# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut

## Logan13

You can hate Fox as much as you want, but they just keep on keeping on by staying #1. I bet that this really chaps some of your asses, doesn't it! :Wink/Grin:  
*Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut*
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cab..._id=1003530545 
JANUARY 10, 2007 - 

The debut of Fox News Channel fixture Sean Hannitys Sunday evening showcase drew a sizable audience in its 9 p.m. time slot, delivering 1.05 million viewers and 302,000 adults 25-54.

_The one-hour premiere of Hannitys America beat out the competition by a significant margin, more than doubling CNNs audiencethe first hour of a two-hour CNN Presents special drew 518,000 total viewers and 125,000 adults 25-54 in the 9 p.m. slot Sunday nightand eclipsing the viewership at MSNBC (454,000), Headline News (327,000) and CNBC (299,000)._
Compared to FNCs average audience in the time slot throughout Dec. 2006, Hannitys America was up 65 percent in total viewers and another 66 percent in the core demo, according to Nielsen Media Research data. In a sense, Hannity beat himself Sunday night; in the first three weeks of December, FNC ran repeats of Hannity & Colmes in the 9 p.m. slot. 

Hannity will continue co-hosting Hannity & Colmes, cables second highest-rated program. Hell also remain at the mic for his daily ABC Radio Networks show.

While Hannitys conservative leanings are tempered by his liberal co-star in his regular gig, as a solo artist he was allowed a freer hand. In what is expected to be a recurring feature of the Sunday show, Hannity named actor Sean Penn the Enemy of the State for the week of Jan. 8., slamming Penn for his views on the Bush administration.

The premiere also included a hot seat interview with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a lighter segment with The View co-anchor Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

is 1 million viewers considered high over there?  :Don't know:

----------


## Logan13

> is 1 million viewers considered high over there?


These are cable news numbers. Read on and compare it to the competition's numbers

----------


## Kärnfysikern

I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.

Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?

----------


## Snrf

The top show in England (I think its Eastenders or some similar soap bollocks) attracts 17 million sometimes. Thats like 30% of the population, sad

----------


## Logan13

> I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.
> 
> Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?


Is it because you only have like 4 channels to watch, unless you have satellite over there?

----------


## givemethejuice

> I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.
> 
> Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?



The worst ****ing show on t.v. American Idol is probably right at 10% of the population.

----------


## Logan13

> The worst ****ing show on t.v. American Idol is probably right at 10% of the population.


I really hate Idol.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Is it because you only have like 4 channels to watch, unless you have satellite over there?


Most people have 10 channels or so. They are included in all basic cable packages in all apartment complexes.
3 channels are aviable over regular antenna. 2 of them beeing state funded and commercial free. But you only need to buy a cheap box to get 40-50 channels over antenna so even those without acces to cable doesnt need satelite to get more.

----------


## Logan13

> Most people have 10 channels or so. They are included in all basic cable packages in all apartment complexes.
> 3 channels are aviable over regular antenna. 2 of them beeing state funded and commercial free. But you only need to buy a cheap box to get 40-50 channels over antenna so even those without acces to cable doesnt need satelite to get more.


I have digital cable, my channels go from 2 - 811............

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I have digital cable, my channels go from 2 - 811............



I had like 150 channels for a while but turns out I was only watching 5-6 of them anyway. Its amazing how much shit that can be show on tv.  :Hmmmm:  

Hell tv was better when I was a kid living in a village where we only had the 3 basic channels.

----------


## givemethejuice

> I really hate Idol.


I just hope that show is not watched by people around the world because it will just reinforce the stereotype that Americans are a bunch of dumbasses. Have you seen the dumb-****s they have on that show? I can not beleive their are that many idiotic people in this country that want to be on t.v. so they can show the world how dumb they are!

----------


## BgMc31

Idol started in England and there are copy cat versions of the show in several countries in Europe. I hate it too!!!

----------


## Kärnfysikern

I dont know. Its kind of fun seeing those morons getting insulted by the judges. I usualy watch the first episodes of the seasons(the swedish version of idol) when all the dorks are on. But after that its shit.

----------


## RA

> I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.
> 
> Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?


 
Its a cable news show. Here everyone gets 100+ channels, so to get a million is not bad. Now shows like survivor etc.. get big numbers like your talking about.

----------


## chief_willie

Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.

----------


## Logan13

> Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.


He is not a journalist, doesn't claim to be, he is a commentator. Journalist are only supposed to report the news, not give their personal views about it. Hannity/Combs is #2 cable news show, right behind O'Reilly Factor, that must really piss you off............. :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Teabagger

> Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.


OK :LOL:  You must have nearly blown an anuresym when Air America dropped like a brick.  :LOL:  And exactly is Hannity retarded oh ye of such wisdom, knowledge, forethought, and sight....hmmmmmmmm??? chief.

----------


## chief_willie

Logan and Teabag...here's your leaders....I can only imagine you two practice the same love for one another.


Viva Hugo!

----------


## BgMc31

46.7 million watched the AFC Championship game between Indy and NE. Usually 120+million watch the superbowl.

----------


## BgMc31

Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective. 

Am I way off base here?

----------


## Logan13

> Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective. 
> 
> Am I way off base here?


Not at all. I posted the Nielsen ratings in another thread in here, it actually broke down the viewers for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC by political party. I was actually shocked to see that so many liberals watched Fox. I really like Fox's new slogan "There are problems in America, but America is not the problem!" I don't know if it is as much a fact that Fox leans right or that Fox presents both sides whereas the other two only present one side. Remember, there are more Conservatives in this country than liberals"

----------


## chief_willie

> ...Fox presents both sides whereas the other two only present one side.


now that's FUNNY.

----------


## Logan13

> now that's FUNNY.


Are you still here?

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective.


Not true at all...no matter how left they seem, they all parrot what comes out of the whitehouse with little questioning and very little real reporting...

Fox news is just one of the main problems destroying democracy in this country...A media outlet run by the former media strategist for reagan and bush sr, under the slogan "fair and balanced"...Democracy relies on responsible and independent media, and when polls show that watching the most watched new channel actually makes you less informed on the FACTS, we are in trouble, huh?



> From a PIPA study:
> "Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Queda, similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression."
> 
> "Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didnt even come close to this total."
> 
> "*In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate*".


 Source

Any comparing Foxs bias to CNN, MSNBC is ridiculous...Just because one channel leans SO HARD to the right, doesnt leave the rest left leaning, by default, IMHO...For example all the *most "left leaning" sources you cite. Actually lean to the RIGHT* in terms of the appearance of pundits, and guests...They are also owned by huge conglomerates that benefit off of war, and pro buisness policies...i wont deny that some of the anchors on these channels are liberal but "the other side" has an even bigger oppurtunity to defend themselves than democrats...




> From Media Matters- In regards to ABC, CBS, NBC on Sunday Morning Talk shows
> "The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. *But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent.* In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent."
> 
> "In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels. "


 Source

regarding MSNBC 3 out of 4 of the main pundits consider themselves conservatives....tucker, matthews, and scarborough...just because they agree with 68% of americans that bush is a moron and a disaster for the counrty doesnt mean they are liberal or left leaning...




> From Media Matters on Chris Matthews
> 
> "Media Matters tallied all guests who appeared on Hardball during the first two months of 2006 and coded them based on party affiliation and ideology. (A list of the guests is here.) The data reflected in these charts show that the number of Republican/conservative guests has been significantly higher than the number of Democratic/progressive guests. In January, Republicans/conservatives led Democrats/progressives 55 to 38 -- a difference of 59 percent to 41 percent. By February, that advantage had increased: Republican/conservatives outnumbered Democrats/progressives 55 to 34, or 62 percent to 38 percent."
> 
> "Not only did the right dominate the left overall, but Republicans/conservatives also outnumbered Democrats/progressives in other key categories. During January and February, there were more Republican Party elected officials and Bush administration officials than those from the Democratic Party. In this category, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 22 to 18."
> 
> "In addition, conservative journalists and pundits outnumbered progressive journalists and pundits by a considerable margin. While most journalists/pundits were neutral reporters or consistently presented a centrist point of view, the data show that those who spoke from an ideological perspective were conservative far more often than progressive. Conservatives in this category outnumbered progressives 42 to 13 -- a ratio of more than 3-to-1."


 Source

As for CNN and BBC- Both of the pesidents of these channels have admitted giving a Pro- War Bias before and after the lead-up to the conflict in Iraq





> Quote:
> Two leading media bosses have admitted what has been increasingly evident throughout the month-long war in Iraq: the American broadcast media systematically distorted the news of the war and functioned as an electronic arm of the Pentagon and the Bush administration. 
> 
> In separate speeches April 24 in London and San Francisco, BBC Director General Greg Dyke and Ted Turner, founder of CNN, discussed the performance of the media during the war. 
> 
> Both sought to lay the blame for the super-patriotic tone of the war coverage largely on the media empire of billionaire Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox News, the biggest US cable news network, as well as Britains Sky News and nearly 200 daily newspapers worldwide. While there is no doubt that Murdoch was the most strident of the voices for war, the BBC, CNN and the rest of the broadcast and print media followed suit...


