Hey LibnewsSuckslikeme:

If you seriously think that our media is anything but a tool for big business and subsequently a subtool part B for the government trash, then you are seriously retarded. I mean retarded in the dictionary sense. You really should not vote, because you think that our media is owned and run by liberals.

Truth be known, our media is run by foriegnors stealing all of our assetts with the help of our lousey corrupt politicians. They buy clowns from both parties, then close down the airwave access, so no americans can get into the business unless they are already sell-outs.

Two boys in Boston were playing baseball when one of them was attacked by a killer Rottweiler. The dog had already locked his jaws on the boy's legs.

Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off of a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck.

A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy.

The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline, 'Brave Boston Red Sox Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal.'

'But I'm not a Boston Red Sox fan,' the little hero interjected. 'Sorry' replied the reporter. 'But since we're in Boston , I just assumed you were.'

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began again, 'John Kerry Fan rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack'

'But I'm not a John Kerry fan either,' the boy responds.

The reporter says, 'I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Red Sox, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy What team or person do you like?''

'I'm a Texas Ranger fan, and I really like George W. Bush', the boy says.

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began again:

'Arrogant Little Republican Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet

AND THAT'S NOT FAR OFF FROM WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA DOES....

Media Guy - two points:

1. You still haven't responded substantively to my sending you the link to Bush;s Executive Order. You thought I didn't have it and you wound up with egg on your face didn't you? Do you think it's ok for the government to have that much power? You think it's ok for Bush to be able to take people's property for expressing their opinions? Is that the America you so called patriotic conservatives believe in?

2. Thanks for the great article! Media Matters does exemplary work as detailed; watching and exposing the lies of the right-wing, government controlled media in this country. David Brock; a former arch-conservative who woke up one day and realized that he needed a bath. Good work posting that thanks!

Hey John--Unlike you, I take TIMT to read things--not exactly light reading--I could just shoot from the hip w/o the facts--I will repond after I read it. Or would you rather i do what you do and rely on others to interpret data, and respond to what they tell me it said??? Huuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm???

Oh GREAT opinion column in todays NY Post--here she be:

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA
Founded: 2004 by author David Brock. Hillary Clinton also claims to have helped inspire the group, saying, “We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely . . . in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters."
Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
Employees: 59 staff and “advisers," according to the group's Web site. Members of the staff are assigned various television and radio programs that they record, transcribe and monitor for content.
Funding: A nonprofit, Media Matters receives money from liberal organizations such as the Center for American Progress, a policy-research institute whose CEO is John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Critics have alleged that George Soros gives money to Media Matters; the group denies any direct involvement, though it may receive Soros money through other advocacy groups.
MEDIA CIRCUS
With an army of interns and researchers recording radio and television appearances, employees of Media Matters for America try to build a case against conservative commentators. Their targets have included:
MORNING SHOWS
Every so often, Media Matters releases a report about the guests on talks shows such as “Face the Nation" and “Meet the Press." Often, they reach the same conclusion of a February 2006 survey: “Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so." But critics have taken issue with Media Matters labeling of guests, saying some people labeled “neutral" were actually quite liberal.
DON IMUS
Early in the morning of April 4, a Media Matters monitor heard Imus refer to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as “nappy-headed hos." The group blogged about it and sent e-mail to many organizations and media. Imus apologized, but was still fired by CBS on April 12. Imus reached a settlement with CBS for his dismissal, rumored to be as high as $20 million, and is plotting a return to radio.
BILL O'REILLY
On his Sept. 19 radio program, O'Reilly was discussing a dinner he had with Al Sharpton at Sylvia's in Harlem. O'Reilly said he “couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference" between it and other restaurants. When guest Juan Williams said too few people see black culture beyond profane rap, O'Reilly said, “That's right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming ‘M.F.-er, I want more iced tea.' " Media Matters posted the quotes, saying they were “ignorant and racially challenged." O'Reilly says the group “cherry-picked" his statements to try to make him look bad, when really he was saying something positive. The story hasn't had much traction in terms of a boycott or suffering ratings.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
On Sept. 26, a caller to Limbaugh's radio program was discussing troop views on the Iraq war. The listener, Mike, said, “What's really funny is, [the media] never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh responded: “the phony soldiers." Media Matters distributed the quote widely. Limbaugh says he was referring to one person in particular, an anti-war activist who pretended to be an Army vet. But Democrats remain unswayed, and members took the floor of the Senate this week to denounce him. The incident has even stirred talk among congressional Democrats of reviving the “Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to give opposing political views equal time and was in effect from 1949 to 1987.

