New vision in FutureCam™

[quade 4]

Yikes! I just got this new vision in the FutureCam™ that GWB is going to take a HUGE hit in the next few days for his inability to secure our borders -- specifically, the one to the south.

Let's see if I'm right.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041013-121643-5028r.htm

BTW, it should be noted that the Washington Times is an ultra right wing newspaper owned by Sun Yung Moon and is considered to be highly favorable of the current administration. Kinda makes ya wonder why they're running with this story. Interesting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Let's see if I'm right.

Dream on Quade . . . . . . this piece doesn't have a single named source, so I doubt it gets any wind in it's sails.

. . =(_8^(1)

[quade 4]

We'll see . . . I believe Yoda said something about the future being difficult to see and always changing, yet, I think this is just too "sexy" for most reporters to not latch on to.

I mean, come on . . .

I really do wonder about the Washing Times running the story though. I can't figure it out. Does somebody there think this makes the President look more desireable as in "don't change horses mid-stream" or are they just insane?

To me it brings up the obvious question of, "are you safer now than you were four years ago" and the obvious answer (if the story is true) isn't just no, but hell no!

Again, interesting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Problems with your vision:

(A) Bush receives more votes from hispanic and latino voters for not getting tough on immigration (bad for country, good for candidate)

(B) Security on the southern border has been a joke for thirty years or more. This is nothing new. Look at the ranchers and residents who have had to form armed groups for their own protection.

(C) etc etc etc blah blah blah I predict your vision won't come true.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

To me it brings up the obvious question of, "are you safer now than you were four years ago" and the obvious answer (if the story is true) isn't just no, but hell no!

Paul, what makes you think the same thing hasn't been happening for years, and that it's a new thing under Bush? The southern border is about as leak proof as a rusty sieve.

Besides, even if we managed to somehow secure the US Mexico border, there is nothing stopping people from just walking across the US Canada border anytime they please.

ps - was it you or Bill who insisted that the political views of upper amnagement doesn't affect the operations of news outlets (in response to statistics that most news sources have liberal managers)?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Paul, what makes you think the same thing hasn't been happening for years, and that it's a new thing under Bush? The southern border is about as leak proof as a rusty sieve.

And you'd think that after 9/11 we'd fix it -- wouldn't you?

Quote

Besides, even if we managed to somehow secure the US Mexico border, there is nothing stopping people from just walking across the US Canada border anytime they please.

Which also needs to be secured.

Quote

ps - was it you or Bill who insisted that the political views of upper amnagement doesn't affect the operations of news outlets (in response to statistics that most news sources have liberal managers)?

There in lays the conundrum.

For years the right (Limbaugh for one) has been claiming this huge "liberal" media bias (as if he himself isn't part of "the media") yet if you look at who actually owns "the media" you'll find huge multi national corporations who's interests lean far more to the right than left.

I maintain that most individual reporters -try- to be unbiased, disinterested, 3rd parties to stories they report on, but the broader organizations themselves (most notably FOXNews) -can- have a bias in the overall composition of the staff they hire.

When you look at broadcast network news, you are, for the most part seeing some pretty honest attempts at journalistic integrity. When you look at cable news, things can get a bit more fuzzy. When you look at some specific cable news organizations (again, I'm going to use FOXNews as the obvious example) there is a concerted effort to skew the news in a particular direction.

Now, you might just think this is my biased opinion, but if you do a bit of research, you'll find this is also the opinion of a number of journalistic ethics groups.

Does that make my position a bit more clear?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Paul, what makes you think the same thing hasn't been happening for years, and that it's a new thing under Bush? The southern border is about as leak proof as a rusty sieve.

And you'd think that after 9/11 we'd fix it -- wouldn't you?

If something hasn't been fixed does that make us less safe than four years ago? If you had said something along the lines of "we are not safe," I would have agreed with you. Your stated position is that we are less safe. I just don't see that. We are more aware of how "unsafe" we are, but I contend that knowledge leads to more safety, not less.

