Fox News - Fair and Balanced?

[soundman]

Look at this video clip to see how Fox News uses body parts to talk about a serial killer: (Broadband only) Link to Fox video (http://www.clothesfree.com/videos/fairandbalanced.wmv)

[soundman]

Look at this video clip to see how Fox News uses body parts to talk about a serial killer: (Broadband only) Link to Fox video (http://www.clothesfree.com/videos/fairandbalanced.wmv)

[NakedTao]

Good job out of Jon Stewart (who, unlike Mr. Bill "Big Giant Head" O'Reilly, has actually won a Peabody) for pointing out the hypocrisy of talking about a serial rapist while showing images of spring break. It's one of many examples of Fox distorting the news to get better ratings.

BTW, I wouldn't watch Fox News (or, should I say "Faux News") if someone were to put a gun to my head - unless, of course, I wanted to torture myself. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[nacktman]

FOXHews ... ahem pardon me FAUXNews ... fair and balanced?

Okay http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif

A piece on a serial rapist/killer in Daytona using footage of college kids trying to get a "piece"?

Even if you use juxtapositioning very liberally ... oh, wait this is FOX, I keep forgetting they do nothing liberally ... it just dosen't make sense.

T & A to illustrate a news item on a serial rapist/killer ... only on FOX.http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/doh.gif

[shomymojo]

I like FOX News...but I also like MSNBC...I do the fair & balanced myself...LOL

[P.J.]

I don't want to shock anyone, but I prefer Fox News. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

I like The O'Reilly Factor (which, despite Mr. O'Reilly's tendenacy to lean to the right-winged, doesn't give the Conservatives a free pass).
I especially enjoy Hannity & Colmes. Putting a Conservative like Sean Hannity and a Liberal like Alan Colmes face to face and side to side with equaly interesting guests is probably as "fair and balanced" as you can get.

What might shock some who know me, is that I also read news from the Democratic Party. I'm a Conservative who really does like to be fair and balanced.

[NudistGuy47]

Pardon me for being critical, but I do not see the connection between a serial killer targeting prostitutes and Spring Break.UNless the street walkers are heading to Daytona Beach to earn some extra money, then I don't see the killer targeting the Spring Break crowd.

Just my humble opinion. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudistGuy47:
Pardon me for being critical, but I do not see the connection between a serial killer targeting prostitutes and Spring Break.UNless the street walkers are heading to Daytona Beach to earn some extra money, then I don't see the killer targeting the Spring Break crowd.

Just my humble opinion. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a former news director, anchor type let me say they were "sensationalizing".

The story line was that that was a serial killer believed to be at large in an area where students cluster over spring break. (Oh my god, gasp, pant, wheez, golly gee whiz) Given the state of the biz today I'm surprised they didn's also superimpose Valerie Holloway's face over the scene.

[ken0254]

Soundman,

Do you have the link I can find that video so it doesn't have to go through the CFI site?

ken

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ken0254:
Soundman,

Do you have the link I can find that video so it doesn't have to go through the CFI site?

ken </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The direct link to the video is: http://www.clothesfree.com/videos/fairandbalanced.wmv

[luvnaturism]

Catchy slogans have a long history in news media. Think about this one: "All the news that's fit to print."

However if you want your news "fair and balanced" you'll never get it by watching just one source. Fox News isn't any more biased than other outlets (though they certainly made themselves look dumb in that video); they're ALL biased.

No one can show all the news; there's too much of it. News editors are always making choices about which of the stuff that they COULD print or show will actually be used. Personal preferences and biases affect which items are deemed important enough to use. Always have. Always will.

Beyond that all news items are written from a point of view or slant to help them grab the viewer's or reader's attention. The personal political views, interests, and experiences of the reporter shape that slant.

Keep in mind also that no reporter can be expert on every story he or she is assigned to cover, and deadlines don't allow time for research. Therefore simple ignorance affects what does or doesn't get reported, and how what is reported is slanted. Example: I'm a pilot, and after all these years I'm still waiting to see an aviation accident reported accurately in the early stories written immediately after it happened.

So you want fair and balanced? Get your news from lots of sources that represent lots of different point of view.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However if you want your news "fair and balanced" you'll never get it by watching just one source. Fox News isn't any more biased than other outlets (though they certainly made themselves look dumb in that video); they're ALL biased. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let me be the first to call Bull***t.