Gee Media Guy how revealing that once I sent you the link you shut up. Typical; never met a reactionary right-winger who liked facts.

Gee Media Guy how revealing that once I sent you the link you shut up. Typical; never met a reactionary right-winger who liked facts.

LIBERALS SUCK
OOOOOOOOO
-------------------------

Sorry gyums....not John.

Definition of a progressive by John Ehrenfeld:

"Screw fair and blanced; two can play that game. That's too damn bad if that scum O'Reilly was joking, I don't feel the need to be fair to right-wing lunatics..."

Your father Albert would be proud, I'm sure.

Me Myself and I AKA John Ehrenfeld

Here you go, right from the war criminals home:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

blah-blah --blah

John:
I said SHOW me the ORDER (or reference)--not media tatter's Interpretation of it--I CAN read

Reply to Otis and his conversation with JC:

Did Jesus bother to tell you that he was phoning you from Salt Lake City??

Get a wife. Or two.

Looking for a date?

I'm taken, but thanks just the same.

dung fetish

On July 17th Bush issued an Executive Order "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq". It has passed relatively quietly under the radar, but may be the biggest assault on our civil liberties and the constitution to date. If this doesn't frighten and mobilize people to immediate action, then the responsibility lies with us and we deserve the consequences.

This presidential executive order is unique in that it criminalizes free speech and expression of thought for anyone who "in their opinion threatens the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq", or who "undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". How many times have we heard the Bush administration accuse Democrats of threatening the stability in Iraq in response to public speeches and written editorials? It's almost a daily occurrence. (Don’t you have to have stability to threaten it? Ooops sorry, didn't mean to interject any logic here)

Particular clauses in the executive order are not directed at people who support violent acts, they clearly are meant to suppress free speech and the expression of ideas on Iraq that are not aligned with theirs.

This executive order is particularly dangerous since the determination of a violation won't be made by an impartial jury, but by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. Translation, anyone on the right with connections to the Bush administration who wants to punish someone for their political views can have that person's property seized. It's also worth noting that the property seizures can be done with "no advance notice" whatsoever.

As his days in office dwindle, Bush is acting more and more like a wounded animal painted into a corner, but with his fangs intact. I fully expect to see more of these egregious attacks on our constitutional rights and the comfortably numb American people better hit the panic button now before it's too late.

Otis:
I did not see the post till now.
It IS very hard to be civil with people this extreme--but that's why I post here--its basically media matters light so maybe someone will listen to what we both say! (dream on---)
mg

ENEMY COMBATANT

"An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2]

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)

I think on this one, Bush got it right.
These assholes deserve EXACTLY what they get!

"When you go to church ask Jesus what he thinks about war, racism and poverty; all things your party so lovingly embraces."

I just got off the phone with J.C. He's cool with the war because he understands that the goal of peace sometimes requires a fight.

He also said the Johnny the fool (his words, not mine) should shut up and stop giving aid and comfort to the true enemies of freedom.

Again, this is from Jesus, not me. You got a problem, take it up with him.

Do you know Bush signed an executive order a while ago that said the government can take your house from you if you say or do anything to disparage or work against US interests in Iraq?

Show this one to me--I want to read it for myself

"Do you know Bush signed an executive order a while ago that said the government can take your house from you if you say or do anything to disparage or work against US interests in Iraq?"

I hear the Easter Bunny is coming early this year.

"The millions of deaths in Vietnam and the surrounding area was a result of "our intervention" not "our withdrawal"."

Moronic.

MG-

You're a smart guy and far more diplomatic than I. I applaud your self-control. Good cop, bad cop.

I will have civil discussions with people on the left that are open to actual debate, but lunatic children like JE are so completely gone in the head, that it is useless.

John you evaded my question of what happens if we just leave?

Otis, a bit less diplomatic than I both have the same question!!

Even my most liberal friends are nowhere near the dementia expressed by the nut jobs here. They believe we should be out of Iraq yesterday, but they are not so naive to agree that we just get up and go.

To call Johnny girl a freak is to insult real freaks.

I thought your were ignorant, but in reality you are stupid (as the true meaning of the word implies). No one with a properly functioning brain could be so partisan that they would myopically examine the battle in Iraq and see only failure. The real lunacy then comes in when the imbecile says, “let's just leave”.

