Say Anything Blog

r108
just wrong. and your link doesn’t work either. what a crappy attempt at propagandizing on your part. oh well, here’s a link.

Well, Sparkie, you are right about one thing. The link doesn’t work.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Fixed the link; the info is true.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Reminds me of a Pravda story about automobile show.  Russia was runner up, the USA came in second to last.  (there were only the two countries involved)!
Propaganda.  The Washington Post, with this article has topped the Communists.

Communism is evil

One of my favorites is the Soviets screening “The Grapes of Wrath “
to Russian audiences, to illustrate the plight of the American proletariat.

The Russian reaction.
“They have a truck!!”

A baffling contradiction indeed. The FT says

Saudi Arabia said on Friday that it was increasing its oil production to its highest level in two years, bowing to intense US pressure after the price surged to a fresh record of almost $128 a ­barrel.

The WP says

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 16—Saudi leaders told President Bush on Friday that they are doing all they can to increase oil production, gently turning aside the president’s efforts to bring down prices more rapidly.

After a meeting with Bush and his advisers Friday afternoon, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi announced that the kingdom decided last week to increase production by about 300,000 barrels a day to meet increased demand from customers for June. That would take Saudi production to 9.4 million barrels a day. The kingdom’s production capacity is 11.3 million barrels.

Riyadh pointedly waited until Mr Bush had left the meeting before it made the announcement – leaving US officials in the embarrassing position of having already briefed reporters not to expect any move from the Saudis.

So Saudi Arabia is increasing its output by 300K barrels. Is this the result of a decision taken last week and just announced now or was it in response to the President’s urging? I’ll arbitrarily pick Bloomberg to break the tie.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, will increase crude production next month in response to rising demand from its customers and a request by U.S. President George W. Bush to ease the strain of record prices.

The country will raise output by 300,000 barrels a day, or 3.3 percent, to 9.45 million barrels a day in June, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said in Riyadh today, following a meeting between Bush and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.

``The president has asked the Saudis to produce oil to meet demand,’’ Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said in Riyadh after Naimi’s remarks. ``He was reassured by the king that they have increased production as the market demands.’’

Still kind of mysterious isn’t it? How about the Guardian quoting the President:

“I said very plainly that you’ve got to be concerned about the effect of high oil prices on some of the biggest customers in the world.
“As the (Saudi oil) minister said yesterday, Saudi Arabia has increased the number of barrels of oil by 300,000 a day and they’re increasing refining capacity which is not enough.
“It’s something but it doesn’t solve our problem,” Bush told reporters. “Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancement of alternative energies.”
“I was pleased that they increased production by 300,000 (barrels a day) but I’m also realistic to say to the American people that we’ve got to do more at home,” he said.

I’m quite perplexed now. The WP headline doesn’t seem quite right although the FP’s account doesn’t seem quite correct either given the stories at the Guardian and Bloomberg. It sounds like Saudi Arabia is increasing its production by 300K barrels which isn’t as much as the President would like.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

WOOF.  I never heard that one, but it makes sense.  Remember Nikita Kruschev standing on the bridge over an interstate back in 1957.  He watched cars driving into NYC for a good while.  When asked he said, ~I thought they were driving the same cars around to impress me, but they were all different!~

Communism is evil

300,000 barrels isn’t going to affect global supply in a significant way, but its something.  The more interesting part of Bush’s visit IMO was the offer to provide the Saudis with enriched uranium and promote civilian nuclear power in the kingdom.  We’d get paid for the nuclear fuel, Saudi Arabia would use less of its own oil and export more, and we’d have access to the nuclear sites for any inspections they can dream up.

Mike: I can understand your puzzlement, because you don’t seem to understand the extent to which the MSM is out to bash the President, rather than simply reporting the truth of what happened.
In any case, development of our own oil resources is the real fix for the problem, as many of us know.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I can understand your puzzlement, because you don’t seem to understand the extent to which the MSM is out to bash the President, rather than simply reporting the truth of what happened.