Quote

Quote

Besides, even if we managed to somehow secure the US Mexico border, there is nothing stopping people from just walking across the US Canada border anytime they please.

Which also needs to be secured.

You'll get no arguments from me there. It could easily be done if the US military we used in a less... interventionist fashion.

Quote

Quote

ps - was it you or Bill who insisted that the political views of upper amnagement doesn't affect the operations of news outlets (in response to statistics that most news sources have liberal managers)?

There in lays the conundrum.

For years the right (Limbaugh for one) has been claiming this huge "liberal" media bias (as if he himself isn't part of "the media") yet if you look at who actually owns "the media" you'll find huge multi national corporations who's interests lean far more to the right than left.

I maintain that most individual reporters -try- to be unbiased, disinterested, 3rd parties to stories they report on, but the broader organizations themselves (most notably FOXNews) -can- have a bias in the overall composition of the staff they hire.

When you look at broadcast network news, you are, for the most part seeing some pretty honest attempts at journalistic integrity. When you look at cable news, things can get a bit more fuzzy. When you look at some specific cable news organizations (again, I'm going to use FOXNews as the obvious example) there is a concerted effort to skew the news in a particular direction.

Now, you might just think this is my biased opinion, but if you do a bit of research, you'll find this is also the opinion of a number of journalistic ethics groups.

Does that make my position a bit more clear?

Is the memo sent out at ABC unbiased and disinterested?
Do you really think the Washington Times and the LATimes are central, or unbiased inj politics?

If you believe those things, why is so called right wing radio so successful?
Why has FoxNews become a giant in a previously dominated market?

If reporters are unbaised, why do they always seem to get the same facts wrong?

If reporters are unbiased, and sources you say are biased are successful, why haven't sources to the left of major media been produced?

Could it be that the left side of things has been the sole view point, and people leaning right, or wnating to hear the other side, have a slimmer choice of sources?

If ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all report the same thing, they splilt viewers four ways. If FoxNews is the only station to offer another take on the story, then they don't split with anyone.

That being true, if the station you call unbiased are in fact neutral, then someone would create an instantly booming left wing new station, right?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

If something hasn't been fixed does that make us less safe than four years ago? If you had said something along the lines of "we are not safe," I would have agreed with you. Your stated position is that we are less safe. I just don't see that. We are more aware of how "unsafe" we are, but I contend that knowledge leads to more safety, not less.

And I maintain that we are now less safe because with our actions in Iraq, we've given more people legitimate reasons to hate us. These people are now exploiting our porous borders which any reasonable Administration should have made more secure after 9/11.

A difference of opinion between you and myself perhaps, but that's how I feel.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If something hasn't been fixed does that make us less safe than four years ago? If you had said something along the lines of "we are not safe," I would have agreed with you. Your stated position is that we are less safe. I just don't see that. We are more aware of how "unsafe" we are, but I contend that knowledge leads to more safety, not less.

And I maintain that we are now less afe because with out actions in Iraq, we've given more people legitimate reasons to hate us.

A difference of opinion between you and myself perhaps, but that's how I feel.

We agree that people have hated the US for one reason or another since at least the 1940s, right?

We agree that the US-Mexican border has been, to be kind, porous, right?

We agree that Iraq is still the place to be for any newly inspired insurgents and terrorists, right?

If so, then what effect does that have on our safety here in America?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Is the memo sent out at ABC unbiased and disinterested?
Do you really think the Washington Times and the LATimes are central, or unbiased inj politics?

The ABC memo has been misinterpreted by a large number of people.

As I've already pointed out, The Washington Times is -very- biased. Sun Yung Moon, who claims to actually be the Messiah, sees the paper as His voice in Washington and His attempt to influence the Administration and its policies. If that's not bias, I don't know what is. What's even more potentially disturbing is that the Administration is so tied to faith based politics and that it -may- actually have some influence.

As for the L.A. Times . . . no, I do NOT believe it has a corporate political bias. I believe that some reporters may have certain beliefs, but that as a company policy there is no directive to make it biased in one way or the other.

The same can NOT be said of FOXNews.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver