idrankwhat

I'll disagree with the blanket statement about the media. But regarding this statement in context with this thread this couldn't be more innacurate. The mainstream media coverage of the Lieberman loss....see....there I go falling into the trap again.....I mean the Lamont victory, has been completely one sided and the debate directed precisely where the right leaning media wants it. Lieberman was polished up nice and shiney as a mainstream Democrat and the so called "left leaning" pundits had nothing but nice things to say about him while at the same time condeminng Lamont's supporters as "fringe" and extreme. That's supposedly the "left side" of the argument! On the right you have Rupert Murdoch publically supporting him and even Sean Hannity talking about helping the Lieberman campaign. So basically how can anyone see the results of this election being some sort of massive shift to the left or some sort of party cleavage? Lieberman has a history of supporting legislation that favors big business and he was rabidly pro-war. So when you take into consideration that the MAJORITY of the public, not just democrats but the public as a whole is not in support for this war, how can a democratic primary ELECTION that favors the anti-war candidate be somehow labeled as a shift to the "new left"? The fact is, it can't. Let me rephrase, it shouldn't but it is because that's what the way the corporate media wants it portrayed.

Technically it can't be attempted "again" until it stops.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Don't worry, it's in Brooklyn and, as far as bridges go, I'll sell it cheap. You're right. You're right. They're not really "news" shows. Where'd those go anyway?

The problem as I see it is that she's an entertainer but she's put on news shows, not "entertainment tonight" or the new hit gameshow "what's in YOUR colon today?" The same people out there who thought/think that Iraq had WMD's, which is way too many, are the ones that are going to mistake her art form for valid discourse. And I agree, ignore her and she'll go away. I know I'm feeding the beast as I type but I'm going on the assumption that SC isn't required reading. Too bad. Next to the Daily Show this is without a doubt the best source of news on the planet!

So we are agreed. Raving nutjobism is a demanding and exhausting vocation. But the rewards are great. Full agreement. Unfortunately our news programming has become the forum of choice.

Compared to whom by the way? Reid, Dean or Pelosi? They must get thier rediculus statements challenged daily (when referenced against your post) Most news commentators these days repeat Republican talking points but they very rarely provide any analysis. Recent examples: CNN, Dana Bash simply repeats Conservative talking points claiming that Lamont's victory shows that the Democrats are "defeatist" and "weak on security". No analysis offered. FOX, Ann Coulter says Lamont supporter are un-American. ABC, George Stephanopolus repeats Republican talking points that Lamont supporters represent the far left. MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewing Tom Delay asks him to define "what's the worst thing that Democrats are hiding from the public." And then closes the interview after DeLay's response CNN, pretty much anything Glenn Beck says. MSNBC, pretty much anything that Tucker Carlson says. FOX, pretty much anything John Gibson says. CNN, Paula Zahn saying that the Democratic party is "getting creamed as the party of cut-and-runners, the wobbly and the weak". MSNBC, Chris Matthews referring to Dems who voted for the war but don't stand with Lieberman as "cut and run". NPR, Juan Williams repeated and even embellished the claim that Hillary's strong words against Rumsfeld were "pure politics" and ignored the substance of the arguments that she made. And pretty much all of the networks spent all of their time following the Lieberman story and not the Lamont story. Instead of interviewing Lamont everyone's been focused on what Lieberman and his new found Republican allys have to say. That's all I have time for now. Sorry.

Because the media sucks at its job.

Using the term "actually took hold" I'd have to say right after the attack on the Reichstag buil......ummmm I mean the world trade center. How's that for starting the thread with a bomb?

I tried that for a week. It was great fun. But exhausting. Raving liberals have great focus and stamina. Maybe so, but raving Conservatives get more national airtime. More than ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, BBC, ..........? That's where they're getting their airtime. The mainstream media gives them a forum but never challenges the nonsense that comes out of their mouths. And in some instances, they actually supply the nonsense.

I tried that for a week. It was great fun. But exhausting. Raving liberals have great focus and stamina. Maybe so, but raving Conservatives get more national airtime.

Aww....it's just a harmless little bunny rabbit.

And blah blah, Fuckin' blah. Finding equivalence between a suicide bomber boarding a bus full of NOTHING but civilians and Israel bombing the buildings from which Hezbolla operates is ridiculous, and frankly kind of dense. According to your inaccurate representation it does sound pretty lousy. You have bright career prospects with AIPAC and CAMERA.