Sure, there is bias in all reporting. In America the major bias is in favor of very large media corporations, and anything that makes them more powerful and profitable.

But FOX news is exceptional in its lack of balance and extreme bias. And there is no better example than Bill O'Reilly (http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandHi.mov)

-Mark

[nacktman]

Cow Pies, Buffalo Chips, Horse Hockey, three more to call, Mark.

But, let's get it right ... it's FAUXNews not Fox news ... let's at least get it correct now shall we? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[jon71]

Legitimate news agencies try to get it right and sometimes miss. Fauxnews was created with the intention to spin and lie. It has already been statistically that their viewers are both the least informed of current events and the most likely to believe things that aren't true like Saddam was behind 9-11 or that Bush is even marginally concerned about terrorism.

[NakedTao]

Amen, jon. Fox News is a propaganda arm of the right-wing and any truly objective person knows this.

And Mark, where to start with the Big Giant Head? To name a few:
- saying that Inside Edition won Peabody Awards when they didn't
- writing pornographic murder mysteries
- telling those who disagree with him to "shut up"
- sexually harassing a producer with a loofah and a falafel
- threatening callers to his radio program for merely mentioning the name "Olbermann" (whom O'Reilly tried to have fired from MSNBC)
- suggesting that terrorists should blow up San Francisco

No wonder Keith Olbermann keeps naming him the Worst Person in the World (although Sean Hannity is a very close - and more obnoxious - second).

[ncnudlady]

You guys have got to stop posting such funny stuff, my sides are killing me! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif
Fair and Balanced http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif
FauxNews http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif

[nifocinphx]

A friend of mine refers to the network as FOX Spews! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/crap_storm.gif

[nacktman]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/funny.gif
"Fox Spews", I like it!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/thinking2.gif

[Boreas]

I like all the giggles in here too!

Fox News has only come to Canada recently, so we did not have access to it except through satellite service, which I do not have. My understanding of why it was not available before, was because of its extreme right perspective. Not to mention that any clips I have seen about Canada on Faux News was dead wrong!

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Let me be the first to call Bull***t.

Sure, there is bias in all reporting. In America the major bias is in favor of very large media corporations, and anything that makes them more powerful and profitable.

But FOX news is exceptional in its lack of balance and extreme bias. And there is no better example than Bill O'Reilly (http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandHi.mov)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for helping make my point. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Your biases are clearly showing, plain for all to see--though they may not be so easily visible to others who are wearing glasses with the same tint, and who may therefore rush to your defense. And of course my biases show also.

You're really supporting my basic point. If you want balance, get your news from a lot of sources. Watch Katie Couric. Watch ABC. Read several newspapers (it's quick and easy to do online). Catch a bit of Rush now and again. Check sometimes to see what's on Fox.

If you only pay attention to those you agree with, then you're buying into somebody's bias.

[nacktman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Catch a bit of Rush now and again. Check sometimes to see what's on Fox. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but my doctor told me if I got any Rush it couldn't be cured with penecillin and not to take the chance of exposing myself to that terminal disease. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

And why would I wish to develop a rash that Ajax won't scrub off by seeing what's on Fox ... all that snake oil you know. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

I prefer to get news from actual news sources and they don't have to agree with me, but they have to be real! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[shomymojo]

So if FOX news is SO bad...why are their ratings SO High...especially O'Reilly...( who I sometimes find a little irritating)...just wondering

[roadrambler2]

Where does dead-eye Cheney go for a interview? A few cupcake ?'s and a pat on the old boy's rump! "Gotta love em"!

[nacktman]

When you only poll your own audience your ratings will be high, now won't they? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Of course Old Rile-ly only polls the voices in his head, which means he gets 100% approval all the time, well 99%, now if he'd only listen to that one voice that keeps telling him to jump off the Empire State building ... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[shomymojo]

I wasn't talking about polls...i was talking about the ratings...which FOX cannot fix...and which determine commercial per minute prices through out the industry...

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if FOX news is SO bad...why are their ratings SO High </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's one reason: Link to Fox video (http://www.clothesfree.com/videos/fairandbalanced.wmv)

Some people say (http://www.madefaction.com/videos/some_people_say.wmv) Fox can be comforting for people who don't like to have their worldview challenged, and prefer to have complex issues replaced with simple minded jingoism.

