aviationwiz wrote:I'm tired, so I'll respond to a few points, and go to bed.XXXXX wrote:leg4li2ed0pe wrote:I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.
Most would say that you were wrong. That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.
The true beauty of our system is that the minority has a chance to stand up for itself, the majority is not always correct, although a lot of people often consider majority and correct to be the same.
The fact of the matter is that there is "No Truth" and "No Absolute Right." There are rather a diversity of opinions, and in a democracy, the majority chooses. Of course, there are exceptions such as the electoral college which obviously was devised to pick the better man in a close election where the popular majority may have been wrong, such as in 2000 ! LOL!
XXXXX wrote:I guarantee that most Americans don't even read their local paper every day. They may catch the evening news, and not question the liberal bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN which is desparately trying to elect Kerry.
I'm sure they don't either, but you seem to mention every news station except FOX as "liberal bias" do you not admit that FOX is "conservative bias"? Of the stations listed, I'd have to say that CNN is the least biased, and you'll see more of what I mean in thier crossfire program. CNN does a very good job of presenting the news as it is, I have yet to see another station or company do that.
I will admit that Fox news is biased towards conservativism....HOWEVER, similar to affirmative action's intention to restore the long standing abuses towards blacks, the same is true in television and newspapers. We have a lot to make up for...and the ratings are showing that Americans are thirsting for the balance that Fox News provides.
So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other?XXXXX wrote:I didn't say that. I said that the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission, and do not give a fair play to either Bush or the Republicans in general. The Repubicans are painted as only favoring the rich, and raising enormous amounts of campaign funds. But nothing is said by the liberal media about George Soros giving tens of millions in an attempt to buy the election. Nothing is said about the enormous amount of union/labor contributions to the democrats in untracked categories of campaign contributions.
That sure is what it sounded like what you stated earlier, as legalizedopehead pointed out earlier. Go on and watch CNN or MSNBC some nights, they absolutely praise the Bush Tax Cuts on how it helps all Americans, and they praise the Bush Administration at times, at other times, they will speak out against the Bush administration. As per "buying an election" I'm sorry, but the Republicans, and particularly Bush have become the kings at that over time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't or didn't happen in my own party, but just look at one company, Enron, we all know the story, in 2000 alone, they gave $2.5 mil. to political campaigns, of which 71% went to Republicans, and the remaining 29% went to Democrats.
Those stats are from OpenSecrets
I agree there are some stories that are fair, or even pro-republican on CNN, and less often on CBS/NBC/ABC, but I am talking about overall statistics and trends. The surveys if you read my link show quite clearly that there is a lopsided majority of liberals running all of the media except Fox. Every one of the major network anchors is a self-avowed democratic. Even Tim Russert, who I think does the best job on the networks is a self-described democrat who worked in various political offices, and was raised by his father "Big Russ" who was also a devout Democrat.
If you are naive enough to think their personal beliefs do not affect their news content, then you are pathetically naive.
XXXXX wrote:The most effective response for the money is to do the type of negative ads, which also are ringing true because Kerry is the most liberal US Senator, trying to flip-flop his way back to the middle. Everyone knows he is doing that, and the ad's just crystalize it. It is him doing that type of false positioning which will lead to his defeat.
So basically, as legalizedopehead said it before, it seems you think it's OK for Bush to put out negative ad's, but not Kerry.Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd.XXXXX wrote:There is nothing stopping the democrats from running however many negative or positive type of ads as they see fit. The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop, and on many important issues, Kerry and Bush are not far apart, so they have not yet been able to find an effective negative ad.
Bush doesn't flip flop? OK:
A. BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES
B. ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS
A. BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE
B. ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE
A. BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
B. ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
A. BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
B. ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
A. BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...
B. ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA
And the list goes on, and on, and on, American Progress
I wish I could stop repeating myself, and have you respond to what I actually say. I said quite clearly that I could care less if the democrats do negative ads. They have tried, but they have not been effective, whereas Kerry's flip-flopping has stung him badly because he has demonstrated it personally, and repeatedly. The main flip-flop is that he is the most liberal US Senator, but now is pretending to be a moderate. This is pissing off the liberal faction of the democrats, and the rest see that he is phony. That's why he is not going to win.
I justified Bush doing powerful negative advertising because the onslaught of the media in TV and Newspaper, and periodicals is dramatically run by self-avowed liberals. So the only choice Bush has is to buy his media coverage in the form of ads. Unfortunately, negative ads give the most effective bang for the buck.
Like it or not, Bush's ads have already defined Kerry to the American People. You gotta give the Republican Ad agencies credit for that.
I never said that Bush has not flip-flopped. I said that Kerry has. Also, the flip-flops you mention are not all even accurate. He is and has been talking to OPEC to lower oil, which they are doing. I have no idea what the issues on science is about.
I'll concede his flip-flop on Homeland Security, but that was a very complex decision needing to coordinate many departments. It is the single largest change in the federal beauracracy that has ever happened. I'm glad he was cautious, and later changed to embrace it.
The WMD listing is not correct. He said that world intelligence sources told everyone that Iraq had WMD's, and we have not yet found them where we were told they should have been. That does not rule out that they may be hidden, moved to Syria, or other possibilities.
I'll concede that he said that we will find Osama, and we have not...and that he stopped saying that. The odds are still in our favor that we will find him eventually.
XXXXX wrote:never mind who Kerry is married to, and the fact that Kerry has 5 mansions, a private jet, and a fleet of SUV and other vehicles that are not representative of what he preaches.
The current holdings of Teresa Heinz Kerry in Heinz company is a mere 4% of company stock, Heinz Statement
Also, the jet which he is using for the campaign now is a chartered plane, more can be read on a thread here at our very own CDRLabs:
It also goes into financials a bit down, and the fact that he is spending $7,000 per hour less than he previously was.
Alright, I'm off to bed soon.
You must have been getting tired. I'm talking about Kerry preaching conservation, and protecting the environment, and being a champion of the poor.....all the while, driving his fleet of SUV gas guzzelers, flying in his private Gulf Stream jet, heating and air conditioning 5 mansions around the country. I am not talking about his campaign jet.
I am talking about the hypocrisy of his personal lifestyle. He says one thing about owning SUV's in Detroit, and denies them at an environmental meeting. While the issue is petty, his repeated flip-flopping on such inane issues is indicative of his weak character. That is why he will lose..