CE9

[rockysigman]

Well, no, I don't think it's a great idea, but I think Bush has made enough blunders far larger that it's not really worth it to get all bent out of shape about this one.

[Galactus]

Haha you've certainly got a point there.

[Artknocker]

This is where I stopped reading the post.

Hmmm...someone just doesn't want to face facts. Methinks conservatives just rub you the wrong way, Shin. I thought libs were supposed to be so tolerant and diverse.

[JACkory]

That's a creepy avatar ya got there, art.
Looks like the host of that tabloid television trash Inside Edition from several years back...

Oh...that's who it is.

He's still around?

[chrisfan]

Rocky, the issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is not limited to the confines of what is LEGAL or not. There is a question equally as important of what is right and wrong. Right and wrong does not always have legal boundaries.

Now if the argument is that Bolton is a weak representative because he's a recess appointment - Bush did not hedge the issue that he was willing to use a recess appointment. The way for congress to avoid that would have been to vote on Bolton. So it seems to me that if a recess appointment is bad here (and again, I don't think it is - I can't think ofa single office holder that has proven to be weak as predicted merely because of being a recess appointment) then the responsible thing to do would have been to vote on the guy. After all, if he is such a horrible nominee, he would have not been confirmed, right?

Of course, we know that is not the case. We know the votes were there to confirm him. Which again illustrates that the rules were being pushed to circumvent the majority rule, which seems to me to be a rather relevant aspect of our republic.

[ken]

artknocker has no idea.

There is nothing in "liberalism" that calls for liberals to be tolerant of points with which they disagree, to whit, as a liberal, I cannot possibly be tolerant of slavery, unbridled arms build up, nationalistic jingoism, etc, etc...

You really should read that article in the times, knocker. Just because it is published in the Times does not mean it was written by Times staff, and may give you some insight into the liberal/conservative media. You'd be surprised just how much you might agree with what is said.

But hey, if you don't want to read something because the writers of the paper disagree with your ideology, that's fine. It'll certainly help make you the most well informed person here.

[Galactus]

I can't believe people are still pretending that Fox News isn't a conservative network...

[chrisfan]

I can understand why people see Fox as a conservative network. I can without question see why they view Sinclair stations as conservative as well. I can totally see the conservative slant to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times as well. What I DON'T understand is how so many of the same people who jump to call each of these conservative look at CNN, the New York Times, or PBS and say "They aren't liberal". They either all have a slant or they don't. THere's no conservative bias with a total absence of the equivilent on the liberal side.

[Galactus]

I really don't think there is an equivilent, not in network news anyway. That is to say that CNN is less liberal then Fox is conseravtive. That may seem like splitting hairs...but CNN used to be alot more liberal but lately they've become increasingly bland. Nobody actually wants to watch fair and balanced news. They want to be told what they want to hear and then they want to be told something they can be outraged over.

[ken]

To summarize the article that noone wants to read.

The argument is that, with the rise of the internet, the globalization of news, weblogs, and the rise in number of political outlets, established news must carve out a niche to maintain their viewership. To whit: The rise of Fox News took with it all the conservatives who watched CNN.

In the days when CNN had no competition, it was to CNN's benefit to stay as close to the center as was possible for a liberal bunch. That way, they could attract the most people and not alienate anyone who would be turned off by blatant journalistic liberalism. But by (very smartly) carving a niche and taking with them all the people who believed that the media was just a bunch of pinkos, Fox News not only soared to the top of cable news (after all, the word liberal remains a bad word in America, as far as "percentage identified as" goes) but it forced opposing news to compete by veering more and more toward some sort of ideology, or to employ nutcases who might cater to a specific audience (ie, Michael savage and MSNBC).

Regardless of what your personal opinion on CNN might have been in the past, there's almost no denying that it caters more to the left now than it did in the past (although obviously, DED disagrees). This isn't a trend that seems to be slowing down. The article implies that the average American cares less about getting 'just the facts' than he does with having his feelings and concerns validated by a good looking, educated person on television.

[chrisfan]

ded said:

I really don't think there is an equivilent, not in network news anyway. That is to say that CNN is less liberal then Fox is conseravtive. That may seem like splitting hairs...but CNN used to be alot more liberal but lately they've become increasingly bland. Nobody actually wants to watch fair and balanced news. They want to be told what they want to hear and then they want to be told something they can be outraged over.

What exactly are you identifying as the conservative elements of Fox News for which there are not equivilent? Are you talking about things like Sean Hannity talking louder than Alan Colmes? Or are you talking about things like more positive stories about the war in Iraq?

[pissin2]

SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- An Australian bus driver who called police after he found a package on his bus which emitted a strange sound when touched was left red-faced when it turned out to be a novelty store cushion.

Just two weeks ago Sydney, Australia's largest city, adopted a New York-style "If you see something, say something" counter-terrorism campaign urging people to report unattended bags or suspicious activity around public transport.

The driver found the package on the rear seat of his bus after completing his route around the Sydney beachside of Coogee on Sunday.

Fearing it could be an explosive device of some kind, he called the police.

"It was an unattended item, emitting a popping sound," a police spokesman said.

"Just as a precautionary measure, police went and investigated. It's a whoopee cushion," he said.

-----------------------------

This reminds of one time in school when the dean thought I had a bomb or something in my locker. Here my walkman got stuck at the end of the tape, and was making a clicking noise. Funny thing was, they didn't evactuate the building or anything. They just broke into my locker and said "sorry son, we heard a tickin noise. you can pick your walkman up after school." It was pretty weird. I wonder if they would handle the situation the same way nowadays with all the bomb scares and code oranges.

[JACkory]

You went to school?

[Galactus]

Ken, I guess I don't watch CNN enough then, because it seems to me that they have no spine now. I supose they could still be the flacid left but what's the point in getting upset about that?


Chrisfan, both really, again maybe I don't watch enough Fox news but they come off as being very sympathetic to the right. I should also point out that I don't think that's a fault. It's absolutely OK to be a conservative network...also I don't think it's bad if CNN is liberal. It just bugs me when people deny that Fox News has a conservative leaning.

[chrisfan]

ded said:

Ken, I guess I don't watch CNN enough then, because it seems to me that they have no spine now. I supose they could still be the flacid left but what's the point in getting upset about that?


Chrisfan, both really, again maybe I don't watch enough Fox news but they come off as being very sympathetic to the right. I should also point out that I don't think that's a fault. It's absolutely OK to be a conservative network...also I don't think it's bad if CNN is liberal. It just bugs me when people deny that Fox News has a conservative leaning.

Then you can understand my sentiment towards those who don't see CNN as liberal.

I've heard the claims that Fox is conservative because of the way they cover the war, their patriotic slant, etc. This seems to be a rather dishonest asessment to me. Not because I don't think that you're more likely to see pro-war / pro-America stories on Fox than on most other networks. But because to claim that this coverage makes them conservative implies that being pro-America is a conservative value. It isn't, is it?