Source

And NPR, a station often condemned as having a liberal bias by conservatives...




> From a Study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting)
> "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIRs latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sourcesincluding government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultantsRepublicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003" 
> 
> "Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each."
> 
> "FAIR classified each think tank by ideological orientation as either centrist, right of center or left of center. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances.
> 
> The most often quoted think tank was the centrist Brookings Institution, quoted 31 times; it was also the most quoted think tank in 1993. It was followed by 19 appearances by the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies and 17 by the centrist Council on Foreign Relations. The most frequently cited left-of-center organization was the Urban Institute, with eight appearances."


 Source

What do these studies show? To me it seems Fox (and others) have moved so far to the right that anyone who didnt follow suit, now look left leaning by default... The debate is being narrwed and i feel there is no mainstream source to show a true left wing view

*A more appropriate comparison would be Fox News, and Air America, IMO...*

*sorry for the huge post...just felt the need to explain my POV...*

----------


## BgMc31

Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.

----------


## BgMc31

Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.

----------


## mcpeepants

excellent post Juiced

----------


## Logan13

> Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.


*Percentage of Party Members Watching Specific Cable News Channels* Democrats/Republicans/Independents 
CNN 28% / 19% / 22% 
Fox News 21% / 35% / 22% 
MSNBC 12% / 10%/ 12% 

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized," June 6, 2004

----------


## yourmom

Fair and Balanced.

----------


## moranitotongano

> I dont know. Its kind of fun seeing those morons getting insulted by the judges. I usualy watch the first episodes of the seasons(the swedish version of idol) when all the dorks are on. But after that its shit.


 LOL I agree, it's so funny to see contestants cop an attitude because they think that they are so good when they suck big time!

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> *Percentage of Party Members Watching Specific Cable News Channels* Democrats/Republicans/Independents 
> CNN 28% / 19% / 22% 
> Fox News 21% / 35% / 22% 
> MSNBC 12% / 10%/ 12% 
> 
> Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized," June 6, 2004


How is this any indication of the political leaning of the channels themselves?...I watch fox all the time, so what...I watch it to laugh...

How is this study any indication that fox is fair or balanced? Or that any other source is biased against repubs?

bottom line, every single channel on television gives more air time to republicans than democrats, and according to the studies i posted earlier it doesnt matter what presidential party is in power...

----------


## RA

> Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective. 
> 
> Am I way off base here?


Your right on but you left out other liberal leaning outlets. Headline News, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News. Fox is alone as far as not having a liberal lean.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Your right on but you left out other liberal leaning outlets. Headline News, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News. Fox is alone as far as not having a liberal lean.


Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...

According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.

Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.

*Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias*...*Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...*
And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...

i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...

----------


## Logan13

> bottom line, every single channel on television gives more air time to republicans than democrats, and according to the studies i posted earlier it doesnt matter what presidential party is in power...


Um duh! :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  They give Republicans more airtime because they spend most of it bashing them. Reading between the lines is not that hard.

*Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist*
Date: December 14, 2005
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. *Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.*
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

*"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are*."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants  most of them college students  to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets  Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets  "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report  were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias  or the appearance of same  in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity  politicians."

-UCLA-

----------


## Logan13

> Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...
> 
> According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.
> 
> Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.
> 
> *Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias*...*Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...*
> And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...
> 
> i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...


I do not need to present shit to you. For every "study" that you post, I can find one that will counter it. Now, receed your biased arguement based on this and the previous post........

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

_How the Media Vote_. Surveys of journalists self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.
Journalists Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as liberal as said they were conservative. See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

_How the Public Views the Media_. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the medias liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as too liberal as see a media that is too conservative. A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, The news media try to report the news without bias, and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

_Admissions of Liberal Bias_. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweeks Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerrys vote by maybe 15 points, which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. See Section
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp

_Denials of Liberal Bias_. Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBSs forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasnt his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, Because he wont report it our way, were going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain, Rather told USA Today in September 2004. They know that Im fiercely independent and thats what drives them up a wall. See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp

_Evidence of Bias in News Coverage_. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the medias bias on specific issues.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbas...Liberal%20Bias

----------


## Logan13

> Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...
> 
> According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.
> 
> Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.
> 
> *Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias*...*Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...*
> And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...
> 
> i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...


Again, it is not my job to pull you from the trenches of naivity. 
*CBS's Goldberg Exposes Leftist Media Bias* 
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2001 
WASHINGTON  "The little nut from the Christian group. Thats how a staff editor at CBS News' Washington bureau described presidential candidate Gary Bauer in April 1999.
It was an inside conference call, but it was going out to CBS News bureaus all over the country. It was a planning session for weekend news coverage.

True, it wasnt said on the air for public consumption. But the bureau chiefs participating in the discussion met it with dead silence. No one protested.

What that tells you is that this reflects an attitude prevalent in much of the major media. A shrug of the shoulders and "Doesnt everybody think so?

It is OK to slur fundamentalist Christians. But anyone making a similar disparaging comment about any of the "politically correct minority groups would have been dismissed.

That is Bernard Goldbergs point, laid out in 223 pages of his new book, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (Regnery).

This is not Rush Limbaugh complaining for the 100th time of "bias in the liberal media.

This comes from the pen of a man who was a correspondent for CBS News, having worked inside the company for 28 years. Nor is the author part of the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy imagined by Hillary Clinton. Since Bernie Goldberg first broke his silence and went public with an op-ed piece on media bias in the Wall Street Journal in February 1996, he had never voted for a single Republican. 

There is an elitist culture at the major networks, he alleges, and that goes for the so-called "prestige press, as well. The electronic media steal much of their material from the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ultimate icons of the "Eastern establishment press.

Another former CBS News employee said to this writer that "anyone working at CBS News who is not a leftist knows how it must have felt to be a black kid in a white school in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, back in 1938.

The almost universal slant at the major networks is not the result of a left-wing conspiracy, the former CBS newsman says. The people who work there come from similar backgrounds. Many of them attended some of the best Ivy League schools. And theres contempt for "white trash out there. As one who grew up in a lower-middle-class family in the South Bronx, Goldberg resents it.

There is an inherent hostility to Heartland America at the "big three networks: ABC, NBC and CBS. They dont pretend to have much affinity for folks living in Omaha or Kansas City.

That was reflected at a Washington media party several years ago where this reporter witnessed loud guffaws from the group at the mere mention of having once lived and worked in Salt Lake City.

They Even Fool Themselves

Goldberg, who spent his last years at CBS in the doghouse for his 1996 Wall Street Journal piece, says that if these correspondents were to take a lie detector test as to whether they slanted the news leftward, they would deny it and pass with flying colors. 

Many of them dont consider that theyre leaning in any political direction. They really think they are simply mainstream. There is no other side of the argument except what you hear from a few right-wing nut cases. In their world, mainstream conservatism doesnt exist.

As one Washington news correspondent once said to me, "There is no left wing. Theres just normal goodness, as opposed to the extremists. 

Apparently, not everyone with the establishment media is in complete denial.

Andrew Heyward, now top man at CBS News, told Goldberg after the 1996 op-ed piece that of course, the networks tilt left, but that if Goldberg ever quoted him as saying that, he would deny it.

Such moments of candor do occur. But they are rare. One other such moment came when Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., in 1985 was urging conservatives around the country to buy CBS stock so they could be "Dan Rathers boss, and give the other side a chance to get a fair hearing on a major network.

An indignant supervisor at CBS at the time commented privately that "our politics was none of Helms business.

"Our politics? We veer left, but if you quote me, Ill deny it? That seems to make hash of Dan Rathers statement, quoted by Goldberg, that most network reporters dont know whether theyre Republican or Democrat, and they "vote every which way.

Rather was especially upset with Goldberg for telling his story in the Wall Street Journal because that papers editorial page takes a consistently conservative stand.

But Rather had written op-ed material for the New York Times, which he insisted was "middle of the road. The Times, notes Goldberg, is consistently liberal. Nothing wrong with that, but Rathers remark again recalls the prevailing wisdom in Washington media circles that "there is no left wing.

Survey after survey has concluded that journalists are indeed very different from the people they cover. Goldberg cites Peter Brown, an editor of the Orlando Sentinel who asks, "How many members of the Los Angeles Times and St. Louis Post-Dispatch belong to the American Legion or the Kiwanis or go to prayer breakfasts?

Ironically, the farther up the ladder you go to meet executives at the networks outside the news divisions, the more unlikely it is that you will find far-left-wing ideologues. Thats why Goldberg commented on the Sean Hannity radio talk show Monday that he couldnt understand "why the money guys allow the news guys to squander an asset.