No, I’m definitely puzzled as to the truth of what happened. I see that today’s Financial Times’ coverage is more in line with the other sources so I’m guessing that they jumped the gun in attributing the production increase to the President’s request. Nevertheless, the President is correct in saying that 300K more barrels won’t make much difference...America will have to find more, use less and/or use something else if it doesn’t want to pay those prices I guess.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

If a production increase of 300,000 barrel per day is not going to have any significant effect on the global price of crude, why did some idiots make such a big deal about a relatively piss-ant 70,000 barrels which were going into the strategic petroleum reserve?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Because they’re dopes.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Mike,

A well thought out and succinct response… as usual!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Nothing like cutting to the chase I always say.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Mike: Furthermore, 300,000 is clearly more significant than nothing, at least under the math rules I know.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Because they’re dopes.

Yeah, and I guess it’s just pure coincidence that they get to bash the President either way.  /sarcasm

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Furthermore, 300,000 is clearly more significant than nothing, at least under the math rules I know.

301,000 would be even more significant although not as significant as 302,000...and don’t get me started on the relative significance of 303,000 or I’ll be here all night.

At any rate, I would defer to the wisdom of President Bush on this occasion if I were you.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

At any rate, I would defer to the wisdom of President Bush on this occasion if I were you.

So, you admit that President Bush possesses wisdom?  Strange, for a leftie.

What I said about significance was in reply to a statement that 300,000 barrels was “insignificant”, and you know it.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Since the reply was directed at me, I assume that you’re referencing either my statement that “300K more barrels won’t make much difference” or independent’s observation that “300,000 barrels isn’t going to affect global supply in a significant way”.

If 300K barrels of oil spilled on to my street then that would be a significant amount of oil. Your President doesn’t think that 300K barrels of added production will affect the price so both he and I don’t find that amount of oil significant in that context...but you knew that.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

It’s significant, but you(and other lefties) can still use it to bash the President(as if he’s responsible for Saudi oil policy).  When the headline screamed that he wasn’t able to get an increase, the President was bashed, and when it turned out that he did get an increase, he was bashed because it wasn’t enough.  Either way, the point was to bash the President, not to simply report the news, like I said in the beginning.
But then, you knew that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Of course it turns out that the increase was already in place and had nothing to do with the President’s visit whatsoever. I actually thought you had a legitimate point with your criticism on this occasion but even the FT has backed off, leaving Newsbusters and r108 as the President’s defenders against reality.

Go Team!

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

I should leave this alone but I can’t help myself. The daily production of oil in 2005 was 82,532,000 barrels/day. My math tells me that 300K barrels represents a 0.4% increase in daily oil production. Is that what you call significant and what impact on prices should we expect a 0.4% increase in production to have? The President says not much, I say not much...what say you?

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

The President says not much, I say not much...what say you?

Asked and answered, multiple times.  Here goes, one more time, for the reading impaired:

The title of this thread is: WaPo’s Misleading headline… Hint: the word “misleading” is very important here.
The initial headline was that the President failed to win any concessions from the Saudis, which was then blamed on the President(in true BDS fashion), and not the Saudis.  The headline was misleading because there was a concession, although it was a small one, but there was one.  Hint: since there was a concession, the original headline, which said there wasn’t one, was misleading.
Now, since the original reason to bash the President went away, you are now trying to distract from that by talking about the size of the increase, while flushing the original lie down the memory hole.
Shame on you!

The original(misleading) claim= 0 barrels.

The reality= 300,000 barrels.

Got it?

To reiterate: The President was originally bashed with the claim that he got zero(0) barrels increase, when the truth is that he got 300,000 barrels(three hundred thousand).

You said nothing, while it was something.

300,000 > 0

Math impaired?  Let me spell it out for you:  Three hundred thousand barrels is more than zero barrels.

Did it get through this time?
Would you like it in several languages?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

No but I’ll read it back to you just to ensure that I have the story correct.

