrifice American lives and spend billions to liberate Iraq just to hand over control as soon as possible to a weak government that will precipitate the balkanization of the country. The US cannot simply withdraw immediately. Our presence is needed there for the forseeable future to ensure the survival of Iraq and to further our goal of moderization and political reform in the region. The US will withdraw as soon as it is viable, and not according to the time table of sanctimonious France or the dictate of some Iraqi religious fundamentalist vying for power. Just for once Flea, think, don't feel.

Can't you tell Flea? He's obviously refering to liberals. ha ha ha [Kidding]. Seriously, I'm at a complete loss to even begin to understand what the freak he's talking about. Maybe I'm just not highly evolved enough. Mindless blather.

This may be true in some limited fashion but for the most part, those on both the left and the right possess such strong convictions that no one is really capable of remaining totally objective. I think this is key, particularly when talking about objectivity in the media. There are very few individuals in the media, other than Matt Drudge for instance who routinely slams both sides, that are capable of acting independantly of thier own politcal beliefs. This is why having a debate or dialogue format in news media is so important, so people are given the chance to evaluate different perspectives on their own. There is no organized left-wing conspiracy at work to control media in the US. It is much more subtle than that. It is a case of individual journalists, the vast majority of who are liberals, that consciously and subconsciously filter news converage accroding to their own liberal views. A similar phenonenon exists in academia in which liberal professors vastly prevail. Lefty profs teach students the "truth" according what they believe it to be, regardless of reality. Rarely did I ever witness, in my experience, a professor present both sides of an issue from an adequately objective standpoint, if at all. There no more exists a vast left-wing conspiracy as there does a vast right-wing conspiracy, as repeatedly claimed by Hillary Clinton. You simply give people too much credit for being able to act independently of personal beliefs. ehhh, that doesn't work for me. All that proves is that you're not a radical or a communist. These items are common sense to 95% of the population. What exactly are you refering to here? I don't see the parallel. My arguement is actually more akin to preceptions of racism. Racism is obviously much more real to those who are directly subjected to it. I agree that there are two forms of bias but I disagree that one is any less harmful than the other, nor do I believe that one is any more difficult to detect than the other.

I'm not so sure that's true, that the Dems are right of European centrist. Just because the same liberal programs enacted in Europe were rejected by the American people here doesn't mean the Dems are any less left. Dems continue to this day to pursue socialized givaway programs in more inconspicuous forms, as any effort by them to pass universal heathcare in a broad based, all inclusive capacity would undoubtably fail. You have just stated three primary long lerm domestic goals of the Democratic party. None of them will fly with the American people just yet, but don't count on the Dems giving up anytime soon. Leftists don't claim this, Noam Chomsky claims this. And anyways, you can't just average it out, it either is or it isn't, and the overwhelming volume of evidence points to substantial liberal bias in "mainstream" media. Yes, that was my point. Hardner = leftist, Chomsky = communist; NOT Hardner = centrist, Chomsky = leftist. My point is that, IMO, you imagine yourself a centrist in order to gain the apperance of objectivity, but you're not. You're firmly on the left, from what I can tell. Tell me, what political positions do you hold that you think qualify you for the "centrist" modifier? Personaly, I don't think there is much middle ground. A person's moral, ethical, and social configuration typically causes them to gravitate to one direction or the other on most politcal and social issues. I do not, nor does any other conservative on this forum, claim to be anything other than that. For me to arbitrarily assume a centrist label would be to insult the intelligence of others on this forum. Most on the left are completely numb to media bias. Those who are not discriminated against and, in fact, those who discriminate against others often deny discrimination exists at all. You simply cannot understand media bias until, as a conservative, you're subjected to it. Wait a mintue, the Washington Times is "right"? I thought it was centrist. hehe

Hogwash. The Democrats have been attempting for years to import European socialism to the United States. Most notably with "Hillary Care" back during Clinton's first term. The American people have no desire to yield control of their freedoms to such a large and inefficient bureaucracy, and hence the proposal fell flat on it's face. Chomsky, the lunatic, claims conservative bias in the media. uh huh. Maybe he should just stick to linguistics. You suffer from the same hallucination as Rather, Jennings, and the rest: you see your views as centrist. Michael Hardner, you are a leftist. Noam Chomsky is a communist (althought he refers to himself as an anarchist). Polls show that 85%-90% of mainstream journalist vote Democrat. You don't think that effects their objectivity in any significant way? And what about Iraq, do you think the NYT supported that war as well?