That is a big problem, whether the news editors at "the big three realize it or not. Each year, they are losing more and more viewers from their nightly news programs. Many are getting their news from talk radio and cable TV, including Fox News Channel, which has picked up a considerable audience just because it tries to balance out the conservative and liberal points of view.

Goldberg is coming under vicious attack for his apostasy. But if "Bias starts a meaningful conversation on a problem that the news mavens refuse to explore, he will have performed a greater service to the public than in all his years as a CBS News insider.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...

Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...

But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.

*...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...*

*The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...

Liberal bias of the journalists effects nothing when ownership chooses guests and picks which stories are to be shown or not shown...

The last last point id like to make is the issue of nationalism bias...Nationalism runs through ALL mainstream media in the US, and has a huge effect on how people perceive policy, foreign and domestic...This nationalism bias is obvious, especially on the lead up to the Iraq war and after 9-11...Wether you agreed or not, the war had to be presented as just, and any questioning would be viewed as unamerican...any questioning of policy after 9-11 would be viewed in the same light...

Its this combination of big buisness ownership, nationalism, lack of context , and influencial watch dog groups that make the main stream media all center-right...you responded with opinions by bernard goldberg a long time enemy of cbs...and studies showing how the anchors swing...unless you want to try to tell me that the anchor has more swing in news presentation than the ownership, than that fact is completly irrelevant...

bottom line, NUMBERS DO NOT LIE, republicans have more airtime on every single channel on TV...no studies exist that show otherwise...Owners of the channels are largely republican...Every single anchor can be liberal but if the stories and guests are chosen by the mostly republican owners...what difference does it make...

If all anchors were obvious repubs it would be too obvious...But throw a few liberals around and people like you who only like to see the surface of things ignore the ownership and real power that pull the string...Remeber propaganda relies on the fact that the people that view dont realize it!...by throwing a few "liberal" anchors on TV it takes your eyes off the people who really pull the strings...a genious technique really*


JOB

----------


## RA

> Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (*according to the PIPA study*)...


 
 :LOL:  Yeah, Im sure they dont have an agenda. What I said is common knowledge even if you dont want to admit it.

----------


## Kale

Jesus Logan do you have a life ? You must be one of most well read dudes on the planet !!!

----------


## RA

> 1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...
> 
> Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...
> 
> But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.
> 
> *...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...*
> 
> *The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...
> ...


 

Right after 9/11 the media did lay off and did have a sense of nationalism. We were attacked....why wouldnt they? But slowly its came back around again. Every news story on CNN is bashing Bush or the war. I would say CNN is way more liberal than Fox is conservative.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Right after 9/11 the media did lay off and did have a sense of nationalism. We were attacked....why wouldnt they? But slowly its came back around again. Every news story on CNN is bashing Bush or the war. I would say CNN is way more liberal than Fox is conservative.


Nothing is wrong with that...but although the nationalism did wear off a little bit, there is always a hint of nationalism bias in the media, and there probably should be...

But i have news for you...Reality is bashing bush! DO you want them to pretend the war is going well? Or that we found WMD? Do want the media to report all the good news? Too bad the western media cant even walk the streets of Iraq without being kidnapped...

Reality has a liberal bias, at the moment...So accurate reporting will look bad for bush...

----------


## RA

> Nothing is wrong with that...but although the nationalism did wear off a little bit, there is always a hint of nationalism bias in the media, and there probably should be...
> 
> But i have news for you...Reality is bashing bush! DO you want them to pretend the war is going well? Or that we found WMD? Do want the media to report all the good news? Too bad the western media cant even walk the streets of Iraq without being kidnapped...
> 
> Reality has a liberal bias, at the moment...So accurate reporting will look bad for bush...


 
I would say its not going exactly as planned but Im also not going to say we are losing by a long shot. Do you know any war zone in history that the media should be allowed to walk through? What a ridiculous notion.

We havent really been privey to numbers but the president said about a month ago that we had killed around 6500 insurgents just recently. We are winning. If you measure it by any war in history that would be true.

Its the damn pot smoking protesting hippies that now run the news organizations that make it out to be different.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> I would say its not going exactly as planned but Im also not going to say we are losing by a long shot. Do you know any war zone in history that the media should be allowed to walk through? What a ridiculous notion.
> 
> We havent really been privey to numbers but the president said about a month ago that we had killed around 6500 insurgents just recently. We are winning. If you measure it by any war in history that would be true.
> 
> Its the damn pot smoking protesting hippies that now run the news organizations that make it out to be different.



The latest National Intelligence Estimate report, and the Iraq Study Group or Baker-Hamilton report both recently delared that we were failing in Iraq and afghanistan and that violence was on the increase In both countries. So I dont know where you get the assertion that we are winning?  :Hmmmm:  We lost 4 helicopters in the past 2 weeks...

Id like to know exactly how you define success? Stabily? That is looking more and more unlikey, IMHO... Even if we have stability, how will it be good for the US with people like Al-Sadr in the govenment? I still dont see how this war has benfitted anyone so far...(except the kurds).

And I dont know if "pot smoking hippies" make up the 70% of americans that view the iraq policy as a failure. I guess a lot of republicans in the congress, and even bushs ex-generals are just "pot smoking hippies".

----------


## chief_willie

> Jesus Logan do you have a life ? You must be one of most well read dudes on the planet !!!



THAT is hilarious!!!!!! Juiced is owning him on this thread.

----------


## RA

> The latest National Intelligence Estimate report, and the Iraq Study Group or Baker-Hamilton report both recently delared that we were failing in Iraq and afghanistan and that violence was on the increase In both countries. So I dont know where you get the assertion that we are winning?  We lost 4 helicopters in the past 2 weeks...
> 
> *Numbers juiced, numbers*
> 
> Id like to know exactly how you define success? Stabily? That is looking more and more unlikey, IMHO... Even if we have stability, how will it be good for the US with people like Al-Sadr in the govenment? I still dont see how this war has benfitted anyone so far...(except the kurds).
> 
> *Yeah, I would define that as success but not wheather we are winning or losing.*
> 
> And I dont know if "pot smoking hippies" make up the 70% of americans that view the iraq policy as a failure. I guess a lot of republicans in the congress, and even bushs ex-generals are just "pot smoking hippies".


*The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.....*

*Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.*

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> *The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.**....*


A 50/ 50 balance has not been in place since the 1st to years of bush's presidency which were dominated by the 9-11 attacks...The country was united, and the *democrats supported the president, not the other way around.*  When clinton was in office and the republicans controlled the house, they completely stone walled clinton at every turn.

As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are *not winning*. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...




> From *Washington Post* interview with *President Bush*
> 
> "President *Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq* and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists."
> 
> "As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning.""
> 
> "Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with.""


Im glad you have more confidence in the situation than President Bush has :Smilie:  Remember hope and faith are not strategies...




> *Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.*


Again opposing an ideological war without a clear threat to national security or its neighbors, and without having an exit strategy does not make you a hippy. George bush senior thought going into bahgdad in 1991 was a bad idea...Is he a hippy?

Does supporting such a war make you a war monger? Its easy to sit on the sidelines and support a war that does not imporove national security...why dont you strap up and go if it is so neccasary...

I know many friends and co-workers that have fought in Iraq, some that never came back...This unneccasary war is destroying thousands upon thousands of peoples lives literally and figuratively, and it makes me sick...

Why dont you tell me how a Shiaa dominated stable Iraq (which is the best case scenario) will be of any benefit to the US, over the brutal but secular regime of saddam hussein...

----------


## RA

> A 50/ 50 balance has not been in place since the 1st to years of bush's presidency which were dominated by the 9-11 attacks...The country was united, and the *democrats supported the president, not the other way around.* When clinton was in office and the republicans controlled the house, they completely stone walled clinton at every turn.
> 
> *I dont think your listening. I was pointing out how the Republicans in congress were pussies. Like I said the shared power deal would have never been proposed by Democrats.*
> 
> As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are *not winning*. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...
> 
> 
> *Thats your opinion. I already stated why.*
> 
> ...


*If not having a U.S. freindly country in the Mid-East wasnt enough, they wont be helping to finance and train terrorists anymore and ultimately if successful this puts a lot of pressure on Iran. Why do you think they've been banging the drums so loud?*

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are not winning. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...
> 
> 
> *Thats your opinion. I already stated why*


Thats the presidents opinion...He states our soldiers are winning the battles but losing on all other fronts, which are more important, IMHO...




> *If not having a U.S. freindly country in the Mid-East wasnt enough, they wont be helping to finance and train terrorists anymore and ultimately if successful this puts a lot of pressure on Iran. Why do you think they've been banging the drums so loud?*


First off, Israel is in the middle east. They are our closest allie and the 3rd most powerful military force in the world. And If you really think US friendly governments in the ME cant breed anti-US radacalism, just ask the 19 Saudi hijackers that hit us on 9-11.