-Mark

[nacktman]

How do you think they get the ratings?

By polling people!

Since their Abritron rating is in the toilet and sinking fast they have to get the ratings they claim from their own polling of people already viewing http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/doh.gif.

[shomymojo]

Maybe its because they were showing some T & A...LOL

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Legitimate news agencies try to get it right and sometimes miss. Fauxnews was created with the intention to spin and lie. It has already been statistically that their viewers are both the least informed of current events and the most likely to believe things that aren't true like Saddam was behind 9-11 or that Bush is even marginally concerned about terrorism.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Whether you get your news from CNN, the Fox News Channel or your local TV station, these are all legitimate sources of information.
Altough I prefer the Fox News Channel to CNN, both report the current events.
Both are guilty of "spin."
Even the bulletin from one's respective house of worship can be charged with "spin."
Whether or not we agree with the available sources of information, I think that even we can agree that we can't (or shouldn't) be too trusting.
If you want some really entertaining lies and some outrageous spin from a news source, the old Cold War era broadcasts of Radio Moscow couldn't be beat!

[ncnudlady]

P.J. you're such a comedian! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
So if FOX news is SO bad...why are their ratings SO High...especially O'Reilly...( who I sometimes find a little irritating)...just wondering </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may want to drill a little deeper before throwing out wild-eyed assertions as fact.

During the Nielsen ratings period of March 20, through March 26, 2006 neither Fox news nor O'Reilly appeared in the top 20. That ain't SO high.

http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/

The only news show appearing in the top 20 that week was CBS's 60 Minutes. The Fox Entertainment division did score blockbuster numbers with American Idol, performance night number one and results night number two.

All of which has me wondering where you got your numbers for your claim that FOX news and O'Reilly "ratings are SO high". So high as compared to what, as determined by whom, for what time period?

We know for fact tht they didn't make it to the top 20 during that recent week.

My understanding is that those numbers, along with Bush's, are in serious decline.

[NudistGuy47]

From yesterday's news:
Bush Approvale Ratings Hit All Time Low (http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1023481)

Maybe if we "nuc" Iran, the apporval ratings will go up.

[shomymojo]

O'Reilly is usually #1 in his time slot...compared to his direct competition on the other cable talking head shows...MSNBC...CNN...etc...( source: TV guide..entertainment weekly )...but he still irritates me sometimes...LOL

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
O'Reilly is usually #1 in his time slot...compared to his direct competition on the other cable talking head shows...MSNBC...CNN...etc...( source: TV guide..entertainment weekly )...but he still irritates me sometimes...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again. Sponge Bob Squarepants on Nickleodian, during that time slot, has a much larger share of audience and shows up as one of the Top Ten shows on cable. O'Reilly is actually loosing viewers.

[shomymojo]

I did not know that sponge bob was on a competing talking head news show...then I bet American Idol kicks O'Reillys butt too...LOL

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
I did not know that sponge bob was on a competing talking head news show...then I bet American Idol kicks O'Reillys butt too...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you said, "talking head show", if ole Sponge Bob is not a "talking head" then nothing qualifies, the little dude is practically all head and nothing but head.

But, as proof, here's his picture, just for you, suitable for enlarging, printing and coloring and hanging in your cubicle.

[shomymojo]

Actually...I relate better to Patrick Starr..."hey...who ate my candy"...Patrick says with a chocolate mustache....LOL

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong again. Sponge Bob Squarepants on Nickleodian, during that time slot, has a much larger share of audience and shows up as one of the Top Ten shows on cable. O'Reilly is actually loosing viewers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand that O'Reilly is campaigning to get Nickelodian to fire (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/24/93043/9745) Sponge Bob.

-Mark

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ncnudlady:
P.J. you're such a comedian! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


At work, I'm considered to be one of the shift's comedians, but actually, I consider myself to be a frustrated artist! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/embarassed.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

[ncnudlady]

SpongeBob Squarepants for President! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

[Conor B]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
O'Reilly is usually #1 in his time slot </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again.... O'Reilly is actually loosing viewers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Key Fact: Olberman is the holder of rising ratings in this contest. Apparently an increasing number of americans are finding 'lies for comfort' too great a price.