The President asked for more oil, the Saudis said they were already pumping 300K more and that’s it for now, the President said thanks anyway but that isn’t enough to impact the price.

I recognise that reality doesn’t jibe with the Newsbusters account but since they ran with the FT’s story, which they have now abandoned as erroneous, that’s not surprising.

As for your misquotes and math exercises. I leave them with you to ponder.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

The President asked for more oil, the Saudis said they were already pumping 300K more and that’s it for now, the President said thanks anyway but that
isn’t enough to impact the price.

A misleading statement.  The MSM initially reported that there was no increase, and blamed the President; then, when they found out that there is an increase, they blamed the President because it wasn’t enough.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

No doubt there have been exceptions, but as I recall, the Saudis rarely announce their production increases.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

A misleading statement.  The MSM initially reported that there was no increase, and blamed the President; then, when they found out that there is an increase, they blamed the President because it wasn’t enough.

A misleading hodgepodge of I don’t know what. The Washington Post did indeed report no increase which was strange because other outlets were reporting the 300K increase. The Financial Times went even further and credited the President with securing the increase, hence the Newsbusters item and your posting here. Once the Saudis announced that they had already increased oil production by 300K and that no further increase was warranted, it then became clear what had transpired and all of the media outlets that I frequent ended up on the same page.

The WP headline was actually quite accurate as it turns out. We didn’t know that until the Saudi announcement of the prior increase became public but the fact is that President Bush was unable to secure more oil production than the 300K increase already in place. The FT story is wrong because it attributed the increase to the President’s intervention while Newsbusters, as usual I might add, completely missed the boat by piggybacking on the incorrect FT coverage.

Should we consider reporting the President’s inability to secure more production “bashing the President”? No IMO. Was the story confusing? Most definitely. Was the Newsbusters story accurate? Not even close given the facts we now have. Is the fact that Bush couldn’t get more oil surprising? No IMO and thus I don’t regard the story as significant.

I’ll leave your mathematical points for posterity to sort out but there is no question that Newsbusters and, thus you, were wrong in describing the WP headline as “misleading.”

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

The Washington Post did indeed report no increase…

Thus the title of this post.

Should we consider reporting the President’s inability to secure more production “bashing the President”?

Simply calling it “the President’s inability to secure more production” is, in fact, bashing the President, but it’s more than that, because after that misleading title, the text went on to indicate that the President has failed to save us from the spectre of high gas prices, blah, blah, blah.

What’s really pathetic here is your being a denier of the seven years of leftie Bush-bashing, Mike.

The only real surprise here is the absolute blindness of the entire political class in this country to the real solution: increasing supplies.  Had Clinton not blocked ANWR ten years ago, we would very likely not be in this situation today.  He established the precedent and empowered the leftie enviroextremists.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Simply calling it “the President’s inability to secure more production” is, in fact, bashing the President…

I see.

but it’s more than that, because after that misleading title, the text went on to indicate that the President has failed to save us from the spectre of high gas prices, blah, blah, blah.

The text doesn’t of course but don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.

Had Clinton not blocked ANWR ten years ago, we would very likely not be in this situation today.  He established the precedent and empowered the leftie enviroextremists.

A reasonable opinion...not one I share but at least its coherent. The oil companies have never shown much interest in ANWR but new technologies have certainly revived projects elsewhere that looked like dead ends. The environmental concerns are real but where’s there’s a will there’s a way...maybe not carte blanche at ANWR but there should be some way to satisfy all of the concerned parties. That’s if it’s worth the effort of course.

Finally

The lefties lie again; we got the increase, and the President got it for us.

An ironic statement indeed given that it can’t be supported by the facts. I won’t stoop to call it a lie however, just bad analysis derived from factual errors.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

The oil companies have never shown much interest in ANWR…

Upon what fantasy do you base this?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

If the oil companies were never interested in ANWR, why all the legislation blocking the possibility of drilling there?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

An ironic statement indeed given that it can’t be supported by the facts.

