KaskadskyjKozak

I'm talking about 2004. Do you actual contend that Bush did not win?

Umm, yeah, right. And I guess now that you've come to that conclusion and the media haven't reported this, it's another example of media bias.

Clearly, Bush never could have actually won.

careful dude, he'll read that as full of sack and lick shit and come from your pooper wow, you're so much of an asshole, you need twin avatars which behave exactly the same - amazing!

you mean like you putting me on "ignore"? or that *I* follow *you* around and attack all your postings? you're full of shit dude. Now go lick sack.

Cross winds were a bit nasty today but it was good to ride in. And it was almost balmy.

I laugh every time I hear this. Both parties have moved to the LEFT in the past 50 years. Right now the Republicans arguably occupy roughly the same spot on the political spectrum where the democrats stood circa the Kennedy presidency. And don't start up about "the religious right". Religion played a lot bigger role in both parties 45 years ago than it does today.

I agree with this. And it seems like this is something which could actually be reformed. Another thing that irks me is the way primaries are run and scheduled. The structure and schedule benefits the parties, and not the voter. This year some states tried to move up their primaries to have more influence and were smacked down by the parties. I believe Michigan is one - and only Hillary is on the ballet there? And wasn't it the case that the conventions used to actually mean something? There was still some debate and uncertainty at the convention? But now the things are rigged so they are merely a place to grandstand and coronate the party leader.

Again, an oversimplification. Corporations have a huge influence but don't account for everything that goes on in politics - not even close. And aren't you conveniently ignoring the role of unions, non-profits, and others? As for the system being "broken". Was it ever substantively better? Was there ever a time in this country or in any other democracy in the history of the world, where the poltical process was free of all influences of the rich, "corporations", etc? Politics is all about the interconnections between power, wealth, and control and always has been. Democracy does not make this go away.

i'm lame, i admit it! yeah i agree that on a relative level, the things we are interested in, the things we do, are sources of connection etc, and on a certain level says to others something about us, but i don't think these are the things we "are". i tend to think these are the things we "do". i guess i tend to think that there is something more or other to us than simply our actions. there's an a priori potential, energy, creative life force, that then expresses itself in the various capacities particular to the proclivities of the individual (oh good lord this sounds wordy). so before particularization if you will, there is simply the energy of unexpressed consciousness and awareness. it's beyond and before any "activity" or expression of interest or drive or etc. yes.

But even if you know what a candidate claims to stand for, does he really? Don't politicians lie regularly, flip-flop, "evolve", whatever you want to call it? And does the president really run the show? Isn't he beholden to his party, interest groups and supporters. Doesn't the cabinet and staff/advisors in total really run the show? Considering all that, whom we vote for is more about our "gut feeling" about the person and his affiliations/people behind the scenes, and history. At least for the primary. For the general election it is more about voting "against" the person you have less trust in, or whose affiliations/interests/interest you reject the most.

You're the biggest target of all in more ways than one.

1) Candidates are often vague on positions so they can "adjust" them as is expedient, or just keep them hidden to avoid being attacked. 2) Candidates in primaries are trying different tactics/messages out to see how they "resonate". Like Hillary "finding her voice" at the last minute. 3) the "real story" is the "horse race", and any shockers/surprises that come up (dirty politics) during campaigning.

"Time for your deep cavity exam, America!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!! I'm gettin' some fudge!!!" Um, yeah, we kinda got that from the pic. Guess you really don't have me on "ignore" as you claimed earlier, OCD-Booby-Man!

"Time for your deep cavity exam, America!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!! I'm gettin' some fudge!!!"

I need more evidence. Post a picture showing the rest of her.

Kerry should have endorsed Edwards, and made sure that guy doesn't get the nomination. I think odds are it's gonna be Hillary and doubt she'll pick Obama as a running mate.

A woman with a fish is like a man with a bicycle. Wait, that's not right...

I'm not sure that'll help him. Talk about the kiss of death.

I've spent as much time as you have, and given as much "basis" for my POV, as you. Get over yourself.

I asked about 5, you replied that you had some kind of position on 3 of them. Are you willing to state even an overview of your basis for any coherent position on a single one? Reporting on Iraq has always been biased. To me the bias has been predominantly anti-war and anti-Bush. And no, I'm not going to go down that endless debate again. More interesting is how reporting has trended recently. Less negative reporting on Iraq, even a hint or two that maybe the surge "is working". Hmmm. Is that because the media is suddenly leaning right? Fat chance. If this is intentionally being done, maybe it's because we are in an election cycle and a Democrat may be elected, and Democrats are NOT talking about immediate withdrawal? No, perish the thought! "Stay the course" was attacked and mocked constantly by the media showing their bias, but if a Democrat states that same message and gets elected on that message, wanna bet the media is much less critical of that theme, and much less negative on the war? There wouldn't be more "feel good" reports about the war, and how the effort is working, would there? The media would never, ever do that, now would they? The media, as a rule, magnifies criticism of and opposition to conservative policies and positions, and is silent (tacitly supporting) or much gentler in criticism of liberal policies and positions. If both sides will do essentially the same thing (rhetoric aside), the media will blast the message when the conservatives are the messengers (or in power), and do the opposite when the tables are turned.

Sorry, that's too simplistic. Just like saying Iraq is "ALL ABOUT OIL". There are multiple factors coming into play, partly related to money (driving the direction of news reporting - what topics to cover). But once a topic is deemed "newsworthy", then other biases come into play. And "THE MAN" is not completely to blame for the first part. WE ARE. If the news were erudite, well-done, and went far beyond sound bites... people would not watch. It's the collective ADD of the American public.

There you go again. The first sentence in and of itself is biased to a conclusion, and that conclusion is what you want reported. End of story. Ditto for any of your scenarios. And no, I'm not going to spend hours writing point by point with you on 3,4,5, or more issues. Is the media biased? Yes. A vast majority of them are left-leaning, and that does manifest itself in reporting. Subtly. Not 100% black and white, but consistently slanted slightly towards the beliefs of reporting the news. In addition, the media are businesses, seeking to maximize profit. They need viewers, so that affects reporting, and introduces bias. Sometimes that bias coincides with the personal political biases of those reporting the news, and sometimes the latter runs counter to it.

TTK has never showed any evidence of putting me on ignore. In fact, his citation above, proves he still doesn't have me there. For months I had him on ignore, told him so, and he refused to respect that. I knew this because I could see his stupid attacks against me via citations from other participants. (if only the "ignore" feature also included citations!) I would be very very pleased if that moron would put me on ignore, respect it (we know he is too OCD and full of himself to do that), and never ever respond to me. Then I could ignore his worthless ass and spray would be a much better place.

I asked what your position on these matters was. What would be a "fair" reporting on these issues in your mind? What we've had? Take a couple of the subject areas I listed above and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Reporting on global warming, Iraq, the primaries, etc, has not been fair. If anything these issues have been biased to your perspective. as for "omissions" in reporting, blame the American public, who is more interested in the minutiae of an OJ trial, Brittney's latest rehab, or the latest crap of the day.