No offense asshole, but you are so far out of your intellectual league it is laughable. And for the record, a large vocabulary and writing posts with tons of pejorative adjectives does not in and of itself make you smart.

Dumbass.

The millions of deaths in Vietnam and the surrounding area was a result of "our intervention" not "our withdrawal".

Same concept applies in Iraq.

MG how do you know an "enemy combatant" is guilty if they don't get a fair trial. You take the word of this administration? You feel comfortable having this or any "government" say who is an enemy and who is not?

Do you know Bush signed an executive order a while ago that said the government can take your house from you if you say or do anything to disparage or work against US interests in Iraq?

John my brother is an attorney--I never stated I was happy with the overreaching of the Bush administration.

As for some of the laws--FISA needed to be overhaled, and I personally do not think an 'enemy combatate' --someone that wants you and I both dead--should have a lot of rights. Its how you define combatant that gets complicated

OK I respect your view--but what are the long term consquences? There will be very serious repercussions if this were to happen-both with oil supply,(there's that 3 letter word o i l which I think this war was-is- all about) lives lost-this is why YOUR party is talking about 2013

Is there one candidate in your party that takes your position (If there is I am not aware of it)

You remind me of me 30 years ago!

Love your passion, but you need to lkook at history see hwat happened to a lot of innocent lives lost when we pulled out of Nam--no arguement that the two choices suck--but (unfortunetly) we are there.

Amazing. The Democrats are the ones who want the government's powers and intrusion into your life checked . . your Bush administration is the one that is shredding the constitution and your civil liberties by means of illegal wiretapping, access to your phone records, suspension of habeus corpus, imprisonment with no legal representation, need I go on?

If you are asking for a reasonable discussion on the issue of Iraq you will get one. Unfortunately your calling Hillary Clinton names doesn't do that very well.

When someone has a sunburn they get out of the sun. They do not stay there exacerbating the pain and long-term consequences. What about get out of Iraq do you not understand. 75% of the American people get it? What don't "you" not get?

If I am president tomorrow I do this.

1. I tell my military commanders we are done in Iraq, now get me a plan to safely get all US military personnel out of theer as quickly as is humanly possible.

2. I make a major foreign policy speech to the country and the world outling a new era in US lead diplomacy and engagement. I disavow all previous acts of aggression, labeling other countries as evil and call for a consensus to sit down together to discuss and negotiate issues of contention in good faith.

That's a start.

I am angry, millions and millions of Americans are angry and come November 7th, 2008 you are going to pay for it.

Oh, I forgot--I'm not exactly thrilled about myu party as they spent like a bunch of drunk sailors (with apologies to saliors) I am a fiscal conservative and I about ready to swith to the libertaian party--so before you 'lump me in' with those millions, I have alot of positions that I am at odds with the republicans----wanted to set the record straight!
(PS I also am for gay rights and legal abortion and I'm still a conservative--GASP--I just do not want the government in every crevace of my life)

John--do you acutally think that if (when) the Hildabeast gets in, Iraq will be gone? I admire your passion, I don't like this war anymore than yoy, bur we ARE there, like it or not. War is hell, friends of mine were killed in Viet Nam ?before your era?

I am old enough (55) to know black and white does not exist!

What is the solution? Just leave like we did in Nam at witness countless of thousands killed at the hands of Pol Pot or the North (vietnamise?) I don't have an answer, but a quick withdrawl is just no doable--even your own party is talking about 2013 as the date for final troop withdrawl.

I love levity and great humor; talk to me when innocent people around the world stop having their bodies shredded by US bombs, bullets and aggression. Look me up we'll share a yuck together.

I did
He told me to vote republican, and Listen to Rush

So sorry you ARE so angry--the above was abit of levity--John, lighten up--not all 'right wingers' like myself take those positions!!!

Media Guy - I have a news bulletin for you. Anger is a very appropriate emotion to feel when one thinks about the hundreds of crimes and misdeeds of this abomination of a president and administration. I totally understand that you right-wingers would love for the left to be passive and non-confrontational; to accept your collective bullshit time and time again. Sorry to break it to you; I am angry, millions and millions of Americans are angry and come November 7th, 2008 you are going to pay for it.

One more thing. When you go to church ask Jesus what he thinks about war, racism and poverty; all things your party so lovingly embraces. Hope you're sitting down for his answer.