Just more leftie denial and spin.  The President has been negotiating with the Saudis since 2001, and so, obviously every increase is due, in some part, to his influence.  You deny the obvious.  Who do you hold responsible for the increase?  I await your answer, as I need a good laugh today.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Upon what fantasy do you base this?

I’ll have to dig out a reference. I believe it was an industry publication rather than MSM or political but I’ll get back to you.

If the oil companies were never interested in ANWR, why all the legislation blocking the possibility of drilling there?

I didn’t say they were never interested as there was considerable exploration done but my hazy recollection is that the industry was not as high on the area as some politicians and pundits were. Again, I’ll get back to you.

Just more leftie denial and spin.

Another ironic statement as you then spin furiously, relying on past Bush/Saudi chats. You are a treasure!

I’ve given you the facts as to why Newsbusters was wrong on this particular story and this is the best you can come up with?

Who do you hold responsible for the increase?

The Saudis said that the increased production was headed to American commercial interests. Perhaps they made an offer that the Sheiks couldn’t refuse? Who knows really and why is it important?

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Who knows really and why is it important?

Now that you can’t wriggle out of giving credit to the President, you claim it’s unimportant.  Much like you deny we got an increase, and when you’re called on that, you claim it’s “insignificant”.  All increases during his Presidency are attributable to Bush, and you know it.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I’ll have to dig out a reference. I believe it was an industry publication rather than MSM or political but I’ll get back to you.

Before you “get back to me”, check on the price of oil when your article was published.  Might be educational for you.  As the selling price of oil increases, the feasibility of the less favorable discoveries increases(law of supply, demand and price).  So that info might not be so current, nor applicable to the situation today, or even ten years ago.  ANWR was discovered some time before Clinton vetoed it, and he did so because the push was on to develop that resource.  Ditto the enviroextremists blocking it.  Like I said…

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

r108...I’m wriggling most freely out of giving credit to the President for the production increase because he didn’t secure a production increase. Try to stay with the tour.

I can’t believe that you type this stuff with a straight face but apparently you do. The facts don’t support you no matter how far you move the goalposts...you and Newsbusters were wrong and you won’t admit it.

The lefties lie again; we got the increase, and the President got it for us.

Didn’t happen.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Before you “get back to me”, check on the price of oil when your article was published.

Good point and I repeat my observation that technological advances have improved production yields and created successful operations in places where production was negligible or nonexistent.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Didn’t happen.

The President has secured every increase we have gotten from the Saudis during his administration; even you can’t be ignorant of the fact that he negotiates directly with them for oil; the lefties are always pointing that out, but now you want to ignore it.  It just makes my point, again and again, that when something you don’t like happens, you blame the President, but when something good happens, you deny he had anything to do with it.  Massive dishonesty, along with misleading statements.
This increase was secured the same way as all the rest: by the President’s relationship with the House of Saud, and for our benefit.  Be honest.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

This increase was secured the same way as all the rest: by the President’s relationship with the House of Saud, and for our benefit.

Is this the same House of Saud that is the largest supporter of Wahabism in the world?  Glad he is close to them.

They are our enemies.

They are our enemies.

Not all of them, obviously, especially the ones in charge.  Thanks for making my point, though.  You guys are just looking to bash the President, no matter what the outcome.  You will just spin it to your partisan advantage.  Forget about the truth.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Be honest.

I try my best. Why won’t you try the same and admit that Newsbusters was wrong?

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Why won’t you try the same and admit that Newsbusters was wrong?

Because I’m not a liar.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Mike: Why don’t you finally admit that the MSM in this country is simply the propaganda arm of the Dems?  They have been spewing lies, half-truths and outright fabrications about this President since 2001.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Why don’t you finally admit that the MSM in this country is simply the propaganda arm of the Dems?