Having Saddam in power was pressure on Iran. *Creating a power vacuum next to Iran has given Iran even more influence in the region, not less*...All this while at the same time making our intentions towards them clear...Malikis government also refuses to take sides against its neighbor...

Saddam was a sworn enemy of islamic radicals because of his secular government. *The only Islamic group in Iraq was Ansar AL-Islam and they were in the kurdish north trying to depose Saddam*. Its the shiaa elements that are in power now such as Al-Sadr that are sympathetic to extremists.

All the other "intelligence" linking saddam to islamic groups turned out to be false, and possibly intentionally so...but people love to repeat that it existed over and over...I guess if you say something enought times, it makes it true :Smilie: 




> From *Asia Times*
> 
> Though Islamism has long historical roots in the area, Ansar al-Islam was officially created on September 1, 2001. Taking control of a mountainous enclave of villages near the town of Halabja, the group resides not far from the Iranian border in the northeast of the country. Estimated to have roughly 200 men, the band of fighters have expressed their desire to impose an Islamic state in the Kurdish territories of northern Iraq. Their disdain for and armed conflict with secular Kurdish parties in these parts is only slightly surpassed by their fierce hatred for Saddam and his years of anti-Kurdish (and secular) policies in the area. 
> 
> As a fundamentalist and Islamist group, Ansar in all likelihood shares many of al-Qaedas ideals. Some of Ansars followers probably fought in Afghanistan with the Taliban. But establishing a concrete and material connection, such as arms, training, logistics or monies, between the group and al-Qaeda has not occurred largely because there is no independent access to Ansar-controlled areas. In fact, there are also real concerns about the sources from which Powell draws his information about the group.


The only militants that Saddam supported were in palestine. The palestinian militants are supported by every single middle eastern government and even some western governments, so that was no excuse to invade a sovern country, IMO...

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

We've also lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which was the most important battle, IMO...How can we be successful in any other way, without the support of the population?




> From the *Washington Post*
> "Four out of five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and British troops in their country, and two out of five believe insurgent attacks on those troops are justified, according to a "secret" poll conducted by the British Ministry of Defense."
> 
> The poll's findings as reported by the Sunday Telegraph:
> 
>  45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 percent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
> 
>  82 percent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
> 
> ...


Source

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Just a quick question

Is israel realy number 3 in military power? I would imagine that China, India, France, Germany, UK, Russia would be ahead and maby japan?

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Originally Posted by *johan*
> Just a quick question
> 
> Is israel realy number 3 in military power? I would imagine that China, India, France, Germany, UK, Russia would be ahead and maby japan?


In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...




> From *StrategyPage.com*
> 
> Which country on the planet has the most powerful armed forces? It's not a matter of numbers, although that's a major factor. It's more a matter of other things that are not often discussed. 
> 
> By size (number of troops), the top ten nations looks like this;
> 
> China
> United States
> India
> ...


Source

Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection :Smilie:

----------


## mcpeepants

> *The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.....*
> 
> *Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.*


Most of Bush's important agenda was passed when dems had 51-49 majority. A couple months before 9-11 republican Jim Jeffords became an independent and caucused with the democratics effectively ending the 50-50 tie. Bush passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (start "war on terror" and used to expand his powers), the Patriot Act, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq while democrats had the majority.

----------


## mcpeepants

> In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection


Does Israel have that many soldiers? Especially considering it has 7-8 million people. I'm pretty sure Turkey and Iran have over a million soldiers each. Does combat power relate in any way to winning a war? Even with it's technological prowess and nukes, there is no way Israel could be Russia, India, or Pakistan because there land mass is so huge compared to Israel.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection



Combat power seems like a very subjective thing. Seems supect that both india and israel would rank above russia. Israel has no navy to speak of, atleast not compared to Russia.

I dont think Israels nukes are us supplied, I have never read anything that would indicate it.
The Israeli nuclear weapons program was most probably created with UK and france support before Israel gained the strong support of the US. No one knows except israel offcourse. But documents have surfaced that show french and brittish support.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Originally Posted by *johan*
> 
> Combat power seems like a very subjective thing. Seems supect that both india and israel would rank above russia. Israel has no navy to speak of, atleast not compared to Russia.


Russias navy has suffered a terrible decline since the fall of the Soviet Union




> From *Wikipedia*
> 
> The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a severe decline in the Russian Navy. Defence expenditure was severely reduced. Many ships were scrapped or laid up as accommodation ships at naval bases, and the building programme was essentially stopped. However Sergey Gorshkov's buildup during the Soviet period had emphasised ships over support facilities, and Gorshkov had also retained ships in service that were beyond their effective lifetimes, so a reduction was due anyway.[3] What made matters worse was the impractical variety of vessels which the military industrial complex, with the support of the leadership, forced on the navy - taking modifications into account, the Soviet Navy in the mid 1980s had nearly 250 different ship types. [4]The Kiev class aviation cruisers and many other ships were prematurely retired. Funds were only allocated for the completion of ships ordered prior to the collapse of the USSR, as well as for refits and repairs on fleet ships taken out of service since. However, the construction times for these ships tended to stretch out extensively: in 2003 it was reported that the Akula class SSN Nerpa had been under construction for fifteen years.[5] Storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines in ports such as Murmansk became a significant issue, with the Bellona Foundation reporting details of lowered readiness. Naval bases outside Russia, such as Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam, were gradually closed, with the exception of the bases in the Crimea, leased from Ukraine to support the Black Sea Fleet. Naval Aviation declined as well from its height as Soviet Naval Aviation, dropping from an estimated 60,000 personnel with some 1,100 combat aircraft in 1992 to 35,000 personnel with around 270 combat aircraft in 2006.[6] In 2002, out of 584 naval aviation crews only 156 were combat ready, and 77 ready for night flying. Average annual flying time was 21.7 hours, compared to 24 hours in 1999.[7] However since 2002 these figures may have improved.
> 
> Training and readiness also suffered severely. In 1995 only two missile submarines at a time were being maintained on station, from the Northern and Pacific Fleets.[8] The decline culminated in the loss of the Kursk submarine during the Northern Fleet summer exercise that was intended to back up the publication of a new naval doctrine.[9] The exercise, involving some 30 submarines and surface ships, was to have culminated with the deployment of the Admiral Kuznetsov battle group to the Mediterranean.
> 
> As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 atomic submarines, compared to 170 vessels in 1991, but only 26 of them are in operation now. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, 10 missile submarines of the strategic purpose and 10 multi-purpose atomic vessels, under unofficial reports


Source

Israel does have a pretty powerful navy....It may not be the biggest but its extremly mobile and all of the technology is top of the line...




> I dont think Israels nukes are us supplied, I have never read anything that would indicate it.
> The Israeli nuclear weapons program was most probably created with UK and france support before Israel gained the strong support of the US. No one knows except israel offcourse. But documents have surfaced that show french and brittish support.


Not 100% sure because they fail to even admit that they have them. I wouldnt be surprised if France and Britain gave them some nukes. But they do reportedly have hundreds of nuclear missiles, and I doubt that none came from the US who is the number one nuke manufacturer in the world and Israeli strongest allie...

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Yeah russias navy is declining. But they still got 26 more nuclear subs than Israel and more surface power  :Smilie:  Now with Russia on the rise again I doubt Putin will let the old naval power rust anymore.

Id still say that Russia along with the states has the best arms technology. Its just that russia doesnt have enough cash to mass produce. I doubt russia is selling its best stuff to india or china and I dont think america is selling its best stuff to Israel either.

I dont think america has provided nukes to israel mostly because Israel can make them themself without a problem and I dont think USA would want to go through the outrage incase they where cought. It would be such a huge break against the NPT that no one could ever trust america when it comes to treaties again.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Yeah russias navy is declining. But they still got 26 more nuclear subs than Israel and more surface power. Now with Russia on the rise again I doubt Putin will let the old naval power rust anymore.
> 
> Id still say that Russia along with the states has the best arms technology. Its just that russia doesnt have enough cash to mass produce. I doubt russia is selling its best stuff to india or china and I dont think america is selling its best stuff to Israel either.
> 
> I dont think america has provided nukes to israel mostly because Israel can make them themself without a problem and I dont think USA would want to go through the outrage incase they where cought. It would be such a huge break against the NPT that no one could ever trust america when it comes to treaties again.


Fair enough. I dont know the details enough to really disagree...Combat power is a very subjective thing...but the only way to measure military power objectively is to count raw numbers, of ships, personell etc...That method would not be 100% accurate, IMO...

But the point was, that we already have a powerful allie in the ME, and destabilizing Iraq does little or nothing to improve the security of the US. In fact, I would argue it has made our security problem worse. By increasing radicalism, and giving Iran more influence in the region.