I would submit that the left has shifted further to the left. That includes youth unfortunately. As for your depiction of the "mainstream" media, i.e. NYT, LAT, Networks, etc., as centrist, that assertion is utterly laughable. The evidence is out there in plain sight. Run a a Lexus Nexus search, read either of Bernard Goldberg's recent books, for Chirst sake man, it's undeniable fact. I suspect your claim of a centrist NYT is about as much based in fact as your declaration that Limbaugh is a liar. Please don't make us prove you wrong. I suppose Jason Blair is not at all represenative of the psychosis infecting that publication? It's pathetic that it would have to come to that, isn't it?

I think that in principle, the plan has merit and is not purely a political ploy, after all the hispanic community is passionately divided on the issue of immigration and it's questionable whether this move would garner any substantial hispanic support for Bush's reelection. Micheal Medved makes a persuasive argument, I think, for Bush's immigration plan. It would be cost prohibitive to deport an estimated 10 million illegal aliens, aside from the fact that it's probably logistically impossible. Since these illegals are here to stay, it would be more benificial to give them some sort of status with the capability of being tracked/screened. These immigrants would be enrolled in a guest worker program and would now be eligible to pay legitimately into social security. After three years, they are eligible to apply for citizenship. Although current immigrants who have entered the US illegally are being granted amnesty which essentially amounts to a reward for bad behavior, future immigrants, as the need arises on behalf of US employers, would be motivated to enter the US legally. In combination with stiff fines for illegals to gain status and also levied on employers who hire illegals, would go a ways to minimizing the immigaration problem. Ofcourse this all works under one very important condition. SEAL OF THE BORDERS NOW. Bush must either increase the number of border patrol agents 10 fold, or use the national gaurd and military to patrol porous regions. Without this element, the flow will not stop. Remember, illegal immigration takes two forms: border jumpers, and those who simply overstay work visas: The ratio is roughly 50/50. Reagan's immigration reform failed because the border was never sealed and the laws never enforced. I hope to God that Bush doesn't make the same mistake. Otherwise, we'll have 20 million illegals on our hands by the end of decade.

It is true that both parties are influenced by special interests, but that's the nature of our republic. You and I both are represented by special interest whether you realize it or not, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Those who view the two parties as indistinguishable are essentially numb to the political climate in this country. The Republicans and Democrats adopt philosophies that are diametrically opposed to one another. This is reflected in the types of special interests that influence each party, for example: Dems: -organized labor -tort lawyers -environmentalists -homosexuals -victim minority groups -fringe marxists (moveon.org) -gun control advocates -teachers unions -atheists -abortionists In contrast to... Reps: -small business -energy -developers -tobacco -gun manufacturers -law enforcement -defense contractors -Christian groups -timber industry -anti-abortion advocates ...in both cases, the list goes on. So, which special interests best represent what you stand for? That's what it comes down to.

The Electoral College system was instituted precisely to create greater fairness in Presidential elections. This is true for several reasons: 1. The Electoral College requires a distribution of popular support to be elected President. Without it, presidents would be elected either through the domination of one populus region over the others or through the domintation of large metropalitain areas over rural ones. This is particularly crucial in such a geographically large nation such as the United States. Because no one single region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Without the EC, a cadidate's campaign trail, for example, would never venture beyond New York, California, and Florida. Even in a close election such as in 2000, the practical value of requiring a distribution of votes outweighs any sentimental value that may be attached to winning a bare majority of popular support. In other words, in the event of a close election, the election defaults to the candidate with the best distribution of popular votes. Algore may have had a couple hunderd thousand or so more popular votes that GW, but those who voted for Bush depict a more geographically diverse representation of the voter population. 2. The EC contributes to political stability by encouraging a two party system. This is because it is next to impossible for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough states to have a chance of wining the election. As a result, third party movements are effectively forced into one of the two major political parties. Likewise, the major political parties have an incentive to incorporate third party movements in order to expand their coalitions. The effect of this asslimation process is that third parties are forced to compromise their more radical views if they hope to accomplish any of their more generally accepted objectives. The result is that we end up with two large, more or less mainstream parties that cater to the relative center rather than dozens of smaller political parties that cater to divergent and extremist views (i.e. Canada). In other words, the EC system forces political coalitions to occur within the politcal parties rather than within the government. This system may seem confusing and unfair to an outsider or laymen but I assure you, it's conception is nothing short of brilliant.

