"womenagainstsarahpalin", wow how unbiased
Posted By: ,what do you think they would say? duh.nm on 2008-09-13
In Reply to: Whoops. Gave the wrong link. sm - ex animo
nm
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
I don't know that there is an unbiased
I don't watch a great deal of news anymore, but I do try to watch a variety of networks to get different takes on events. I also watch C-SPAN, especially for political speeches and events so I don't have to listen to commentators chatter.
Mostly, I do a lot of reading. I read international and national newspapers online, and I renew my subscription to The Economist every year for my birthday.
Uh...you got that FROM Air America. Not exactly unbiased I would say. nm
60 minutes is hardly unbiased....
I am sure the participants were screened, and anyone who had anything good to say about the war were not talked to or left on the cutting room floor. CBS is liberal media at its best. That is no secret. That being said, as I read in Brunson's post, yes I am sure there are a lot of soldiers who probably do not agree with what is going on....probably because the military was not allowed to fight the war LIKE a war (Viet Nam revisited). You know, if I believed liberals really wanted the soldiers home and safe because they wanted the soldiers home and safe, it would be different. But it is a political ploy...they really could care less about the soldiers. Otherwise they would not play directly into the enemy's hands by going public with the lack of will to carry on the fight. I find it really hard to listen to you crow about soldiers' dissatisfaction...you are actually happy when you hear we are losing. To me, that is as unpatriotic as it gets. THAT being said, let me say this: NO soldier WANTS war. War is sometimes necessary because, believe it or not, there are people out there who want to kill you and are not interested in peace with you, only with conquering you. That is a lesson none on the left have learned. I fear for our future if, God forbid, a liberal Democrat gets into the White House.
It cannot be heartening to any soldier on the battlefield to hear that a new man is in charge (confirmed unanimously by the Senate) and in the next breath have their funding threatened and a resolution from THEIR Congress that they are losing the war. No wonder they are depressed. And liberals fall all over each other wanting to drive that point home. And I think you should all be ashamed. But, that is just me.
And again...you said anti-war. Conservatices are not pro-war. No one in their right mind is pro-war. Conservatives just happen to have sense enough to realize that to give peace a chance the enemy has to also be interested in giving peace a chance. When was the last time you saw a Muslim carrying a sign to give peace a chance? When was the last time you saw a Muslim he/she could live beside a Christian in harmony? Or live beside a non-Muslim in harmony? They cannot even live next to each other in harmony.
As I have said before, my husband is certainly not pro-war. He is the gentlest person I know. But he also realizes the threat we face, has been lifelong military now retired and still serving as a civilian working for the Army. He started as an MP, then went into MI, then into force protection, etc. Believe me, he KNOWS the threat we face. And it breaks his heart to see the young soldiers damaged by the nonsupport from home. And whether you believe it or not, public backpedaling and spinelessness when the going gets tough is damaging to them. No wonder they want to come home. I can hardly blame them. Maybe this country, the way it has become, is NOT worth dying for anymore. And that is too profoundly sad to even think about.
Your opinion is about as unbiased as
.
I think your news isn't so unbiased either
This has NOT been about race, if anything, that is the one subject everyone has ignored. The only ones who bring up race is the Obama supporters who claim that's why the Republicans don't want him as president, forgetting the myriad other reasons why. Also, it seems that is why Obama is handled with kid gloves, rather than really anyone grilling him as to his plans. So, in that way, perhaps race HAS been a factor. In Obama's FAVOR.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
Thanks for an unbiased link. (nm)
Totally unfair. Fox is the only unbiased
nm
Wow - local news from NY - how unbiased.
nm
Obama wants a thorough and unbiased investigation and so he sm
has called for a special prosecutor.... you know Acorn is signing up dems and repubs...these repubs are so desperate that they are even turning off their long time followers.
Al Jazeera? Oh, get real. They have no unbiased
nm
As totally unbiased as the smear campaign on the CON board....?
And before casting aspersions on others?
Unbiased opion? Oh, gourdpainter, you're my new hero.
I mean, I thought that Macaque Obama was full of sh it. But, lady, YOU take the cake. I mean, YOU make Macaque look downright HONEST by comparison.
Maybe you could work for his campaign. I hear he pays REAL well. (You don't mind changing your name to Chicago Joe's Kid Kamp or Chi-Town Youth Enrichment or something, do you? 'Cuz then he could throw you HEAPS of money and no one would ever figure it out.
Yeah, TOTALLY unbiased. whooeee... Can't stand this shrew!
Conservative outright spin and BS, spread on Fox by Gregg Jarrett, for the real whole unbiased story
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/2009/101/02/ED151514UE.dtl, there was one slight recession in 1937-1938 because of spectacular growth when it took off, read the rest of the story. Pubs will say anything to rewrite history and try to save face. IMO
|