[Hooked]

We have to keep the tvs at work on CNN because Fox News pissed too many people off while they were trying to work out, which is encouraging to me that I'm not the only one that starts yelling at the tube when it's on that channel. But who is that Nancy woman on CNN...she's like a female O'Reilly in manner, she's agrivating. I think she only does legal stories. I seem to remember her being on Court TV a few years ago. Anyway, she's annoying in her black or white sort of mentality which is what bugs me about OReilly, Doctor Phil and Suze Orman too.

[NakedTao]

Hooked, you refer to Nancy Grace on the CNN Headline News channel (or, as my man Olbermann calls her, "Nancy Grace Knows What You Did Last Summer"). I honestly don't know enough about her program except that - like the Falafel Guy - she's known for yelling at her guests. You're absolutely right when you say that there are too many people on television trying to make their viewers buy into their preferred points-of-view.

[nacktman]

You want Fair and Balanced?

Then we need to bring Walter back!

[hm0504]

It is rumoured that Tony Snow of Fox News may replace Bush White House spokesman Scott McLellan. Guess that's a good idea as Fox already acts as the unoffical White House spokesperson already.

[jon71]

He certainly has lots of practice being Bush's spokesperson.

[usmc1]

This just in, don't adjust your monitors - Bush approval down to 33% says Fox news--Omigod, what must it really be?


Bush Approval Rating Hits New Low (33%) in Fox News Poll

By E&P Staff

NEW YORK While some claim Fox News often looks too kindly on President Bush, its latest poll released today showed that the plunge in his popularity cannot be denied. It found his approval rating at 33%--a startling 3% drop in just two weeks and down 6% since mid-March.

Fox attributed the drop to "sinking support among Republicans."

A year ago his approval rating in the Fox poll stood at 47%.

Fox's Dana Blanton noted, "approval among Republicans is below 70% for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66%) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s job approval rating also hit a record low this week with 35% of Americans saying they approve.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for Fox News on April 18 and April 19.

[nifocinphx]

Although slightly off topic, it does deal with Bush's declining ratings.
Here's Mark Fiore's April 12th animated editorial cartoon concerning Bush's ratings -

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/special.html

Now back to the topic http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[shomymojo]

With ratings this low..I do not think President Bush will get one single vote for President in 2008...even from Republicans...LOL

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
With ratings this low..I do not think President Bush will get one single vote for President in 2008...even from Republicans...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're absolutely right that he won't get even a single vote in 2008, and that not even the Republicans will vote for him. The constitution only allows two terms, so he won't be running.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The constitution only allows two terms, so he won't be running. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper. It was written in the 18th Century, THIS is 2006! That is pre-911 thinking.

W has yet to recognize any Constitutional limits. What makes you think he'll start?

I don't think he'll be elected to a third term - he wasn't elected for his 1st or 2nd term. I'm just not sure there will be a election in 2008. I wouldn't wager money on it.

-Mark

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The constitution only allows two terms, so he won't be running. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper. It was written in the 18th Century, THIS is 2006! That is pre-911 thinking.

W has yet to recognize any Constitutional limits. What makes you think he'll start?

I don't think he'll be elected to a third term - he wasn't elected for his 1st or 2nd term. I'm just not sure there will be a election in 2008. I wouldn't wager money on it.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that is a truly scary thought! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

[jon71]

It's kind of ironic. Now Bush's support is leaking.

[nacktman]

If the folks at FOX and their ilk have their way this is our future.

[shomymojo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luvnaturism:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
With ratings this low..I do not think President Bush will get one single vote for President in 2008...even from Republicans...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're absolutely right that he won't get even a single vote in 2008, and that not even the Republicans will vote for him. The constitution only allows two terms, so he won't be running. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...uh...that was exactly my point...LOL

[nacktman]

Ahem, fellas, the Constitution allows for 2.5 terms not 2 ... no president can serve for more than 10 years and a term is 4 years ... you do the math. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper. It was written in the 18th Century, THIS is 2006! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, would you care to explain this comment any further? What do you mean by this?

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Ahem, fellas, the Constitution allows for 2.5 terms not 2 ... no president can serve for more than 10 years and a term is 4 years ... you do the math. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the text of the amendment that set presidential term limits:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Amendment 22 - Presidential term limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One can imagine a situation in which a person might serve 10 years, but it's unlikely to happen. In any event that has no application to Bush the Present. He has been elected twice, and has no further eligibility.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper. It was written in the 18th Century, THIS is 2006! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, would you care to explain this comment any further? What do you mean by this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> “I don’t give a *******,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a *******ed piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a *******ed piece of paper.” link (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)

<LI> Q: What is wrong with FISA, which requires you to circumvent it?