I dont have the answer to the problem, but I dont trust the President, who got us into this mess, to get us out...

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Fair enough. I dont know the details enough to really disagree...Combat power is a very subjective thing...but the only way to measure military power objectively is to count raw numbers, of ships, personell etc...That method would not be 100% accurate, IMO...
> 
> But the point was, that we already have a powerful allie in the ME, and destabilizing Iraq does little or nothing to improve the security of the US. In fact, I would argue it has made our security problem worse. By increasing radicalism, and giving Iran more influence in the region.
> 
> I dont have the answer to the problem, but I dont trust the President, who got us into this mess, to get us out...


I also feel that Iraq has made the region, and long term possibly the entire western world, more unsafe. Im hoping there will be a good resolution to the conflict. But I dont se how. That wont happen offcourse because it would be political suicide for anyone suggesting it.

At this time whats done is done, I dont agree with the war but now I would acctualy like to se the EU step in bigtime. We need to be a part of stabilising Iraq.

----------


## Logan13

> 1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...
> 
> Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...
> 
> But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.
> 
> *...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...*
> 
> *The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...
> ...


Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed. 
There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.

----------


## Logan13

> THAT is hilarious!!!!!! Juiced is owning him on this thread.


You wish that were true. BTW, thanks for adding to the thread.......... :1laugh:

----------


## Logan13

> I also feel that Iraq has made the region, and long term possibly the entire western world, more unsafe. Im hoping there will be a good resolution to the conflict. But I dont se how. That wont happen offcourse because it would be political suicide for anyone suggesting it.
> 
> At this time whats done is done, I dont agree with the war but now I would acctualy like to se the EU step in bigtime. We need to be a part of stabilising Iraq.


Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed. 
> There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.


Ok the Republicans outnumber democrats so the pundits can bash them, got it :Smilie: ...Ill give you the benefit of the doubt on that even though I dont believe it...But even IF it were true, The Republicans have ample oppurtunity to defend themselves. 

Its also important to mention that MOST mediators in the mainstream media question democrats and republican equally...Its the fact that the presidents policies have failed, and a responsible media is holding them to account, that gives those interviews a much more powerful punch.

*The fact remains that most media ownership has, and remains to be republican, and this ownership chooses which stories will be shown or not. Combine this with the fact that most apprearances are republican...They may not have a right wing bias but the notion that they have a liberal bias is absolutley ridiculous, and a clear strategy by the GOP to discredit the media that is doing its job to hold president bush to account for his failed foreign policy.*

As for Abu Gahrib, Are you implying that this was not a signifigant strory. Obviously you dont want it on the front page because it harms the policy that you support. But the fact is it was a defining moment in the war, and the possiblility that "torture" orders were passed down from above in the United States was an explosive story. 

Remember, after there were no WMDs, and no Al-Queda ties, the reason for war shifted to saving the iraqi people from events like these, and the reports of torture at Abu-Gahrib, and Guantanamo went directly against this assertion. 

Do you honestly think it should have been covered less? Take a look at how the international press covered that story, than tell me any of our mainstream papers were biased...




> Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.


Almost all of the Insurgency has been racalized Iraqi's. And only a very small percentage of the insurgency are foreign fighters. The Defence Department estimates there are over 200,000 full or part time insurgents. Of this 200,000 there roughly 1000 foreign jihadists present in Iraq based on a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.




> Article from *Global Security.org*
> In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed A**ullah Shahwani said that *Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters* and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter. Shahwani said the resistance enjoyed wide backing in the Sunni provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim. Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam. 
> 
> A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based *International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency*. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. 
> 
> Source


The foreign and domestic insurgency in Iraq is a result of the occupation and was very predictable. It was one of George HW Bushs main reasons for not toppling Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War. 




> From *A World Transformed: The Memoir of George HW Bush*
> 
> "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... *there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles.* Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. *Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."* (1998)

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed. 
> There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.


This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as _Face the Nation_ and _Meet the Press_ Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. *These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions* but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and *hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives*.

Your claim that more republicans appear in the mainstream media, soley to get "beat up on" is ridiculous, especially considering the owners of the channels who select them are overwhelmingly conservative... Please show me what basis you form this opinion on.

----------


## Logan13

> Almost all of the Insurgency has been racalized Iraqi's. And only a very small percentage of the insurgency are foreign fighters. The Defence Department estimates there are over 200,000 full or part time insurgents. Of this 200,000 there roughly 1000 foreign jihadists present in Iraq based on a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.
> 
> The foreign and domestic insurgency in Iraq is a result of the occupation and was very predictable. It was one of George HW Bushs main reasons for not toppling Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War.


This insurgency is being financed and supplied militarily by outside forces, namely Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al Quaeda. To simply say that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are iraqis does not give one a true picture about the fighters there. Without such outside forces, there would not be so much fighting going on there today. You have obviously sparsed your sourcing and commentary in order to paint the picture that you wish to convey on Iraq. But by doing so, as with the whole "Republicans get more airtime" when you failed to mention what this airtime was used for (negative depictions), you do not give an accurate presentation of what is actually going on. I would think that if you are going to take the time to type as much as you have in this thread, you would have been able to incorporate a much more accurate view than you have been able to do so, albiet only if you were able to put your bias away in the pursuit of truth.
*Al-Qaeda: Claimed 12,000 Fighters in Iraq Prior Surge*
AP
11/10/06
CAIRO (AP) - Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, AKA Abu Ayyub al-Masri, assumed leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. Al-Muhajir bragged his terrorist organization had 12,000 fighters in Iraq and praised U.S. voters for handing Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress.


*Iranian Government Behind Shipping Weapons to Iraq*
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...289&frame=true

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2006  The Iranian government is behind shipping components used to make improvised explosive devices to Iraqi insurgents, a senior intelligence official in Iraq said yesterday.
Labels on weapons stocks seized inside and outside Iraq point to Iranian government complicity in arming Shiite militias in Iraq, Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence with Multinational Force Iraq, said at a news roundtable. 

U.S. officials have said in the past that Iran is fomenting instability in Iraq. In August, Army Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero said that the Iranian government is training many members of the Shiite insurgency in Iraq. Barbero is the deputy operations chief on the Joint Staff. 

Iran is definitely a destabilizing force in Iraq, Barbero said during an Aug. 23 Pentagon news conference. I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these Shiia extremist groups and also providing advanced (improvised explosive device) technology to them, and there's clear evidence of that. 

Zahner said Iran is funneling millions of dollars for military goods into Iraq. He noted that labels on C-4 explosive found in Baghdad make it clear where the munitions came from. You'll find a red label on the C-4 printed in English and will tell you the lot number and name of the manufacturer, he said. 

In 2002, the Israelis seized a small ship bringing military supplies to Hezbollah. Compare the labels on the military C-4 in that and tell me if they're not identical, Zahner said. 

He said British, Iraqi and American officials in Basra also have found blocks of C-4. You will see the same red label for each and every one of those, he said. 

Zahner also said its clear that the Iranian government is behind the munitions shipments. I will tell you that the control of military-grade explosives in Iran is controlled through the state apparatus and is not committed through rogue elements right there, he said. It is a deliberate decision on the part of elements associated with the Iranian government to affect this type of activities. 

*Hezbollah said to help Iraq militias*
NEW York Times
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/...128militia.php
11/28/06
WASHINGTON: A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.

The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity under rules set by his agency, and discussed Iran's role in response to questions from a reporter.

The interview occurred at a time of intense debate over whether the United States should enlist Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, directed by James A. Baker III, a former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic lawmaker, is expected to call for direct talks with Tehran.

After bombing, Iraqis say security has decreased
Infighting hurting their case, Palestinians fear
News Analysis: Tehran's nuclear bravado may exceed its expertiseThe claim about Hezbollah's role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.

The new American account is consistent with a claim made in Iraq this summer by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia had sent 300 fighters to Lebanon, ostensibly to fight alongside Hezbollah. "They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi Army," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The specific assertions about Iran's role went beyond those made publicly by senior American officials, though Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, did tell Congress this month that "the Iranian hand is stoking violence" in Iraq.

The American intelligence on Hezbollah was based on human sources, electronic means and interviews with detainees captured in Iraq.

American officials say the Iranians have also provided direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, and training for several thousand fighters, mostly in Iran. The training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, they say.

In Congressional testimony this month, Hayden said he was initially skeptical of reports of Iran's role but changed his mind after reviewing intelligence reports.

"I'll admit personally," he said at one point in the hearing, "that I have come late to this conclusion, but I have all the zeal of a convert as to the ill effect that the Iranians are having on the situation in Iraq."

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, offered a similar assessment in his testimony.

Neither Hayden nor Maples described Hezbollah's role during the hearing.

In the interview on Monday, the senior intelligence official was asked for further details about the purported Iranian role.

