Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

wall street journal more credible than CNN?

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-10
In Reply to: feel free to chose the sources - bootscraper

One of them is a link to a video...hard to say that was manufactured. It wasn't...I saw it live. Just leave it up to the people to decide. Both sides presented, and people can do their own research as well. They should not take what I post for the truth, or what anyone posts. It is a place to start to look on their own. I would just advise...both sides...anything on blogs needs to be verified with something a bit more credible.

This is America, and there is nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue. Is there?

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Wall Street Journal for one

I know, I know a "liberal rag"!!!!   ha ha ha


From the Wall Street Journal

World greets Obama:


Obama's Dour Vision:


What an Obama Presidency Means for Your Money:


Pelosi, Automakers to Meet:


Obamas's Real Opposition:



Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts

Some need to pay close attention to this.........  it's called welfare handouts.  "Entitled mentality".  The working class will get NO tax cuts.  You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not.  It makes perfectly good sense.  I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES.   He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't.  He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits".   You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work? 

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]


this from the wall street journal, interesting article
It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Assuming you have one?
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
Oh Wow. Don't think Wall Street
likes what was done today. It's down 383.73 points and it's not even 4:00 yet!
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.

Wall Street Grieves

The stages of grief:

Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.

Anger -  that was Lehman Bros.

Bargaining - TARP anyone?

Depression - 

Acceptance -

I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....

It should be $$ for banks, big oil and wall street, right?
Wall street bonuses expected


Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.

Wall Street has zero confidence in Obama's
Wall street, China, Japan, whoever they gave
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
Should Wall Street Bankers have their compensation capped?

Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.

President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.

"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"

Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.

It's not a novel concept, and it's one the GOP supports -- when applied to welfare recipients, at least. "We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks.

"Evil" is George Bush, Wall Street, the Banks,
I hate Wall Street. Hope that whole fake-money
$ + $ on WS = 0.
ABC: Obama Is Hypocritical For Limiting Wall Street Pay While Having A ‘Lavish Lifest
Yesterday, President Obama instituted a pay cap on bailed out businesses after it was revealed that Wall Street doled out an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. “If the taxpayers are helping you, then you’ve got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” he explained.

In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet:

The president makes $400,000 a year, but hasn’t received a raise from Congress since 2001. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account (any unused money at the end of the year must go back to the Treasury.)

Then there is the use of two private jets, Boeing 747s better known as Air Force One. And of course the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House. The president also used to have a yacht, until Jimmy Carter sold it.

As its evidence that “corporate America” is upset, ABC said that “some Wall Street bloggers” are angry with the compensation cap. But the article cited only one blogger, Dealbreaker.com, who — apparently poking fun at Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement — remarked, “Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won’t have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.” Dealbreaker.com also suggests charging rent for White House tenants.

Comparing the President to Wall Street CEOs is absurd. The “private jet” that Obama uses is Air Force One, which is used as a security precaution and necessary for the dozens of staff and press that accompany the President on every trip. Each use of the jet by the President is regarded as a “classified military operation” in order to ensure the President’s safety.

Furthermore, Obama’s salary is set by Congress (whose members are elected by the public). CEO compensation is decided internally within the company, usually by its board of directors. The problem with recent excessive CEO compensation was that executives receiving federal funds were still rewarded for failure with tens of millions of dollars from their companies.

The President, on the other hand, does not get a bonus for his performance, good or bad. Indeed, Presidents Bush and Obama earn the same salary. County Fair at Media Matters has more.

Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass.
the death of Wall Street is the death of the USA...you really want that????? nm

This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...
New SCHIP bill, same old reaction
Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 06:29 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Details were still sketchy by Wednesday evening, but House Democrats and the White House are talking about a compromise on the bill that would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Georgia’s PeachCare, a health insurance program for poor kids. The House may vote on it Thursday.

The few details that have already been leaked to reporters, however, indicate that the compromise won’t be changing the minds of the 10 Georgia congressmen who voted against the original bill - and then voted to uphold President Bush’s veto of it - this month.

The compromise would still expand SCHIP, or State Children’s Health Insurance Program, by $35 billion over five years and raise the money through an increase in tobacco taxes, Republicans complained.