A: "Circumvent" implies I'm breaking the law. I'm not. FISA was written in 1978. It's an old law. This is 2006. Circumventing is a loaded word and I refuse to accept it. link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600853.html)

<LI> pre 911 thinking - all purpose bon mot for criticising anydamnthing you want. Doesn't require logic or truth - so overused by right wingnuts that it is often used ironically by the left. link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22pre-911+thinking%22&btnG=Search) [/list]

-Mark

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
[LIST] <LI> “I don’t give a *******,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a *******ed piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a *******ed piece of paper.” link (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug Thompson and Capitol Hill Blue seem to be the sole source for this story. Who else has corroborated it? Who are the three people that were present in the meeting? I have seen no other media attention at all on this. I would be very interested to see any other information you have on this story beyond the one source which seems to have been endlessly recycled but never picked up by any mainstream media outlet on either the Left or the Right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><LI> Q: What is wrong with FISA, which requires you to circumvent it?

A: "Circumvent" implies I'm breaking the law. I'm not. FISA was written in 1978. It's an old law. This is 2006. Circumventing is a loaded word and I refuse to accept it. link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600853.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read through the entire link which you were kind enough to provide. Not long after the quote you excerpted, Mr. Bush talks in some detail about his obligations to follow the Constitution (which seems to contradict Doug Thompson's claims about Mr. Bush's attitudes) and about the legal vetting which had been done re the President's FISA obligations. My understanding is that all legal opinion on this from staff attorneys, judicial precedent, etc. has been virtually unanimous that the President has acted properly under the Constitution and FISA. Many on the Left don't seem to like that, but from what I've read and heard, it is true. And I agree with Mr. Bush that "circumventing the law" was a cheap shot by a reporter and Bush was right to call him or her on it.

[nacktman]

Careful Mark, its goal is to get any thread not favorable to the starboard ala closed when it slithers into a thread. The best policy is to ignore it as neither reality, facts, nor the truth have any affect on it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[usmc1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TimO'C:
Doug Thompson and Capitol Hill Blue seem to be the sole source for this story. Who else has corroborated it? Who are the three people that were present in the meeting? I have seen no other media attention at all on this. I would be very interested to see any other information you have on this story beyond the one source which seems to have been endlessly recycled but never picked up by any mainstream media outlet on either the Left or the Right.QUOTE]

1. Doug Thompson is a very respected, long time journalist who attributed his story to unnamed insiders present at the meeting. The story has been widely circulated and no denial has come from the administration. None, zilch, nada.

2. No screech monkeys from the right-wing noise machine has denied the story. Up until very recently, within the last month or so, the mainstream media, under some sort of misguided support of "the war effort and patriotism" has been pretty much clubbed into a senseless, dronish, evasion of pressing this administration on anything. So their silence on this and other issues is merely proof of their complicity through silence.

Tim, one does not have to have one's nose rubbed in it to know that the puppy left a mess, one can tell from the stench. Your insistance for mutltiple sources and attributions is like saying that you won't believe the puppy made a mess until someone rubs your nose in it. Even then, based on your past writings here, you'd deny it and blame it on the neighbor's cat.

Tim, it is an out-and-out prevarication on your part to write a meaningless phrase wuch as, "My understanding is that all legal opinion on this from staff attorneys, judicial precedent, etc. has been virtually unanimous that the President has acted properly under the Constitution and FISA. Many on the Left don't seem to like that, but from what I've read and heard, it is true. And I agree with Mr. Bush that "circumventing the law" was a cheap shot by a reporter and Bush was right to call him or her on it".

What a grasp of the obvious, "staff attornies support the president". No Duh!

Were I to play the same cheesy little game you're plying with Mark, I would demand you name those staff attornies, judicial precedents that are so virtually unanimous in their support. And provide, please, the context and venue of their statements of support.

Unfair, cheap shot questions of a dry-drunk sociopath bent on behaving as a dictator?--I think not. About time one of those lick-spittle punks gutted it up and asked some real questions.