Faux News is filled with right-wing, racist, nazi loving, warmongering homophobes.

And your elitist point is?

Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks they are watching real news when they are watching Faux News need to get an IQ test.

Faux News is filled with right-wing, racist, nazi loving, warmongering homophobes.

I'll try this again with a few less spelling errors--

O.K. I'll bite
Why NOT take out the Washington Press Corp. like a surgeon or doctor would doo with in as if it were a tumor.
What would we be missing--A BUNCH OF EGOTISTICAL MEGALOMANICS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES, THIER CAREERS THE FACE TIME ON CAMERA AND PUTTING DOWN AN ELECTED LEADER (D OR R) THAN ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS `The world would be a better place w/o idiots like David Greogry and whomever--the days are gone when TWPC served a noble purpose and had my support--those days went long before the Bush administration.

And John, My socialist freind, you are angry, it is palpable.

Carfeful what you wish for -- you and Hillary and carbon tax, gas tax,health care tax, estate tax, wealth tax, tax tax tax tax--you'll need it to pay for these superb ideas..Even an internet tax when you get your way in 2009. Thank God for tax free muni's!!!! (Bet you will try to tax that, too)

My only question is why the hell am I posting here at 6 am on a Sunday, before I go to (sit down, John) Church.

O.K. I'll bite
Why NOT take out the Washington Press Corp. like a surgeon or doctor would doo with in as if it were a tumor.
What would we be missing--A BUNCH OF EGOTISTICAL MEGAOMANICS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES, THIER CARRERS THE FACE TIME ON CMEERA AND PUTTING DOWN AN ELECTED LEADER (D OR R) THAN ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS `The world would be a better place w/o idiots like David Gerogry and whomever--the days are gone when TWPC served a noble purpose and had my support--those days went long before the Bush administration.

And John, My socialist freind, you are angry, it is palpable.

Carfeful what you wish for -- you and Hillary and carbon tax, gas tax,health care tax, estate tax, wealth tax, tax tax tax tax--you'll need it to pay for these superb ideas..even an internet tax when you get your way in 2009. Thank God for tax free muni's!!!! (Bet you will try to tax that, too)

My only question is why the hell am I posting here at 6 am on a Sunday, before I go to (sit down, John) Church.

You're right Grayson. I hate the reactionary left-wing that are destroying this country and trying their best to destroy the world. The jury was in on John Kerry, Air America, Harry Reid and the Clinton's ages ago; I feel no compunction at all to listen to them or to give them the benefit of the doubt. I know who they are. They are hateful, racist, lunatics and they are the enemy of all peace loving, reasonable people in this country.

Oh yeah, just to clarify things for your feeble brain, yes, I think Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are much greater threats to this country than Osama Bin Laden.

You're right Grayson. I hate the reactionary right-wing that are destroying this country and trying their best to destroy the world. The jury was in on Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh ages ago; I feel no compunction at all to listen to them or to give them the benefit of the doubt. I know who they are. They are hateful, racist, lunatics and they are the enemy of all peace loving, reasonable people in this country.

I feel no need to listen to Osama Bin Laden either ; I know a despot when I see one.

The hatred in John's comments are clearly evident in his most recent post. This is one of the many examples of the pure hatred that the democratic party consists of today. Notice the "end justifies the means" mentality. John doesn't care to give O'Reilly a fair chance, because he doesn't agree with his ideology. All conservatives are the enemy to John; he does not wish to give anyone a fair chance other than the people he already agrees with. The current group of ultra left wing liberals come to conclusions before hearing the entire story, as long as that conclusion is bad for America, or bad for a particular conservative. Whatever goals these ultra left wing liberals have, it is far too important to worry about the means it takes to get them there. I for one, hope it is not too late for you John.

Screw fair and blanced; two can play that game. That's too damn bad if that scum O'Reilly was joking, I don't feel the need to be fair to right-wing lunatics who despise minorities and gay people and think it's ok to torture people and enrich war profiteer corporations on the backs of dead Iraqis that never attacked us. Tough shit, if Bill O'Reilly was joking; did he give a pass to John Kerry's joke? Of couse not because he is a despotic piece of reactionary garbage.

Sue me.