It’s not clear yet whether Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon, one of only two House Democrats to vote against the original SCHIP bill, will change his vote - something the state Democratic Party would love to see him do on the eve of Marshall’s re-election campaign.

Rep. Tom Price, a Roswell Republican, has proposed an alternative bill to fund SCHIP through 2012 and he took Wednesday’s news about the compromise as a sign that Democrats have no intention of negotiating the bill with more than a handful of moderate Republicans.

“They’re not working with those of us who are interested in finding a solution, they’re not dealing with our leaders,” Price, a long-time physician, said. “My understanding of the changes they made in the compromise is that they’re nothing but fig leaves. They do nothing to change the structure of the bill.”

The House is expected to approve the compromise if it votes Thursday, just as it did the original version. What Democrats need to see in the vote, however, is whether their new proposal picked up the support of enough Republicans to override Bush’s predictable veto of the bill. The Senate already has those votes.

All that being said...and I won't give my personal opinion as it is already known, other than this: I do strenuously object to one segment of the population being targeted to foot the bill for this, when many of the children affected will have parents who smoke. It will not affect me...I do not smoke, never have. But I still do not think we should target one segment of the population to pay for expanding an entitlement...especially since a good number of the families involved are probably in that segment of the population. To me that is just wrong on a very basic level. They should figure out a way where the cost is more evenly distributed. I don't want my tax burden going up, but if they are going to force this, they should not lay it all at the smokers' feet.

Okay...off my soapbox. lol.
Two-way street not so equal?
Just my 2 cents... though it is definitely a 2-way street with both conservative and liberal radio talking heads (and others) make these comments about all kinds of stuff, including assassinations of either Bush or Obama... I do see a difference here - in that there are a large number of folks in this country who think Bush should be in prison, impeached, or at the very least, hasn't done our country a big favor with this war...with popularity at an all-time low... NOT that I'm saying he deserves to be assassinated, I'm not!!

But this talk of Obama being in danger - it is not because he has done something wrong, it is not because he is a hugely unpopular person (quite the contrary), and it is not because of his actions.... it is about the color of his skin. Racism. And, fear.

Thanks for listening to my 2 cents...
I would not walk across the street to see either one of them. nm
Picking anyone up off the street........sm
In looking further into al-Marri's case, I see that he did have charges of credit card fraud and making false statements to the FBI (you just don't mess with those guys!) so apparently he was not held illegally. I don't see this setting a precedent for unjust arrests of American citizens just going about their business.

As to your second paragraph....ROFL!! Count your lucky stars!
If you were at all credible...

...in your Iraq stance you would be over there as part of the fight.  End of story.  No buts, no excuses.  You would be over there and not relying on teenage kids and reservists to do your fighting for you.

Likewise, our powers that be (no names mentioned) would have multiple family members over there also.  No buts, no excuses, no whining.  But of course, they don't.

But of course, your butt sits in your comfy chair in your house as well as our Washington bosses' butts.  And you sit in your chair belittling someone who does not support this war, or any war, and does what she can to help peace world-wide.  She is an activist, you are not.  You are merely a cheerleader for a violent cause as long as it does not involve you directly.   

My boyfriend says the ultra-rights are angry cowards.  What I have seen illustrated on the conservative board makes me think he is 100 percent correct. 


Until they make the "documents" public, as they should, I cant believe everything this lady says .

"Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says" 

Sorry, but she has reason to point the finger away from her.  If this is all true, where are the documents to prove it?  Where is the court transcript, where is the paper trail for the public to view.  This is reporting, just like reporting about the Keating 5 and other issues that arise on both sides.  Facts are NOT facts just because someone writes a news piece.

CNN is much more credible than FOX and sm
the intelligent and educated people know this!!! That is what you don't seem to understand, that by admitting you listen to and believe Fox, is admitting you are a little lacking in the education or basic thinking skills. It's so obvious.

I have to be credible to you?  Please, like I care what you think of me or my opinion.  Besides that it is called sarcasm. 
'Wall Street". NOT "trains".
And we'll be dancing in the street!!!nm
Credible site

What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there.  I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month. 

