Buffett One of John Kerry's Favorite ______?

ginste · Post by **ginste** » October 27, 2004 10:25 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
ginste wrote:
mermaidindisguise wrote:OH Where oh where did our 860 lbs of explosives go.. Oh where Oh where did they go....sing it with me...... maybe now they will take the rose colored glasses off and realize they went in too soon - without enough help and without proper stategc planning... Hello... are you people actually ok with all his crap????/ get a clue
you have one week to get a clue - I am selling them cheap
Kerry will say anything except what he would actually do.

uhhhh...this is where they went:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dat ... 5_nbcw.htm
Actually that hasn't been substantiated... turns out the Amercian forces that went in there secured the area, but never searched or attempted to secure weapons...

Tuesday, White House officials first said the explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein still controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of U.S. soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander told the Times his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight.

"We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus," Anderson said.

Later Tuesday, Bush's aides moderated their view, saying it was a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared and President Bush did not want to comment on the matter until the facts are known.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -7569r.htm

Well, not quite...
http://drudgereport.com/

ginste · Post by **ginste** » October 28, 2004 8:45 am

Actually that hasn't been substantiated... turns out the Amercian forces that went in there secured the area, but never searched or attempted to secure weapons...

Tuesday, White House officials first said the explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein still controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of U.S. soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander told the Times his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight.

"We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus," Anderson said.

Later Tuesday, Bush's aides moderated their view, saying it was a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared and President Bush did not want to comment on the matter until the facts are known.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -7569r.htm

[/quote]

Actually, an update from the source news organization you read:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -6257r.htm

It's just a bogus story and a pretty lame attempt to manufacture a controversy days before the election.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » October 28, 2004 8:52 am

ginste wrote:
Actually, an update from the source news organization you read:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -6257r.htm

It's just a bogus story and a pretty lame attempt to manufacture a controversy days before the election.

So you think the interim Iraqi government is manufacturing controvery? How odd...

ginste · Post by **ginste** » October 28, 2004 5:08 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
ginste wrote:
Actually, an update from the source news organization you read:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -6257r.htm

It's just a bogus story and a pretty lame attempt to manufacture a controversy days before the election.
So you think the interim Iraqi government is manufacturing controvery? How odd...

It's obvious who wants to manufacture the story, the liberal media trying anything and everything at the last minute:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dat ... _nbcw6.htm

wanderingtoes · Post by **wanderingtoes** » October 28, 2004 6:58 pm

Since most of this came from the New York Times and CBS, it would not hurt to consider the source. Lets give it a rest and see what happens. If Kerry wins there is always The Banana Republic.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » October 28, 2004 10:08 pm

wanderingtoes wrote:Since most of this came from the New York Times and CBS, it would not hurt to consider the source. Lets give it a rest and see what happens. If Kerry wins there is always The Banana Republic.

The SOURCE was a report presented to the IAEA October 1oth by the interim Iraqi government in which they reported the explosives missing....

Just because something is unflattering for the president doesn't mean that the news agencies have a bias...

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » October 28, 2004 10:52 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
wanderingtoes wrote:Since most of this came from the New York Times and CBS, it would not hurt to consider the source. Lets give it a rest and see what happens. If Kerry wins there is always The Banana Republic.
The SOURCE was a report presented to the IAEA October 1oth by the interim Iraqi government in which they reported the explosives missing....

Just because something is unflattering for the president doesn't mean that the news agencies have a bias...

It does not matter who you like........... All news media is bias!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » October 28, 2004 11:11 pm

IsleReef wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:
wanderingtoes wrote:Since most of this came from the New York Times and CBS, it would not hurt to consider the source. Lets give it a rest and see what happens. If Kerry wins there is always The Banana Republic.
The SOURCE was a report presented to the IAEA October 1oth by the interim Iraqi government in which they reported the explosives missing....

Just because something is unflattering for the president doesn't mean that the news agencies have a bias...
It does not matter who you like........... All news media is bias!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only if you CHOOSE to view it WITH bias. That can include not only the content, but also tone, facial expression, body language etc...
Unless you choose to disbelieve EVERYTHING that is offered to you (paranoiac

), a normal person tends to want to go with the source that best suits THEIR bias.
My frriends who only seem to like what FoxNews offers, ....guess who they're voting for?

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » October 29, 2004 8:19 am

Lightning Bolt wrote:
IsleReef wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:
wanderingtoes wrote:Since most of this came from the New York Times and CBS, it would not hurt to consider the source. Lets give it a rest and see what happens. If Kerry wins there is always The Banana Republic.
The SOURCE was a report presented to the IAEA October 1oth by the interim Iraqi government in which they reported the explosives missing....