You asked, so I told you. I implied nothing of the sort. Incredible. I'm saying that those who decide the recipients of Oscar awards belong to a very exclusive, politcally undiverse, radical leftist crowd, and as such the value of the award should reflect that. "The federal government instituted the guaranteed student loan program to provide incentives to banks to make risky loans to students with no assets, no credit records, no full-time jobs and no permanent address. This is enormous risk. The government helps mitigate this risk. But, the government will only pay off defaulted loans if banks have followed a very careful, very detailed, very exacting set of procedures of servicing and collecting student loans. If banks don't follow the guidelines precisely, they won't be reimbursed by the government and they are left high and dry. That is risk." -- Fritz Elmendorf, Vice President for Communications, Consumer Bankers Association [by interview]. Rush's full quote dated February 17, 1994., cited in the FAIR's own report, reads: "I don't think The New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven't done a thorough search, but I -- there has not been a big one, front-page story about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed -- if it weren't for us and The Wall Street Journal and The American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well-kept secrets going on in American politics today." Rush Defends himself: My point, that as of February, much of the mainstream press had not played up Whitewater details while conservative publications had covered the scandal prominently and advanced the story, is correct. I plainly state that I don't recall if The New York Times has run a front-page story. And the fact that I overlooked one Times article that ran eleven months earlier is hardly indicative of a "reign of error." My quote came exactly nine days before The New York Times ran another major news story on Whitewater and followed that with an editorial the following day blasting the Clinton Administration in a piece entitled, "Slovenly White House Ethics." New York Post critic Hilton Kramer then noted: "If we may judge from the catch-up reporting in Saturday's New York Times and the paper's fire-and-brimstone editorial on Sunday, it looks as if the scandals plaguing President Clinton and the First Lady are rapidly approaching disaster. Given the way the paper has shamelessly downplayed the Clintons' follies in the past -- even as the press was coming up with more and more sensational revelations -- I think we can assume that the situation has gotten to be too hot now to be ignored, even by the Times." -Rush Limbaugh First of all, lets not start with the distortion. Here's what he said: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." It was not a commentary on Eagles management decisions nor did he imply that Donovan sucked because he was black. In fact, he pointed out that McNabb was not a bad quarterback, but that he also wasn't as good as some were making him out to be. Although Mcnabb turned out to have a pretty good 2003 season, Rush made the comment earlier in the season and was based upon his previous performance which at that time was mediocre at best. McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. At the time of this controvers they ranked 31st so far at that point in 2003. In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. The defense has carried this team. Although ESPN Sunday Countdown was probably not the best place to interject political commentary, his analysis of McNabb was valid. He had the orbs to say what no one else could. Limbaugh is not racist, and he's certainly not a liar.

Respected by millions upon millions. Given to him by whom, the same radical liberal activist celebrity community with whom he brown noses with on a daily basis? The Oscar, as a validation of excellence, means nothing, not when it's doled out according to which actors can demonstrate the most hysterical hatred for Bush and their country. Rush is a commentator because he injects his own views into news analysis. He doesn't pretent to be an impartial "journalist" like the real jokes Rather and his other network freinds who surreptitiously alter news broadcasts to reflect their own liberal views. Show me where. If he is constantly spewing untruths, you should be able to share at least one. I don't think you can. You may think he's full of sh*t because you disagree with his views but the man is not a liar. This is really an outrageous statement. If you had ever listened to Rush for more than 30 seconds, which I doubt you have, you would have a better picture of the kind of people that make up his audience. But instead you take Hillary Clinton's word for it. You hear that everyone, I'm an illiterate half-wit! Typical, anyone who disagrees with liberalism must be an idiot. Yeah that's right, I'm partisan, I stand for something I believe in. And don't think for one second that you're some kind of moderate because you acknowledge that Moore is a left wing wackjob. It's an absolute joke for you to claim that you're any less partisan than I am. Your true colors shine through.

Drawing a comparison between Micheal Moore and Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous. Limbaugh has been a respected political commentator for 15 years and reaches 20 million listeners per week. Micheal Moore is a satirist and an uneducated hack at that. He appeals only to the liberal fringes. The nitwit Moore is so repulsive in fact that the comparison is quiet insulting. Let me ask you this: If Limbaugh is so ineffective, why does the entire liberal establishment try to destroy him at every opportunity? To deny Limbaugh's impact is to bury your head in the sand. So what are you saying, we're all wasting our time? I think that's an awfully pessimistic view.