I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans.  After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.

I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site? 


Battling the Effects of War

Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope

By Peg Tyre


December 6, 2004


It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there—shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.

Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain—and how best to help patients heal—there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.

Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq—with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism—could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.

PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.

Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.

Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."

Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."

The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help—counseling or drug treatment—to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.

VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].

Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.

Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.

Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.

About as credible as her claiming that she was
I'll tell you where I haven't been...that would be listening to Failin/Bailin/Palin excuse herself for her latest (but not her last) gaffe. PULEEZE.
Snopes is not credible
Especially since it's highly likely that the couple that runs snopes are Obama supporters. There has been no credible evidence on snopes to prove anything.

That's like saying Louis Farrakan or Ayers, or Rev. Wright verified it so we should just believe them.

Let the supreme court judge handle it. We want the truth.

The supreme court judges are there to uphold the constitution. I will listen to their decision.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to defend as you are most likely wrong about this.
Not a credible source

Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about?  The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time.  I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.

Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids.  I could and I did.  I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive.  There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website.  Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here.  I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?

I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation."  .

According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.

Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.

You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".

Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.

The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.

The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.

I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Credible source

I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him.  I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that.  After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own.  I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so. 

You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me.  Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean.  We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled.  The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case.  You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1?  They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen.  It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint.  I should think you would know that.  They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing.  I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.

There are also other far more credible sites...sm
which give valid information as to why it is not real.

The whole point to this, GP, is not JUST the birth certificate. This plays into a much larger picture in which Obama appears to be unqualified in terms of foreign policy and experienced in so many other areas. It has to do with past associations and shady current assoociations, who is backing him, how he rose through the ranks so quickly, some if not all of his campaign platform and plans for this country, some of the statements he has made that sound positively socialist if not marxist and the way the American people have been so capitivated by him. It's not even about McCain being POTUS because I can tell you that, even though I voted for him, I have some doubts about him just as you do about Obama. It is about the safety of our nation, laws being upheld on EVERY level (yeah, I know all about Bush, this isn't about him) and the future of our nation. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg.
Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...

What makes a credible source?

Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

So, just curious about this. 

Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...

What makes a credible source?

Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

So, just curious about this. 

About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.

As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?

Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:

* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.

* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.

* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.

* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.

* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.

* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.

* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I find them to be a bit more credible
anonymous mtstars forum polls where the same guy can post over and over again. The report is not just on their own poll....it includes results from the others as well. It's the closest thing we have to a barometer on this plan and anybody who reads it can take it or leave it, but placing any credence in this thread is really grasping at straws.
Another credible source...

wingnut - not credible
downing street memo investigation

Republican Congressman Breaks Ranks, Joins Demand for Documents on Downing Street Memos

Related stories: antiwar

src=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/images/1x1.gif 8-24-05, 10:58 am

Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos.  Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims.  The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats.  The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats.
The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House.  Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution.  Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee..
The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members.  Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution.  If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage.
Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy.  Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee. 
Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes, said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous.  It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents.  This is a demand for the truth.  Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq?  We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question.
Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6, said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy.
The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, a list of current co-sponsors, and what you can do to help: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902

From AfterDowningStreet.org

Farmer down the street says regular Americans
Like all those drug-crazed street terrorists did
60s Youth at least could recognize the potential of their country, took control of the situation, engaged directly to forge their own future world and took measures that blasted us out of the complacent post civil war plantation mentality and cold war mongering by working tirelessly on behalf of civil rights for blacks AND women and ending a costly, senseless war that never should have happened.

Not holding my breath here and expect very little out this current crop of spoiled brats. I lay down this gauntlet....stand up for yourselves and prove me wrong, will ya?...but do so with honor. Use your noggens and exercise your intellect, not the Jerry Springer style potty mouth free for all we currently see so much of on this forum.
First because of a hurricane. Now because of Wall St.
an earthquake in California. Or maybe because his favorite show is on TV that night.

I want somebody with some actual ballz in the white house, not an aged wimp.
McCain wants to put Soc Sec in Wall St just like
I have zero confidence in Wall St......nm