Wait a minute; I listened to this live last night as the comment was made, in passing, clearly as a oneliner joke/satire

Grow up

BNF: WE report -- We decide

While I consider myself to be slighty to the left and while I agree that Foxnews is a right wing Propoganda organization, I think that people have to stop policing O'reilly's comments.. Sometimes he's being taken out of context and people live and die on his comments. While I agree he is a polarizing figure and he has his moments of going to far, blaming the left wing media for everything, people are doing the exact thing to him from the left..

Who is Burt Prelutsky? How did he become a slave to right-wing propaganda. I am a liberal and I do not believe any of the things he says I believe.
This man obviously never sat down and talked to a liberal, but listened to far looney right wing talking points. Is he another chickenhawk?
If neo-cons believe we are in WWIII, where is their sacrifice. He is probably shopping. If anyone believes a nut-job like this guy, I seriously believe they could not have ever read a book. He regurgitates all the lies he has heard, knows nothing about the world, politics or probably how to wipe himself.
Hugo you believe that rant. Read something!!!! A book would be good, even a newspaper.
There are so many lies in that rant I would not know where to start.
Chickenhawks, Enlist or STFU!!!!

Liberals: A Puzzlement
By Burt Prelutsky

I'll come right out and admit that I understand Islamic terrorists far better than I do American liberals. After all, once you realize that young Muslims are taught by their religious leaders that our nation is militarily powerful and technologically advanced because we cut a deal with Satan, you can see where they'd be upset with us.

But what is the deal with liberals? How to explain their mushy heads? Was it something weird in their baby formula? Were they potty-trained when they were too young or, more likely, too old? Or is it simply something in their DNA? Are their chromosomes slightly out of whack?

I'm serious. Why else would Americans so resent the United States having more influence in the world than, say, Luxembourg or Lichtenstein? Why do they seem to have no rooting interest in capitalism prevailing over all the other isms? Do they think that the reason they live so much better than the typical Russian or Turk is because they, themselves, are intellectually superior? Fat chance!

Why is it that liberals seem to believe that recycling cans is an important issue, but defeating terrorism isn't? Why do they put so much stock in the blathering of Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why do they regard secondhand smoke as a bigger menace than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What is wrong with these people?

Why will the same folks who'd call a cop if someone set foot in their front yard be so unconcerned about 20 million illegal aliens setting up camp in their country? And why will the same saps who work themselves into a tizzy if some small town sets up a Christmas tree in the public square defend a church's right to provide a sanctuary for foreign nationals who have no business being in our country?

Liberals would like to see us cut and run from Iraq. That's because they enjoy seeing the American military lose. For them, Vietnam was positively rapturous. Their holy trinity consists of Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Walter Cronkite.

They keep insisting that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. What they refuse to acknowledge is that we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Hussein may have had had nothing to do with the USS Cole or the first bombing of the Twin Towers or the attacks on our embassies and our Marine base. So what? Germany and Italy had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. It's the mission that matters, not the venue. And our mission is to destroy Hamas and Al Qaeda and all the rest of the Islamic vermin. If they wish to fight us in Iraq, so be it. Better to fight them there than in Chicago or New York, Houston or Seattle.

I'm aware that liberals will tell you that the Islamics hate us because we're over there, violating their sacred turf. But if that's the case, why are they killing civilians in Holland and Bali, Indonesia and the Philippines, Russia and Spain?

If we're not at war with Muslim terrorism, why do I have to remove my shoes before I'm allowed to board a plane? And if we are at war, why can't airport security concentrate on Arabs of a certain age and quit behaving like a bunch of politically correct fatheads?

There's no getting around the fact that next to the liberals in the Senate, academia and the editorial offices at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times, the biggest left-wing dunces are to be found in Hollywood. This village is filled with a bunch of idiots who, when they're not busy getting drunk, shooting up and behaving like spoiled brats, can be found yammering about global warming and poverty in America.

Oddly enough, those are two problems they could actually do something about. Assuming that carbon emissions actually have an effect on the earth's temperature, might it not be beneficial if these clucks stopped chugging around in Hummers and limos, stopped heating and cooling houses slightly larger than the palace at Versailles, and grounded their private jets for the foreseeable future?

As for poverty, the plain fact of the matter is that the only poor people these movie folks ever encounter are maids, gardeners, nannies and waiters. Well, if these overly pampered nincompoops were really serious about eliminating poverty in America, all they'd have to do is pay higher wages and leave bigger tips!

Never wish that something bad happens to anyone; sometimes though, . . . I have a long list.