Montgomery Burns

Montgomery Burns: Black Dog: The left had a field day promoting the results of an October 2003 study from the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). The study, entitled "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War," led its readers to believe that viewers of Fox News were much more likely to wrongly believe that there had been a solid connection found between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The study claimed that "the consensus view in the intelligence community" was that there was no such link. The PIPA message: Viewers of Fox News are misinformed, and the network may be misleading its audience. After all, the liberal media had insisted that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It’s no wonder that the liberal Univeristy of Maryland's PIPA did not cite one specific source to back this claim. Apparently, the PIPA folks "accidentally overlooked" a letter CIA Director George Tenet issued to the Senate Intelligence Committee a year before their study was released. The eye-opening letter read: " ... We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. ... Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." It was Tenet’s letter that later led James Woolsey, Director of the CIA under President Clinton, to remark to Wolf Blitzer, on the November 16, 2003 edition of CNN's Late Edition: "Anybody who says there is no working relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s; they can only say that if they're illiterate." "Illiterate"? Yikes. Maybe Black Dog should take some basic reading courses! Fox News had reported the Tenet letter; the liberal media had not. Bizarro World, indeed. Conclusion: One can reasonably argue that this study tells the opposite of what PIPA told its readers. By a margin of over 4 to 1, viewers of Fox News showed that they most likely correctly, rather than incorrectly, identified the Iraq-Al Qaeda link, compared to those who got their news from NPR and PBS! And that's why the left never brings up the PIPA study anymore... Montgomery Burns: Black Dog: I was talking about Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative pundit. I also don't expect the liberal pundits on Air America to offer fair and balanced reporting, either. That said, I also do not expect AA to call (twice!) for President Bush's assassination.

I can't wait to hear Hillary's reaction to this.

China definitively nails the Clinton legacy Gee. Clinton accepted bribes from China in the form of illegal political contributions, and in exchange made policy decisions that undermined US national security, and this is the thanks he gets from them? There's no truth to the rumor that the Chinese are next going to market and sell a product called a Clinton-Lewinsky cigar and a line of stain-proof blue dresses.

You don't measure the worth of a news source by the number of viewers/listeners/readers. In most cases, media that provides entertainment value will attract a larger audience than media that reports facts honestly. In all cases, right wing media outlets provide entertainment by spouting propoganda that re-enforce prejudices that people in its target audience have. It would not surprise me to find out that the people running Fox don't actually believe the stuff they report - they just report it because it makes bags of money for them.I was rolling on the floor laughing when BD pointed out a study that that showed that Fox viewers are the most likely to be misinformed about key issues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right about entertainment value; that's something leftwing radio doesn't seem to understand. To AA, entertainment value is calling - twice - for the President's assassination over their airwaves. Class, real classy. When Rush is whipping your ass in loony San Francisco - which is right by Berkeley - then you have a BIG problem with your entertainment value. I'm not sure what BD posted that said Fox News viewers aren't informed, but if it is the infamous PIPA study, it will be my turn to roll on the floor laughing. PIPA - inadvertently - proved that Fox News viewers were 4 times more knowledgeable than viewers who got their Iraq news from liberal TV. Fair and balanced reporting will always beat out the lies and forged memos of Dan Rather and his ilk.

Iraqi troops continue to progress It's nice to see Iraqi forces outnumbering American troops during a big operation. And there are 30,000 Iraqi troops that are "fully independent" or capable of "fighting the lead?" There are 50,000-60,000 troops that are "well trained?" Given that they essentially started from scratch, the Iraqis have come a long way. On top of those numbers, keep in mind that there are "178,000 trained and equipped (Iraqi) forces" and the goal, which is achievable because the US now have many more Iraqis capable of training other Iraqis, is "to have 275,000 Iraqi policemen and soldiers trained and equipped and organized into effective units" by June of next year. So much for the "another Vietnam" mantra.

You haven't "corrected" anything. I provided figures from Britain's Home Office; you have provided nothing. Quit embarrassing yourself.