"They have been a link to Lebanese Hezbollah and have helped facilitate Hezbollah training inside of Iraq, but more importantly Jaish al-Mahdi members going to Lebanon," the official said, describing Iran's role and using the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army.

The official said the Hezbollah training had been conducted with the knowledge of Sadr, the most influential Shiite cleric.

While Iran wants a stable Iraq, the official said, it sees an advantage in "managed instability in the near term" to bog down the American military and defeat the Bush administration's objectives in the region.

"There seems to have been a strategic decision taken sometime over late winter or early spring by Damascus, Tehran, along with their partners in Lebanese Hezbollah, to provide more support to Sadr to increase pressure on the U.S.," the American intelligence official said.

Some Middle East experts were skeptical about the assessment of Hezbollah's training role.

"That sound to me a little bit strained," said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a Middle East expert formerly on the National Security Council staff. "I have a hard time thinking it is a really significant piece of what we are seeing play out on the ground with the various Shiite militia forces."

But other specialists found the assessment plausible. "I think it is plausible because Hezbollah is the best in the business, and it enhances their position with Iran, Syria and Iraq," said Judith Kipper, of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Mahdi Army and other militia fighters traveled to Lebanon in groups of 15 and 20 and some were present during the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel this summer, though there was no indication they had taken part in the fighting, the American intelligence official said.

----------


## Logan13

> This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as _Face the Nation_ and _Meet the Press_ Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. *These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions* but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and *hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives*.


Now I have read plenty of criticism of this war in this thread, and for good reason. Now I would like to pose something that is much harder to you. With the understanding that we are there and we are not leaving Iraq anytime soon, what do you think should be done to _solve_ the problem that is Iraq? It is easy to criticize, especially with hindsight, let's see how your problem solving skills rank?

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

Ok, Ive sparced my sources to paint a picture? *You are citing the bragging of an Al-Queda leader, while I cited an official International Institute for Strategic Studies study*...but im citing bad sources?  :Aajack:  and please provide a link to your sources.

And Ill repeat:




> Originally Posted by *juicedOUTbrain*
> This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. *However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.*


That does not mean that:




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> ...the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate.


Again, these results were very predictable....And the reason why the invasion of Iraq was bad idea.

----------


## Logan13

> This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as _Face the Nation_ and _Meet the Press_ Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. *These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions* but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and *hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives*.
> 
> Your claim that more republicans appear in the mainstream media, soley to get "beat up on" is ridiculous, especially considering the owners of the channels who select them are overwhelmingly conservative... Please show me what you basis you form this opinion on.


Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners".......... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Logan13

> Again, these results were very predictable....And the reason why the invasion of Iraq was bad idea.


Radical ideaology has congregated in Iraq, from outside sources. The Iraqi's would not have been able to wage this insurgency without the likes of Iran and company. They might not be on the ground, but they are there nonetheless.

----------


## Logan13

> Originally Posted by juicedOUTbrain
> _This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence._


I'll repeat:
Perhaps 5% of the actual fighters on the ground, but this entire insurgency has been possible only because of outside forces. It is not as though the Iraqi people have picked up pitchforks and gone into civil war, they have been supplied with leadership, funds, and weaponry by sources that I have previously named. The Iraqi fighters are merely pawns who are doing the bidding of these influences...........

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

Ok its no easy task but ill take a shot at it:

1st off considering that 82% of Iraqs are opposed to US troops, and 67% feel our presence makes the country "less secure" I believe we should begin a phased withdrawl of our troops...which would put pressure on moderate Iraqis to step up to the plate.

2nd, I think we should offer hardline religious clerics such as Al-Sadr stronger roles in the government, as the lesser of two evils...As long as leaders like Al-Sadr have no place in the government their militant actions will continue...

3rd, we should encourage Maliki to take a harder stance on Shiaa militias so the sunnis feel they are not being persecuted against. He has promised to do this, but if he is incapable, he should be replaced...This problem is very complex because as a Shiaa leader, the more he cracks down on his own sect the less legitimacy they will give him, what a cluster ****!

4th, we should offer iraqis better rewards for remaining loyal to the government and proving it. Money will make dual loyaltys disappear fairly quickly and considering the amount of money weve spent on this mess I think we can afford it.

5th, we should engage in negotiations with Iran and Syria...Both countrys want to talk, but we have refused. If Iran wants concessions to assure it we will not attack, give it to them. If they want permission to have nuclear power, give it to them under very strict circumstances (weapons inspections, limited resources, etc...)

6th, We should take the money we are giving to private contractors to rebuild Iraq, and give it directly to private Iraqi contractors in the form of materials, tools, etc. I dont think we should give them money because the situation we have created would make that a risky feet. But helping them rebuild would take away some of the reasons for the hatred (were only there to spread capatilism, and make these co's rich, etc) It would also stimulate the economy which could only improve the security situation.

and finally 7th, *How about we stop relying on the asshole that got us into this mess, to get us out...*The Iraq study group and others have given him dozens of recommendations, which at this point have not been followed...In fact he went directly against some of them by "surging" troops and taking an even harder stance against Iran.

Even if these things are all done, theres no gaurentee that Iraq will ever be able to be called a success, which is exactly my point. This guy entered a war irresponsibly with no clear exit strategy, and created the chaos we see today. And to say "in hindsight" couldnt be further from the truth, as I showed you from GHWBs past quotes, these results were extremely predictable...

I opposed this war from the beginning, Its not my responsibility to get us out...Its bushs responsibilty to bring something good out of this, and if he cant, take our brave soldiers out of harms way immediately...

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> I'll repeat:
> Perhaps 5% of the actual fighters on the ground, but this entire insurgency has been possible only because of outside forces. It is not as though the Iraqi people have picked up pitchforks and gone into civil war, they have been supplied with leadership, funds, and weaponry by sources that I have previously named. The Iraqi fighters are merely pawns who are doing the bidding of these influences...........


And your going to tell me that these things weren't predictable? Give me a break. Even IF and dare i say IF, there was no outside influence there would still be an insurgency today. The extent of which, I dont know...but there would be resistance...

And your post is just proving my point...This war has increased radicalization of the region because of regional forces "protecting" thier muslim brothers...

So how exactly is a Governement dominated by religious Shiaa leaders, and allied with Iran better than Saddams brutal but secular regime, in terms of the USs security? And a stable shiaa lead government is the best scenario we have at this point...

----------


## Logan13

I agree, if we could get the Iraqi people busy making money by rebuilding their city, they just might put down their arms long enough for this gov't to become stable. 
We are talking to Iran, it is just behind the scenes. But what do we have to offer Iran that is more valuable to them than Iraq? Make no mistake about it, Iran wants Iraq in the end. No matter what we talk about and negotiate, controlling Iraq is worth much more than we can give.

----------


## Logan13

> And your going to tell me that these things weren't predictable? Give me a break. Even IF and dare i say IF, there was no outside influence there would still be an insurgency today. The extent of which, I dont know...but there would be resistance...
> 
> *I never said anything about this not being predictable. But how exactly would they be able to wage a resistance without the outside sources?*
> 
> And your post is just proving my point...This war has increased radicalization of the region because of regional forces "protecting" thier muslim brothers...
> *This goes beyond "protecting", there is a goal behind this insurgency. Namely the control of Iraq.* 
> So how exactly is a Governement dominated by religious Shiaa leaders, and allied with Iran better than Saddams brutal but secular regime, in terms of the USs security? And a stable shiaa lead government is the best scenario we have at this point...


 *We will not leave until this is not our best scenario, as this is merely a snapshot in time. So how would pulling all of our troops out increase US security?*

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> I agree, if we could get the Iraqi people busy making money by rebuilding their city, they just might put down their arms long enough for this gov't to become stable. 
> We are talking to Iran, it is just behind the scenes. But what do we have to offer Iran that is more valuable to them than Iraq? Make no mistake about it, Iran wants Iraq in the end. No matter what we talk about and negotiate, controlling Iraq is worth much more than we can give.


Which is exactly why I feel invading Iraq was such a mistake in the first place...Will you admit this?




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners"..........


Ted Turner was only the founder of CNN until 2004 I believe, The owner is now AOL-Time Warner, which is owned by wallstreet fatcat Richard D. Parsons.

Richard Parsons was a lawyer for Republican Vice President and Governer Nelson Rockafeller. And is on the BOD's of Citigroup Financial.

Richard Parsons gave 300,000 dollars to various candiates and PACs since 1988. *68% of that money went directly to republican candidates including George W Bush, while only 4% went to democrats.*  The remaining 28% went to various PACs (mostly republican) supporting internet regulation, deregulating telecommunications laws, and 

Source- Breakdown of Richard Parsons contributions

*So yes, the owner of CNN is a republican...*

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> how exactly would they be able to wage a resistance without the outside sources?


Like the palestinians do, with machine guns and rocks :Smilie: 




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> We will not leave until this is not our best scenario, as this is merely a snapshot in time. So how would pulling all of our troops out increase US security?