That was back in '97-'98. Now that these people are in office: Issue briefs= talking points research papers = play book advocacy journalism = swamp newspapers with our propaganda and monopolize Sunday morning news programming conferences = white house press breifings seminars = wars The attached photo pretty much sums up their domestic policy.

News, Israel: "The Jerusalem Post reports that some Israeli diplomatic officials say that the BBC "reports we see give the impression that the BBC is working on behalf of Hizbullah." The government boycotted the BBC during violence in 2003 and is considering it again. The Foreign Ministry is under pressure from Israeli citizens to resume its boycott of the BBC and to withdraw credentials from its reporters due to "one-sided" reports on the war in Lebanon, Israeli diplomatic officials said Wednesday..."How about this unfair media coverage, Darius? Do you condemn the same unfair coverage when it works against those damned Jews? It's only unfair because the JERUSALEM Post says that ISRAELI DIPLOMATS say it's unfair! What's next? Tony Snow going to say that Bush's foreign policy is a success?

It's easy to do when you're dealing with threads based on misguided hate. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What would you think if some Muslim person in a chat room quoted something from Leviticus and then slammed Christianity as a cult of hate? Man I hope you guys don't get the holy war you're after.

It's also POSSIBLE that there's a big Jewish elephant in this room.

I say that we take about a thousand of our old nukes and just hand them out to everyone over there. Mutually assured destruction worked in the previous cold war. Who's to say that it won't work now. And if it doesn't, the US can look on the bright side. Now we won't have to send Israel $3 billion/yr and there will be no Arab/Israeli conflict for which we can pick sides. Worry/don't worry. I'm only half serious. I'm just not sure which half

He's not "moderate". He only gets that title because he's pro war. Period. That aside, he's an incumbent. Personally, three terms is one too many for ANY Congressman. You get one to get started, one to get your goals accomplished, and then it's time to leave and go back to work your farm. More than two terms in Congress and it's "all about you" and not about your constituents. Our lives would be better with term limits.

Planning for war and seeking it are two different things. That aside, this is why I post what I post. Both sides are to blame. Both sides should get the blame. Israel is a bad neighbor and antagonizes, Lebanon and Palestine retaliate and really don't want them around regardless of the circumstances. The US and other Arab states fuel the conflict because of this stupidly shortsighted battle over access to non-renewable fuel sources and imperialstic manipulation. The end result, the US enables/arms only one side but pretends it's doing otherwise and want peace. And it pisses off a bunch of people who we've already pissed off in numerous circumstances so now they want to kill us too.....again. So we're going to get attacked again. We bring it on ourselves. Accept it. And the best part of all, us taxpayers get to foot the bill for the provocation AND the clean up. Frankly, I'm tired of this shit. I'm seeing the cost but I'm not seeing much of the benefit. Only a very few very wealthy people benefit from this. Sorry to sound so pessimistic but I think the best thing for this world would be to nuke it from orbit. We've clearly shown that we refuse learn from history and we don't deserve the resources we've been given. No wonder the aliens won't stop in to say hello. And damn it, if Jesus were here he'd kick our asses if given the chance. I'm going to the bonfire. Maybe there's a discussion about boobs. Sure, it's rehashed nonsense but so is this. /rant

So basically you're arguing for the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive defense. Admittedly, in this case there was actually a *potential* threat. Does anyone think that Israel couldn't deal with it if it became an *actual* threat? Why not wait (and no, kidnapping of a soldier that may not have been on Israeli soil is not a real threat)? The firepower difference is exponential.

Would this debate change at all if someone pointed out that Israel had been planning this war? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MNG2QK396D1.DTL&hw=kalman&sn=001&sc=1000

Yes they were/are. But Israel didn't consider it Lebanon's but rather Syria's. However Syria said it's not theirs but Lebanon's. Regardless, it isn't/wasn't Israel's.

Imagine the "orchestration" needed for this shot of Beirut! It's panoramic by the way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/panorama/2006/07/20/PA2006072001249.html

Sayeth whom? "Hundreds of thousands"? Are you sure about that number? Does it come from reports like the "40 people died in the zionist bombing... ooops, I meant 1 person died."? Nope, sorry. My bad. I was thinking one thing and typing another. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced but I don't know if the civilian death total is over a thousand yet.

That's accurate only if you don't take into consideration the role Israel played prior to one month ago.