I am not impressed with the spending Bush has allotted for the Katrina disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the federal govt being involved in disaster relief. It makes sense for the feds to help people, cities, and states that have caught the brunt of an "Act of God." That's just good common sense, especially in a case where the damage is on such a wide scale that charities and the states affected just don't have the capacity to help get everyone quickly back up on their feet. However: "Compassionate" conservatism And you just know that these 300,000 trailers will cost more than $5 billion. And then Bush said that spending $60 billion would prove America's "compassion". Like you can prove compassion by spending taxpayer money without their say so. Then there's the $5,000 of "job training and education" for evacuees. Okay, so my condo burns down tomorrow and the govt owes me $5000 USD worth of job training, a $2000 USD FEMA debit card, and a mobile home at taxpayer's expense? The amount the federal govt is spending on Katrina is completely out of proportion to any previous natural disaster in the US. Up until Katrina, the most expensive natural disaster in American history was Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which cost $25 billion dollars. And before someone starts talking about the inflation rate from 1992 to 2005, you just know that that $60 billion will end up costing double that. Govts are simply not efficient; everyone knows that. I think Bush's foreign policy is very good, but some of his "compassionate conservatism" domestic policies leave a lot to be desired. Sometimes he seems to spend like a drunken Ted Kennedy. P.S. Newbie: Sorry for ignoring your OP and replying - somewhat - to Black Dog's post, but polls don't interest me a whole helluva a lot, since they are not necessarily noted for being terribly accurate. I remember Reagan's approval ratings being in the high 30s in 1983; he was reelected in a landslide 525-13 electoral vote and won 49 states in 1984. Besides, you posted the same topic twice.

How dare Ann Coulter not be up on Canadian history? Doesn't she listen to Paul Martin? Canada LEADS THE WORLD!!

Do you consider Libertarian-Conservatives radical, Eureka? Or is anyone who doesn't hate the US - and especially President Bush - with every fiber of their being, radical?

You think it could be worse than Rush? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A great retort from that noted conservative, Argus. Btw, did you know that Rush's ratings are 3.5 times higher than AA's are in San Francisco? That's the last figures I saw - a couple of months ago - and I have no reason to doubt that they have changed. Yes, Rush whips AA in The City of Moonbats - San Francisco.

Mirror is no longer on the forum, so I will direct my comments to you. I would not like guns banned because I know that the bad guys would not turn in their guns. I have grandparents that live on an isolated farm and I am glad that Grandpa has guns for protection. Don't you remember what happened when the UK banned handguns? Their robbery and break-in rate went up 60% because (surprise!) the bad guys never turned in their guns. Now their citizens are disarmed and are at the mercy of the bad guys who are not so leery of breaking into homes - unlike the US where the bad guys are leery of breaking into homes for fear of not knowing what the homeowner has for protection. Indeed many of their shooting incidents come from people protecting their home. When a govt disarms its population - be aware. One of the first things Hitler did was disarm the German citizenry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Besides really twisting some facts to support your argument, you are wrong on the Hitler statement. My guess is, based on the sorts that trot that one out, is that it is some sort of NRA bunk, along with how safe Switzerland is because they have to own guns there. Pure bunk. I'll tell you what, if none of us had guns, why would you need to protect your self again? I've never felt unsafe anywhere in Canada. Can't say I can say the smae thing about the US. Too many idiots there with weapons and the wrong attitudes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shakey, Hitler disarmed the German citizenry. And I got my UK stats from Britain's Home Office, as can be seen by the link I provided. And it wasn't just the difficulty of Hitler's panzers navigating through the Swiss Alps that made Hitler leery of annexing Switzerland; he knew that their population was armed. Btw, Switzerland is a low crime rate, low murder country. Your utopia theory of no one having guns and no one needing them is not realistic. The bad guys will not turn in their guns. Period. Look at what happened to the UK when they disarmed their citizens. And your claim that you have never felt unsafe anywhere in Canada? I dare you to walk through "the hood" at nighttime in my mid-sized Canadian city with a 12 pack of beer. One of my employees foolishly did that (he was drunk), and was beaten to a bloody pulp, and missed 3 weeks of work. No one realistaically walks through the hood in my city - the city with the highest robbery rate (per capita) in Canada and the US. So don't give me any of that Michael Moore "Canada is so safe they don't lock their doors" BS.

If I hear about a redneck being beaten by locked out CBC workers, I'll be sure to forward this thread for consideration as an extenuating circumstance for the sentencing hearings. After I'm done lmao, anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It looks like the 3rd time is the lucky charm. After taunting the strikers by calling them Pravda, I was called a fascist, a neocon, and a Zionist by those CBC leeches who are dedicated to "honest journalism". Made my day. One striker looked very angry but he still didn't make a move towards me. Perhaps it was because some bystanders shouted "Hell Yeah". Socialist weenies. Too chicken to enforce international law and too chicken to even be human shields for their beloved Islamofascist dicktator - Saddam Hussein.

Good old Black Dog. Always the picture of optimism.

Black Dog: Yeah right. By amazing coincidence, after years of sanctions, Gaddafi’s first message to Britain, the USA's principal war ally and conduit to White House war councils, occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And then Gaddafi randomly picks December 19, 2003, as the day for his final capitualtion to US/British terms - just 6 days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole. Pure coincidence, I'm sure. As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds? The 9 months of negotiations with Libya perfectly frame the war on Iraq and the fall of Saddam. How is it possible to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits? And what is the difference between a country being part of an "Axis of Evil" and an "outpost of tryanny"?

Shakeyhands, what is it like living in that little fantasy world of yours? Incredible! Kim backs down, agrees to stop his nuclear ambitions and he "won". Why don't you come right out and say it? You're pissed that NK capitualted to the USA's threat and you're pissed that it makes Bush look good.

Paul Coffin won't be going to prison on sponsorship fraud charges 15 fraud charges against the govt, $1.5 million in tax free dollars (about $2.6 million before taxes), and all he gets is 2 years less a day of community service?! This seems so wrong. If I ripped off the govt/taxpayers for $1.5 million/2.6 million, I know I would get more than 2 years less a day of community service.

I saw this the other day. It's only a poll, but 16 points is a lot and cannot be easily dismissed. It's distressing.

LotusLandLunatic: Is that what you call it?

theloniusfleabag: I agree. Your comment about Argus being a conservative is a perfect example of that. This is a political forum, not a forum for sexual fantasies.

Black Dog: Thank you, Bill Clinton. Oh wait. I forgot Liberal Rule #6; you can't bring up Clinton because he is not president anymore. Incredible. NK demands bilateral talks; Bush tells Kim no and says 6-party talks or nothing, threatens to walk away from the latest round of 6-party talks, and in Black Dog speak, NK forced the US to the bargaining table. Of course there would be security guarantees for NK. Duh. And what massive energy and economic assistance are you talking about? And somehow the left concludes that Bush appeased Kim. Amazing, indeed. It was Kim who had no choice but to bargainor eventually be overthrown. He knew he was on the Axis of Evil hitlist. Its war fighting capabilities are fine. They have many troops in Europe and as two generals recently said, about one-fifth of the US troops will be leaving Iraq in the spring of 2006 with more to leave in the summer and fall. NK has a smaller population than Iraq and its people - and likely military - are starving, and it only took the US 3 weeks to overthrow Saddam with a mere 150,000 troops. Furthermore, when you look at new enlistments AND re-enlistments combined, the military is still keeping up the necessary amount of manpower. You underestimate the strength and resolve of President Bush and the US populace. Remember what Uday Hussein said (I'm paraphrasing) to one of his bodyguards....I wasn't worried about Clinton, but that Bush guy worries me; he seems like he means business. When will you appeasers understand that the only thing dictators understand is force or the threat of it? In the immortal words of Ann Coulter: No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to "work" because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to "engagement" shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy "win". I think that Kim realizes that Bush has steely resolve when it comes to foreign policy and he will - hopefully - not start up his nuclear ambitions again. He saw what happened to the Anointed One, the Glorious Leader, the Direct Descendant of the Prophet, the President of Iraq, the Arab Ironman - Saddam Hussein. So did Qaddafi.

An Iraqi Explains Why Al Qaeda Is Frightened Of The New Elections In Iraq Indeed, Omar and Mohammed have also posted that there is not the tension between Sunnis and Shias that the media plays up; they are both Iraqi and intermingle and associate with each other all the time. And I would take the word of two Iraqis over the New York Times.

Iraqi Lawmakers OK Amended Constitution

Cartman: Define a "real" conservative. I was speaking in generalities but since you brought it up....who was the one who suggested that someone should be punted for daring to use the word Socialist?

You will get nothing but laughter here referring to me as "far left" or even "left". I am a conservative. Bush is not. I'm not sure what you are, but I wish you'd stop referring to yourself as a conservative because you give us a bad name. I do not want to be associated with someone whose political views are as... feral as yours. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please don't insult the forum's intelligence by suggesting you are a conservative. You aren't fooling anybody. I believe you do this to try and embarrass conservatives. I admit that Bush isn't the most conservative person when it comes to decreasing govt spending, indeed, he has increased spending - again - with the Katrina relief package, but otherwise he is conservative. He believes in a strong foreign policy, dislikes murdering innocent babies, is trying to move the Supreme Court to the right, doesn't believe in gun control, believes people should have more control over their money, and gave 2 tax cuts. You, on the other hand, call him a disgraceful drunken coke-snorting frat boy who refused to go against the Constitution because he hates the n*ggers in New Orleans. I don't mind someone disagreeing with some of his policies - I disagree with many of them myself - but you react with nothing but race-baiting and bile towards the president. Indeed, it is plain to see that you are inflicted with the leftist disease, Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Fox , like CNN , now reaches about 4 of every 5 television households in the U.S, so comparisons with broadcast news shows are valid. Both "Special Report with Brit Hume" and the "Fox Report" draw around 1 million viewers a night during prime time. Compare that with the numbers from the big three: NBC's "Nightly News" averages 8.4 million households, ABC's "World News Tonight" averages 7 million and CBS's "Evening News", "liberal bias" and all, reaches 6 million households. So next time someone talks at length about the rating juggernaut that is FOX News, keep these numbers in mind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Old habits die hard. The Fox News Channel first aired in 1996. Compare that to the lengthy history of the 3 network channels. However, while Fox has gained viewership, the Big 3 have lost viewership. They will likely lose more viewers in years to come as their audience is older (check out the commercials that run during their supper broadcasts) than the Fox News viewers. Surveys seem to suggest that cable news has become more important than traditional ratings might reflect. In 2003, the household weekly average for time spent watching cable news was 3 hours and 6 minutes, significantly higher than the 2 hours and 19 minutes spent watching broadcast news (including network news magazine shows), according to an analysis by CNN of Nielsen data. The Pew Research Center surveys have asked people where they go for most of their national and international news. More people cite cable than network, and have for some time. In January 2003, for example, a Pew survey asking people simply to identify whether their favored news source was cable, network or local found cable held a 36-point advantage over network - 49% to 13%. Since many leftists start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of the FNC, I suspect it is having an impact. Even Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC launched numerous attacks against Fox News the moment the Liberal Party. I specifically remember Peter Mansbridge mentioning the FNC 3 times by name on the 11 PM news the day the Liberal Party lifted its 5 year ban off the channel. I find it telling that the left denies there is a liberal bias in the media (the corporate media mantra), but the only news source that greatly angers them is the FNC. Besides, FNC viewers were proven - inadvertently - by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) to be the most informed about Iraq - by a 4 to 1 margin over those who got their news from the liberal media. I remember the lefties gleefully triumphing the results of the PIPA study, "See, Fox News viewers are uninformed; they're morons"...but then the PIPA report exploded in their face. They don't bring up the PIPA study anymore. I find the FNC refreshing. It's different not seeing Republicans being treated so hostile - like they usually are by the liberal media. I also enjoy seeing liberals squirm when they are asked to back up their views with facts. I think that is the main reason why the left hates the FNC so much. Liberals often end up looking, well, dumb when they appear on the FNC and aren't asked the typical softball questions they are used to receiving. However, I believe some of that is due to complacency on their part; they're not used to pundits or reporters questioning their views.