Just because something is unflattering for the president doesn't mean that the news agencies have a bias...
It does not matter who you like........... All news media is bias!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only if you CHOOSE to view it WITH bias. That can include not only the content, but also tone, facial expression, body language etc...
Unless you choose to disbelieve EVERYTHING that is offered to you (paranoiac ), a normal person tends to want to go with the source that best suits THEIR bias.
My frriends who only seem to like what FoxNews offers, ....guess who they're voting for?

You make a good point there....... The Bias follow the Bias.........

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » October 29, 2004 8:58 am

My point is that just because a news organization reports something or investigates something that may be uncomplimentary towards the President doesn't mean that they have a bias AGAINST the President.

The notion floated by the right that anytime a news organization reports a story that doesn't match the President's talking points somehow means the media is AGAINST the President is absolutely ludicrous. The role of the media is to investigate the truth....

That truth runs in opposition to the President's perspective, that's his problem, not the media's.

If I'm writing a concert review and Jimmy Buffett (god forbid) has a really bad night and his voice cracks all over the place, my reporting that doesn't mean I have a bias against Jimmy Buffett - it means he had a really bad night.

(Sorry Jimmy - just an example.)

Yes, there are media outlets with a definitive bias (ie FoxNews) and that's their perogative. But the litmus test for bias is not merely whether a story is unfavorable for the President, it's whether that story is truthful.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » October 29, 2004 12:15 pm

wKLLs

wanderingtoes · Post by **wanderingtoes** » October 29, 2004 4:04 pm

Key Lime you are a well read and versed kind of guy. I enjoy your posts. I used a general term to indicate some of the news came from the New York Times and CBS. Neither one of these outlets have much respect as to content value as of late. Even Don Imus says so most everyday. The report filed was flawed and was a ploy to get some late breaking bad news. It is late in the race so anything goes. By the way Imus says the reason he is now impressed with Kerry is he will now lie anytime it helps him, and will get as low as it takes to get elected. Even tounge in check as he sometimes is, there ususally remains an element of truth. I love Jimmy Buffett and I know who he supports, but the news media is out of control with this election, and it doesn't matter how Jimmy, you, me or anyone else cuts it. Either way, I can't wait for Wednesday so we can move on.

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » October 29, 2004 7:59 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:My point is that just because a news organization reports something or investigates something that may be uncomplimentary towards the President doesn't mean that they have a bias AGAINST the President.

The notion floated by the right that anytime a news organization reports a story that doesn't match the President's talking points somehow means the media is AGAINST the President is absolutely ludicrous. The role of the media is to investigate the truth....

That truth runs in opposition to the President's perspective, that's his problem, not the media's.

If I'm writing a concert review and Jimmy Buffett (god forbid) has a really bad night and his voice cracks all over the place, my reporting that doesn't mean I have a bias against Jimmy Buffett - it means he had a really bad night.

(Sorry Jimmy - just an example.)

Yes, there are media outlets with a definitive bias (ie FoxNews) and that's their perogative. But the litmus test for bias is not merely whether a story is unfavorable for the President, it's whether that story is truthful.

Thats my point!!!!!!!! What you just posted is totally biased from my point of view.......... If I said the same things you said with my beliefs, then I am the biased one.......... Why is it that who ever you are pulling for makes you biased?????? I have an open mind and have made my choice........ So why are you bias, just like me?????

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » October 29, 2004 8:36 pm

IsleReef wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:My point is that just because a news organization reports something or investigates something that may be uncomplimentary towards the President doesn't mean that they have a bias AGAINST the President.

The notion floated by the right that anytime a news organization reports a story that doesn't match the President's talking points somehow means the media is AGAINST the President is absolutely ludicrous. The role of the media is to investigate the truth....

That truth runs in opposition to the President's perspective, that's his problem, not the media's.

If I'm writing a concert review and Jimmy Buffett (god forbid) has a really bad night and his voice cracks all over the place, my reporting that doesn't mean I have a bias against Jimmy Buffett - it means he had a really bad night.

(Sorry Jimmy - just an example.)

Yes, there are media outlets with a definitive bias (ie FoxNews) and that's their perogative. But the litmus test for bias is not merely whether a story is unfavorable for the President, it's whether that story is truthful.
Thats my point!!!!!!!! What you just posted is totally biased from my point of view.......... If I said the same things you said with my beliefs, then I am the biased one.......... Why is it that who ever you are pulling for makes you biased?????? I have an open mind and have made my choice........ So why are you bias, just like me?????