Because I don’t think it is. I’ve seen examples of stories which contain what can fairly be called a “liberal” bias...many of the stories have been identified at this very blog. I’ve also seen many stories characterised by some as “biased” which aren’t.

I haven’t seen the evidence that confirms that “the MSM in this country is simply the propaganda arm of the Dems.” I’m sorry but that’s just screwy IMO.

OTOH, with specific reference to this thread, I have pointed out the inconsistencies in the media coverage and arrived at a position which seems to be supported by the articles I have read. I’ve been transparent in the evolution of my position...I thought you might indeed have a case of egregious bias but it turned out you didn’t and I have explained why, using examples of specific media sources that can’t be identified as anti-Bush or water carriers for the Democrats. You have bobbed and weaved and slithered and deked but, as you are fond of saying, the facts are what they are and you are wrong in this case.

I could say that such behaviour is typical of conservative commentators...that wingnuts lie because that’s all they have. I don’t because such evasiveness and unwillingness to engage honestly are not functions of political persuasion but of individual character. You won’t admit the truth in this case, not because your views are conservative, but because you are unable to say that you are wrong. This isn’t the first time and I’m sure it won’t be the last but this will be the last time that you read a comment directed at you from me for a while because I have finally reached my limit. In short, I need a break.

I hope a liberal won the pool.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

You won’t admit the truth in this case, not because your views are conservative, but because you are unable to say that you are wrong.

I repeat: I won’t adhere to your belief here(not the truth), because I’m not a liar.  The headline was misleading, but that’s typical of the MSM in this country.  They are in the tank for the Dems, and illustrate that on a daily basis.

If you can’t stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Mike, what would you need as proof of a media bias?

Which by the way is distinguished from propaganda only in that the latter indicates a deliberate bias, but you can have bias without intent.  As I’ve pointed out in the past, cog-psych establishes that bias is a condition of being human, so to claim that the media are even capable of acting without bias is essentially a vacuous argument in any case.

Carrick: For the record, I don’t approve of the President being reduced to trying to get the Saudis to pump more oil; we should be developing our own, and doing so very aggressively.  We have deep water discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico, in addition to ANWR and the CA coast, not to mention shale deposits and coal gasification.  Just our commitment to such a policy would bring down world oil prices, but we have abandoned any real solution to the supply problem.
Nevertheless, WaPo is a charter member of the Dem Ministry of Propaganda, and will use anything to bash the President, rather than simply report the truth.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick...I don’t doubt that bias exists in the media as I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Compared to others here though, I am more likely to see a sloppy story rather than a biased story and I’m less likely to regard a negative story as inherently biased when the facts demand a negative story.

I agree that journalists are human and thus carry biases. The best ones can either put their biases aside or make their biases clear so that the reader can filter appropriately. Studies show that there are more liberals working as journalists than conservatives but at the same time media ownership tends more to conservative identification than liberal.

It’s complex but I want to clearly state that I’ve seen bias in the media so I know that it’s real. I’ll also state that anyone who thinks that the MSM is in the bag for the Democrats or liberalism generally are nutjobs. Thanks for your comments.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

I’ll also state that anyone who thinks that the
MSM is in the bag for the Democrats or liberalism generally are nutjobs.

When the bias only goes in one direction, year after year, it’s propaganda.  Anyone who can’t see that is an ignorant fool.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I’ll state that anyone who DOESN’T thinks that the MSM is in the bag for the Democrats or liberalism generally are nutjobs.  Mike, I guess that you’re one of them.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Mike:

The best ones can either put their biases aside or make their biases clear so that the reader can filter appropriately.

This is where we differ.

As a scientist, I have been trained from the early days that our bias is engrained in how we perceive our world:  There is no human who does not use his world view in which he frames his perspective.

Thus if you have an imbalance of liberal/conservative reporters (80% liberal to 20% conservative is the approximate breakdown), THEN necessarily there will be a bias reflected in their reporting. 

And media study after media study confirms this fundamental observation about human nature.

