How Slimy Can They Get?

The relevant question is what do the adoption records have to do with the qualifications of this person for the office they're being appointed to fill and what is the intended purpose of having these records unsealed.

It looks brown to me, ASLANSPAL! </font>[/QUOTE]



The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

 

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?</font>[/QUOTE] So the state should not be zealous in enforcing its laws intended to protect the integrity of elections? Do you mean that the state should have "looked the other way" since most of the criminals would have presumably voted Democrat? NO. NO. NO.

Enforce the laws. Period. And moreover, create laws that prevent voter fraud starting with mandatory voter ID.

Roadblocks? You are going to tell me that millions or even hundreds or even thousands of Democratic voters were prevented from voting by "roadblocks" put in place by Republicans.

One legitimate voter who was prevented from voting would be too many... but some accusations, like that one, border on the ridiculous.

If there is a roadblock, try a different route to the polls. Park your car and walk. Iraqis risked life and limb to vote. Good grief are Democratic voters so spoiled that they cannot overcome a minor inconvenience?

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.</font>[/QUOTE] I was living in the Atlanta at the time. In buried story discussing the issue of election problems including supposed black voter suppression if I remember correctly, there came the admission that a review of the (1996) voter lists revealed that over 5000 dead people voted in Atlanta alone.

Atlanta is very heavily black and Democratic. That's 5000 verified fraudulent votes compared to how many verified cases where someone tried to vote but was prevented by GOP operatives?

&lt;big sigh&gt; It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.</font>[/QUOTE] Guys charging entrenched enemy, killing 20, to save a whole column aren't everyday events.

But even if theses events were every day, the media has a responsibility to balance the failures against at least some impression of the successes. That is the definition of OBJECTIVE reporting.

I have. I also see it periodically in some of the conservative on-line news sites, though not often enough. What I hear more of though is just a generally frustration with many of our troops over the way the press is giving a overly negative impression of the effort.

Not a "liberal" issue? What ideology harbors the most people biased against the war?

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?</font>[/QUOTE] The coverage was not.

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.</font>[/QUOTE] You are trying to tell me that no one is keeping a casualty count? That would be a first in the history of warfare.

 

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?</font>[/QUOTE] Why should the soldiers be expected to do the press' job for it? If the story I linked you to is ignored by the national media, what makes you think a million "real" stories will ever see the light of day?

I mean this guy was on the level of Audie Murphy or Alvin York- men who came to exemplify American heroism due to the media's reporting of them during WWI and WWII.

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.</font>[/QUOTE] None of those are widespread daily newspapers intended to inform the masses.

Glad we didn't learn that lesson before WWII.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. </font>[/QUOTE] You must if you are going to report objectively... but I have yet to see it trumpetted even the first time.

Coalition casualties.

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.</font>[/QUOTE] Are you denying that there were terrorists training camps in operation in Iraq with state sanction before our invasion? Are you saying that these camps are still operating in safety now?

Tell it to the scientist who wrote a book about what he had buried in his yard and Saddam's continuing activities up until his removal.

That is an opinion. Wars are always "endured" when necessary by civilized people.

No. They should simply be as honest and objective as they claim to be. That would be completely satisfactory to me.

As it is, they are making themselves his adversary by the biased impressions they are delivering to the public.

 

That's better! Much better! But, unfortunately, these are not the ones about which ASLANSPAL was writing. USSOCOM units, including 160th SOAR, are about war fighting just like the rest of our military even in their specialized missions. ASLANSPAL, was thinking of something Janet Reno, as he put it, would have normally flown in. On the other hand, who knows what he was thinking about. He may be thinking the "black helicopters", normally associated with some super secret government intelligence or law enforcement agency - real or otherwise, are coming to get him. Who knows?

 

What does it have to do with being "fair and balanced?"
BTW, do you actually read the New York Times? I do, and I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the paper.

What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times

Again, do you actually read the New York Times? I do, and I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the paper.

No problem: it happens.

If you believe that, then doing a stop watch test will change that opinion. The stop watch test was not my idea - it was posed by Al Franken in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

Regards,
BiR