My feelings on this topic are not influenced even remotely by my choice for president.

I see the media's role as to investigate and report the truth, regardless of who that embarasses. Truth is not a bias.

You won't hear me complaining if someone does a truthful, unflattering story about Kerry because that's their job. The difference is that whenever a news organization runs something unflattering about the President, the right whines about the liberal media, regardless of the truth or accuracy of the story. Apparently journalists aren't supposed to investigate the truth anymore - they're supposed to just highlight the campaign's talking points.

Personally I think the media does all of us a HUGE disservice when it merely reports what one side or the other says in a campaign speech, without interjecting the truth. It perpetuates the lies and gives credence to them.

What truly frightens me up is how the right is able to convince people of just about anything, and like lemmings the people swallow it without even so much as a shred of critical or objective thought. It seems that for a good portion of the population, if you say something often enough it takes on a reality of its own, regardless of its objective reality.

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » October 29, 2004 9:02 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
IsleReef wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:My point is that just because a news organization reports something or investigates something that may be uncomplimentary towards the President doesn't mean that they have a bias AGAINST the President.

The notion floated by the right that anytime a news organization reports a story that doesn't match the President's talking points somehow means the media is AGAINST the President is absolutely ludicrous. The role of the media is to investigate the truth....

That truth runs in opposition to the President's perspective, that's his problem, not the media's.

If I'm writing a concert review and Jimmy Buffett (god forbid) has a really bad night and his voice cracks all over the place, my reporting that doesn't mean I have a bias against Jimmy Buffett - it means he had a really bad night.

(Sorry Jimmy - just an example.)

Yes, there are media outlets with a definitive bias (ie FoxNews) and that's their perogative. But the litmus test for bias is not merely whether a story is unfavorable for the President, it's whether that story is truthful.
Thats my point!!!!!!!! What you just posted is totally biased from my point of view.......... If I said the same things you said with my beliefs, then I am the biased one.......... Why is it that who ever you are pulling for makes you biased?????? I have an open mind and have made my choice........ So why are you bias, just like me?????
My feelings on this topic are not influenced even remotely by my choice for president.

I see the media's role as to investigate and report the truth, regardless of who that embarasses. Truth is not a bias.

You won't hear me complaining if someone does a truthful, unflattering story about Kerry because that's their job. The difference is that whenever a news organization runs something unflattering about the President, the right whines about the liberal media, regardless of the truth or accuracy of the story. Apparently journalists aren't supposed to investigate the truth anymore - they're supposed to just highlight the campaign's talking points.

Personally I think the media does all of us a HUGE disservice when it merely reports what one side or the other says in a campaign speech, without interjecting the truth. It perpetuates the lies and gives credence to them.

What truly frightens me up is how the right is able to convince people of just about anything, and like lemmings the people swallow it without even so much as a shred of critical or objective thought. It seems that for a good portion of the population, if you say something often enough it takes on a reality of its own, regardless of its objective reality.

What you said is kind of funny in a way.......... I would of said the exact same thing you stated except for substituting your "rights" for my "lefts"........... But at this point, does it really matter what we disagree on??????? NO......... We are Buffett fans and your one vote and my one vote do not mean squat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When's the next concert anyway??????

Come Wednesday, we still will wake up and have to go to work and carry on......................

PirateJeff · Post by **PirateJeff** » October 30, 2004 12:28 am

HAS ANYONE HEARD IF THE COCNH REPUBLIC IS LEAVING THE UNION AGAIN? AND IF SO ARE THEY ACCEPTING REFUGEES? CAUSE MY BAGS ARE PACKED, THIS COUNTRY IS TOOOOOO WACKY.

PirateJeff · Post by **PirateJeff** » October 30, 2004 12:29 am

HAS ANYONE HEARD IF THE CONCH REPUBLIC IS LEAVING THE UNION AGAIN? AND IF SO ARE THEY ACCEPTING REFUGEES? CAUSE MY BAGS ARE PACKED, THIS COUNTRY IS TOOOOOO WACKY.

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » October 30, 2004 4:49 pm

PirateJeff wrote:HAS ANYONE HEARD IF THE CONCH REPUBLIC IS LEAVING THE UNION AGAIN? AND IF SO ARE THEY ACCEPTING REFUGEES? CAUSE MY BAGS ARE PACKED, THIS COUNTRY IS TOOOOOO WACKY.

Feel blessed that you live in this country................ The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence................ (Unless its hydro)