I guess were gonna be there for a while than. I wonder how many more soldiers will loose there lives? I wonder how many more Iraq civilians will pay the price for our mistake? What other realistic scenario do you suggest? Democracy is mob rules...The majority of the mob is shiaa...

How will pulling out make us safer? It will give the country a better chance of regaining security, and it will lower resentment against the United States, around the world and especially in the middle east.

----------


## Logan13

> How will pulling out make us safer? It will give the country a better chance of regaining security, and it will lower resentment against the United States, around the world and especially in the middle east.


That didn't work in Somalia, now did it?

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> That didn't work in Somalia, now did it?


Every situation is different. I dont think there is much chance of a successful outcome, although I pray for one. You think there will be and we should hedge our bets and wait it out. Thats a respectable position, so we can agree to disagree...




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners"..........


But, back to the topic at hand, media bias...

Ted Turner is no longer the owner, Time Warner bought CNN in late 2003. The Chairman of AOL-Time Warner is Richard Parsons, a longtime republican and ex-lawyer for republican Vice President Nelson Rockafeller. Richard Parsons gave 96% of his $300,000 worth of campaign contributions to republicans and only 4% to democrats. Source

while poking around on that source, I came across an interesting statistic. Both Aderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs gave 100% of their campaign contributions to George Bush in the 2004 election.

So lets get this straight, The owner of CNN Richard Parsons is a long time republican and gave 96% of his contributions to republican sources since 1988. Anderson Cooper, a former CIA employee and Lou Dobbs (the two most "liberal" commentators) gave 100% to republicans, and the other main anchor, Wolf Blitzer, is a former lobbyist for AIPAC. The channels premier conservative commentator, Glenn Beck, is the closest thing on TV to a nazi and the channel gives the GOP a slight advantage in appearance. But your still going to tell me that CNN has a liberal bias??? Hell, even the ex-founder of CNN admitted to having a pro-war bias, because of the nationalist climate created by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

But wait, the republicans are just on to take a beating...right? The techniques CNN as well as other MSM media sources use to push their agenda is a genious one...If I didnt spend time looking into the underside of things I would propably buy it...But like I said before, Its not what they show you, but what they dont that counts...

And its important to note AOL-Time Warner owns a huge list of entertainment assets including Warner Bros, AOL, Compuserve, Time Magazine, CNN, Headline News, and dozens of other outlets. Its not just the news its all media from entertainment to movies to the radio that shapes the nationalist view of Americans... If you want me to elaborate on MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox, and why they have a center-right bias, I can. Those would be easy...

Put it this way, If you had an agenda would it be easier to push if a. you admitted your agenda or b. you have the appearance of fairness...

Fox is just a mutt, that has lost absolutely all journalistic standards of integrity...Carl Cameron who reported on The 04 campaign was simultaneously campaigning for the Bush-Cheny campaign...I dont even consider it news, i consider it 24 hour commentary...

----------


## Logan13

> Ted Turner was only the founder of CNN until 2004 I believe, The owner is now AOL-Time Warner, which is owned by wallstreet fatcat Richard D. Parsons.
> 
> Come on, you can do better than to sparse this as well. Seems that you have a habit of giving half of the story...... 
> Richard Parsons was a lawyer for Republican Vice President and Governer Nelson Rockafeller*(A leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller* 
> *Politically, Parsons has described himself in the press as a Rockefeller Republican: fiscally conservative and socially liberal. http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/05/ceos/parsons_profile/*
> 
> Richard Parsons gave 300,000 dollars to various candiates and PACs since 1988. *68% of that money went directly to republican candidates including George W Bush, while only 4% went to democrats.*  The remaining 28% went to various PACs (mostly republican) supporting internet regulation, deregulating telecommunications laws, and 
> 
> Source- Breakdown of Richard Parsons contributions
> ...


The problem with your thinking is that these companies are run by a board, not a single individual. I have obviously now given a much clearer view on Parsons than you offered. Let me expand on this a bit for you.
Charles Prince (CEO Citigroup) donations 56.3%dem/30%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...les_Prince.php
Sandy Weill (Citigroup chairman) donations 36.3% dem/13% rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...andy_Weill.php
Disney own ABC:
Michael Eisner(Disney ceo 1984-2005) donations 53%dem/14%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...ael_Eisner.php
Robert Iger(Disney CEO) donations 57%dem/14%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...obert_Iger.php
Eric Schmidt (Google chairman & CEO) donations 89%dem/3%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...ic_Schmidt.php
_NBC Television_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 01-02
To Democrats: $5,500 (81%) 
To Republicans: $1,250 (19%) 
Total: $6,750 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
_General Electric(owner of NBC)_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $283,000 (39%) 
To Republicans: $450,812 (61%) 
Total: $733,812 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
_CBS Television Network_
To Democrats: $541 (100%) 
To Republicans: $0 (0%) 
Total: $541 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
_Viacom Inc(owner of CBS)_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $1,344,041 (99%) 
To Republicans: $19,000 (1%) 
Total: $1,363,041 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
_AOL Time Warner_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $341,668 (75%) 
To Republicans: $113,150 (25%) 
Total: $457,768 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
_Time Warner_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS
To Democrats: $605,137 (64%) 
To Republicans: $341,590 (36%) 
Total: $948,605 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2000
_News Corp(owner of Fox)_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $95,031 (18%) 
To Republicans: $423,487 (82%) 
Total: $518,518 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
_Newsweb Corp(own a few Air America affiliates)_
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $7,390,000 (100%) 
To Republicans: $0 (0%) 
Total: $7,390,000 
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...2&txtSort=name

Other top soft money donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...2&txtSort=amnt

Do the math............

----------


## Logan13

> Ted Turner is no longer the owner, Time Warner bought CNN in late 2003. The Chairman of AOL-Time Warner is Richard Parsons, a longtime republican and ex-lawyer for republican Vice President Nelson Rockafeller. Richard Parsons gave 96% of his $300,000 worth of campaign contributions to republicans and only 4% to democrats. Source
> 
> while poking around on that source, I came across an interesting statistic. Both Aderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs gave 100% of their campaign contributions to George Bush in the 2004 election.
> 
> 
> And its important to note AOL-Time Warner owns a huge list of entertainment assets including Warner Bros, AOL, Compuserve, Time Magazine, CNN, He


I will show you where the money goes. These are corporate donations, not individual. Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.
Check out these tables. Obvious slant to the left among contributors. 
*Top Media Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties - 2006 election* 62% Democrat/ 32% Republican
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...ib.asp?Ind=B02

*Top Media Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties - 2004 election* 69% Democrat / 31% Republican
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...B02&Cycle=2004

----------


## Logan13

> Every situation is different. I dont think there is much chance of a successful outcome, although I pray for one. You think there will be and we should hedge our bets and wait it out. Thats a respectable position, so we can agree to disagree...
> 
> *Full retreat did not work in Somalia, it did not work in Vietnam. So where has it worked and why would you think that this time would be any different?*


I have now showed you where the money goes. What do you have left to back up your personal views on media bias?  : 893Buttkick Thumb:

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> I have now showed you where the money goes. What do you have left to back up your personal views on media bias?


The fact that your source is extremly misleading and inaccurate...




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> I will show you where the money goes. *These are corporate donations, not individual.* Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.


Actually these donations are from a combination of individuals and their families. Every employee, from valet parking to the security guard.




> From your *link:*
> METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving $200 or more. (Only those groups giving $5,000 or more are listed here. Soft money applies only to cycles 1992-2002.) *In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families*. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. All donations took place during the 2003-2004 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, May 16, 2005. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.


To show how misleading these charts are check out Newcorps (FoxNews) donations...74% to democrats??? You yourself admit that Fox has a conservative bias...That link is absolutely useless...

Now Lets look at some other interesting points...Your chart shows Viacom as donating 81% to democrats. *Too bad the CEO of Viacom, Sumner Redstone, a self described "liberal democrat" publically endorsed President Bush...*




> From *MSNBC.com*
> *Sumner Redstone, who controls CBS-parent Viacom, enthusiastically endorsed President George W. Bush.* From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal, Redstone told an audience of CEOs in Hong Kong in late September, *because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.* In the widely-reported remarks, he added: *I vote for whats good for Viacom.* (Viacom also owns MTV, an assortment of other cable networks and Paramount Pictures.)


Richard Parsons, the chairman of AOL-Time Warner (CNN, Headline News, Warner Bros, Time, etc.) is the former lawyer of Republican Vice President Nelson Rockafellar. He gave 67.7% to the GOP, and around 4.3 % to dems...He has also publicly endorsed Bush.

Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE (MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, etc) personally donated 26% to the GOP and only 7% to dems. The remaining 66% went mainly to republican special interests for media deregulation and defence spending (as GE is a large government defence contractor..