I doubt I will convince you otherwise, because it is convenient to your belief system to accept as gospel that “good media persons” can set aside their personal biases.  But that to me, is just another example of personal biases filtering which facts we accept as “true” versus which we reject as “false”.

Also some news organizations, like NPR, CBS News, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the LA Times, are very clearly mouth pieces for the liberal establishment.  Just as the Washington Times is very clearly a conservative outlet.

The WaPo sits somewhere closer to the middle, though as late they have gotten very “sloppy” in their reporting, if that’s how you want to characterize it!  I would put Fox towards the middle, mostly because that’s where objective media studies place them (center-right).

For you to describe as “nutjobs” anybody who notices that different organizations have different inherent biases isn’t going to win you any points; especially when counter examples and objective information are so readily available.

I agree with Carrick.  I think we’d all be a lot better served by journalists who are open about their biases.

“Hey, I’m a conservative who is in favor of the war and this is what’s happening in Baghdad today.”

“Hey, I’m a liberal who thinks George Bush is an idiot and this is what’s happening in Baghdad today.”

You read both of those stories and the truth is probably going to lay somewhere in between.  At the end of the day we need to lose this idea that we’re all a bunch of mindless news consumers who need to be fed the absolute truth.  Because the truth isn’t on the menu.  What we need to be is a bunch of individuals who evaluate what we here from the various sources of the media and decide for ourselves what the truth is.

Of course, that level of independence and critical thinking is usually anathema to liberals.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But that to me, is just another example of personal biases filtering which facts we accept as “true” versus which we reject as “false”.

That’s not the worst part of the “bias”; what more often is the case is that they simply don’t report things that don’t agree with their “bias”, so we have what amounts to an MSM blackout on good news from Iraq and on the economy.  Whenever anything happens in Iraq that is bad(or can be claimed to be bad), it’s front page, 24/7.  On the other hand, the good news from Iraq, which occurs on a daily basis, doesn’t get reported at all.  Ditto the economy.  The “biased” MSM was claiming recession during the third quarter of 2007, and the truth was that the growth rate was 4.9% for that quarter.  Did the MSM acknowledge their error?  Not so much; they just kept predicting recession, and continue to do so, even though it has yet to materialize.
It’s a whole lot more than “bias”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Rob: Nice try at being “fair”, but you have to ask yourself one question: Which “side” is more afraid of the truth?  Which “side” doesn’t want us to know the truth about Obama?  Which “side” doesn’t want us to know the truth about Iraq?  Which “side” is advocating for bad economic news, to the extent that it has to deny any and all good economic news?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick...your comments made sense until:

For you to describe as “nutjobs” anybody who notices that different organizations have different inherent biases isn’t going to win you any points; especially when counter examples and objective information are so readily available.

That’s not what I said...perhaps your anti-Canadian bias is showing?

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Rob: Nice try at being “fair”, but you have to ask yourself one question: Which “side” is more afraid of the truth?  Which “side” doesn’t want us to know the truth about Obama?  Which “side” doesn’t want us to know the truth about Iraq?  Which “side” is advocating for bad economic news, to the extent that it has to deny any and all good economic news?

I think that actually speaks to the point I was making.

I think everyone has to decide those things for themselves.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think everyone has to decide those things for themselves.

What’s true is true, no matter what anyone might “decide”, right?
Which “side” doesn’t want the full story of the present state of things in Iraq to be known to the American people?

As far as I know, the truth is a matter of fact, not a decision.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

MikeA: I guess it was just a coincidence that there was another misleading headline about 75,000 people showing up to see Obama in Oregon, when the truth was that there was also a very popular local band giving a free concert there, as well.  I guess the MSM could have reported it as “75,000 people show up for a free rock concert”, but they didn’t.  Wonder why?
I can’t wait to see how you dance around this one.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You’re right MIke, I over-generalized what you said.

And I have nothing against Canadians.  They’re especially good when served with a nice raspberry sauce.