Michael Eisner, another self proclaimed democrat, refused to distribute farenheit 9-11 leading into the election. 




> From *FAIR*
> Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles, although it generally provides access to only one side of the war. 
> 
> So what is the real reason it won't distribute Moore's movie? The explanation that Moore's agent said he was offered by Eisner-- that Disney was afraid of losing tax breaks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush-- is more persuasive than Eisner's obviously false public rationale. But more relevant may be Disney's financial involvement with a member of the same Saudi family whose connections to the Bush dynasty are investigated by Moore. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a billionaire investor who is a grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, became a major investor in Disney's Eurodisney theme park when it was in financial trouble, and may be asked to bail out the troubled project again. 
> 
> It's not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney's EPCOT Center planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (BBC, 9/14/99). 
> 
> Whatever the true motive of Disney's decision to reject Moore's film, it's not the one that Eisner and other company spokespersons are advancing in public. Journalists covering the issue should go beyond Disney's transparent PR stance and explore the real motivations involved.

----------


## Logan13

> The fact that your source is extremly misleading and inaccurate...
> 
> Originally Posted by Logan13
> I will show you where the money goes. *These are corporate donations, not individual.* Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.
> 
> Actually these donations are from a combination of individuals and their families. Every employee, from valet parking to the security guard.
> 
> 
> 
> To show how misleading these charts are check out Newcorps (FoxNews) donations...74% to democrats??? You yourself admit that Fox has a conservative bias...That link is absolutely useless...


Actually, the only thing useless now is your original arguement as it has been shown to be wrong using many different sources. My sources are far too varied for you to be attacking the sum of their information. The fact that you do not want this to be correct is clouding your judgement. 
Time to man-up!

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> Actually, the only thing useless now is your original arguement as it has been shown to be wrong using many different sources. My sources are far too varied for you to be attacking the sum of their information. The fact that you do not want this to be correct is clouding your judgement. 
> Time to man-up!


You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)... :1laugh:  But my judgement is clouded, right?

Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and *the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's*... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?

Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.

Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats :Hmmmm:  ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? :No No:  common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...

----------


## Logan13

> You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publically endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)... 
> 
> Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and *the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's*... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?
> 
> Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.
> 
> Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...


I guess that this did not happen either.........
*Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton*
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faa**e-deb...0779e2340.html
Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clintons initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase vast rightwing conspiracy to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdochs News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp. 

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldnt say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.

Bush in move to placate opponents of CIA nominee 

Click here
The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the Fox News Sunday 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch. 

Mr Clinton has encouraged Mr Murdochs involvement with his Global Initiative and has invited him to speak again at the second forum in September. The former president will also address News Corps summer conference.

The fundraiser for Ms Clintons re-election is in stark contrast to the brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign. 

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines pleading: DONT RUN. A poll from the Posts website during the campaign identified her as the sixth most evil person of the millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone who will be the future?

----------


## Logan13

> You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publically endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)... 
> 
> Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and *the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's*... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?
> *You need to sharpen your reading skills. I gave donation figures of soft money through 2002 as well as election donations in 2004 and 2006 by both corporations and their individuals. Can't get much more thorough than that.*
> Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.
> 
> Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...


Again, there is no need debating with you since you are biased in your own assumptions. Regardless of sourcing, even if God were to come down and tell you, I fear that you still could not bring yourself to embrace the truth. It's OK, I remember when I was 22 years old and thought that I knew everything too.........In your whole 4 years of voting eligibility, have you ever even voted?
check this sight out, it seriously may help you.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=sandy+vagina


 :1laugh:

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

> I guess that this did not happen either.........
> *Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton*


In-case you dont remember, *Im the one who showed you that link in the first place*...after you confidently asserted that Murdoch would never help hillary :1laugh:  




> Originally Posted by *Logan13*
> Again, there is no need debating with you since you are biased in your own assumptions. Regardless of sourcing, even if God were to come down and tell you, I fear that you still could not bring yourself to embrace the truth.


Damn right Im biased against corporate interest controlling our media, and a president who led us into a war with no exit strategy...For you to stand there and act as if you dont have a bias is laughable. BTW, I used many of those same sources you speak of to prove you wrong. *I showed you that 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly back bush, but you cant except it...and Im not embracing the truth?*  :Hmmmm:  




> I remember when I was 22 years old and thought that I knew everything too.........In your whole 4 years of voting eligibility, have you ever even voted?


Sorry bro, It must suck to have your assertions checked by a 22 year old...And you dont know everything?, I dont care how old you are, it sure sounds like you think you do...

Im not gonna lie, you argued dilligently and backed up most of your points well...but on the issue of media bias and the war, *I think I proved my point and anyone who actually reads the posts carefully and checks the links will see that.*

*I gotta say, I haven't many repubs that know there shit like you do...So we can agree to disagree... Its nice to have a real debate on the issues, no name calling, or BS...Im not used to these anymore...Its been fun*

And BTW, *Check out this Link: It may help you out*...specifically number 2

 :Haha:

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

As for voting *I knew Bush was an asshole before I was old enough to vote against him* the first time around :Smilie: ...Since then Ive volunteered for the democratic party and even met Bill Clinton at a local campaign rally...

Yes, Ive voted in every election since Ive been eligable...and Ive done more than that by volunteering my time at various fund raisers, events, and rallies...

----------


## juicedOUTbrain

double post

----------


## Logan13

> As for voting *I knew Bush was an asshole before I was old enough to vote against him* the first time around...Since then Ive volunteered for the democratic party and even met Bill Clinton at a local campaign rally...
> 
> Yes, Ive voted in every election since Ive been eligable...and Ive done more than that by volunteering my time at various fund raisers, events, and rallies...


I was a registered Democrat in my college years, and I voted for Clinton twice. Glad to hear that you are involved.

----------


## Logan13

> In-case you dont remember, *Im the one who showed you that link in the first place*...after you confidently asserted that Murdoch would never help hillary 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn right Im biased against corporate interest controlling our media, and a president who led us into a war with no exit strategy...For you to stand there and act as if you dont have a bias is laughable. BTW, I used many of those same sources you speak of to prove you wrong. *I showed you that 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly back bush, but you cant except it...and Im not embracing the truth?*  
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bro, It must suck to have your assertions checked by a 22 year old...And you dont know everything?, I dont care how old you are, it sure sounds like you think you do...
> ...


Lively debate. No offense with the whole sand in the vagina thing, I just love that saying. :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.



I agree. 

But if Bush hadnt pushed for the Invasion there wouldnt have been any need to stabilise anything. Sadam held the fanatics at bay. The USA went against the worlds wishes and dragged the world into a mess we never needed or wanted to be a part of.

And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan.

----------


## Logan13

> And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. *Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan*.


Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners.............. :Wink/Grin:  

lol, could not resist.

----------


## Logan13

> I agree. 
> 
> But if Bush hadnt pushed for the Invasion there wouldnt have been any need to stabilise anything. Sadam held the fanatics at bay. The USA went against the worlds wishes and dragged the world into a mess we never needed or wanted to be a part of.
> 
> And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan.


I agree, but Johan, we are already there. Would haves and should haves do not solve current problems. We shouldn't have been isolationists and we should not have tried diplomacy for so long with Hitler. But we did, with the hope that the world would learn from it's mistakes. Unfortunately, we have not, Sweden and the US included.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners.............. 
> 
> lol, could not resist.


It wouldnt be to popular sweden isnt famous for our food  :Wink/Grin:  except the meatballs perhaps. 





> I agree, but Johan, we are already there. Would haves and should haves do not solve current problems. We shouldn't have been isolationists and we should not have tried diplomacy for so long with Hitler. But we did, with the hope that the world would learn from it's mistakes. Unfortunately, we have not, Sweden and the US included.


I think that in order to get the EU to enter Iraq big time the next US president needs to be a damn master of diplomacy and be ready to let this tounge slip in betwen european ass cheeks. Its going to take a miracle.
I hope it will happen though.
You wont pull it off alone and I dont want europe to have to deal with the next generation of pissed of suicide bombers beeing trained in Iraq right now.

----------


## Logan13

> I think that in order to get the EU to enter Iraq big time the *next US president needs to be a damn master of diplomacy* and be ready to let this tounge slip in betwen european ass cheeks. Its going to take a miracle.
> I hope it will happen though.
> You wont pull it off alone and I dont want europe to have to deal with the next generation of pissed of suicide bombers beeing trained in Iraq right now.


On this we do agree. But kissing the ass of socialist countries will not go over well with Americans, outside of the far left which is a small minority. It will be a sad day when the US makes policy based on what other countries want. Does Sweden make policy on what the US wants? I do believe that John McCain is a man of convictions, and he would be more inclined to negotiations before taking the offensive.

----------


## mcpeepants

> Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners.............. 
> 
> lol, could not resist.


 :LOL:

----------