On the other hand, Tim, I do enjoy your posts. Bush support has dwindled to 33%, as reported by Adminstration Apologist in Residence FOX News, with an equal percentage of Republicans disapproving and I find it interesting to read what it is that is going on in the ehads of the 33-percenters.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My understanding is that all legal opinion on this from staff attorneys, judicial precedent, etc. has been virtually unanimous that the President has acted properly under the Constitution and FISA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a very limited understanding. Look anywhere for non-unanimous legal opinion - including inside (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/) the administration - the 'staff attorneys' were far from unanimous. We've posted many examples of anaylsis by the nation's leading legal experts, a google search will produce thousands.

Doug Thompson (a long time journalist and former GOP staffer) has a track record that is astounding, while a bit intemperate at times in his Rant column, his facts are well sourced - especially about what is going on inside the White House. He scooped the Wash. Post on the NSA story by a year. He is the opposite of an 'unreliable source'. By the way - NO ONE from the administration has refuted the quotation - something that they are always quick to do when misquoted.

Perhaps I missed it - has anyone seen any indication of an adminstration refutation of the quote? 1,800,000 google hits on the quote, and I can't find any administration denials.

I was asked for context, which I provided. Whether anyone likes the context is irrelevent. Frankly I wish it was all untrue. I miss democracy.

-Mark

[nacktman]

I believe those 33%'ers are under the influence of a 7% solution.
Why else would they be so ignorant of reality and be so distorted and disoriented?
Of course with an addict as the "god" it does explain it doesn't it?

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
1. Doug Thompson is a very respected, long time journalist who attributed his story to unnamed insiders present at the meeting. The story has been widely circulated and no denial has come from the administration. None, zilch, nada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know little of Mr. Thompson other than what I've briefly read. It seems he is an aggressive muckraker who has built a reputation for attacking those in power, particularly Republicans. If what he's told is the truth, then it is indeed disappointing. It also has to be considered in light of everything else the President has done and said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 2. No screech monkeys from the right-wing noise machine has denied the story. Up until very recently, within the last month or so, the mainstream media, under some sort of misguided support of "the war effort and patriotism" has been pretty much clubbed into a senseless, dronish, evasion of pressing this administration on anything. So their silence on this and other issues is merely proof of their complicity through silence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basic, fundamental logical flaw here. Absence of evidence ("their silence on this and other issues") is NOT evidence of absence. You cannot assume the negative. It is also just as valid to assume that anyone and everyone else presented with this concluded that it was false, or could not be corroborated, and wasn't worth any time. I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying that such assumptions are just as valid as yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your insistance for mutltiple sources and attributions is like saying that you won't believe the puppy made a mess until someone rubs your nose in it. Even then, based on your past writings here, you'd deny it and blame it on the neighbor's cat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a doctor told you that you had leukemia and said you had six weeks to live, you wouldn't bother getting a second opinion? Why is it objectionable or even noteworthy that I or anyone else would ask for corroboration of a story that is so outrageous? Why would you be reluctant even to address the request seriously?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Tim, it is an out-and-out prevarication on your part to write a meaningless phrase wuch as, "My understanding is that all legal opinion on this from staff attorneys, judicial precedent, etc. has been virtually unanimous that the President has acted properly under the Constitution and FISA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I can tell you is what I've heard legal commentators and analysts say. These are people with law degrees and constitutional law experience. Being occupied with other more important things like my own business and family, I haven't had time to research this in detail. I can give you a quote from one commentator who apparently has looked at the record:

"[FISA] was meant to apply to domestic calls, not international ones. Nor was it meant to strip a president of his constitutional power, through the National Security Agency or any other arm of the executive branch, to defend the country against foreign threats. Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, noted as much during his congressional testimony at the time. A succession of court decisions said much the same thing since, among them a ruling from the FISA system's own Court of Review in the course of siding with the government's position in a disputed case: "(A)ll the other courts to have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

But I should also point out that since you are the one who's put Mr. Thompson's charges at issue, you're the one who has the responsibility to provide evidence for their truth. All I'm asking for is corroboration, like ANY good journalist would do, regardless of political persuasion. How you react to this request will tell me a lot about whether you're actually interested in truth, or don't want to go beyond slinging mud, as you have done in calling the president a "dry-drunk sociopath bent on behaving as a dictator". You really would have more credibility if you didn't lapse so regularly into ad hominem attacks. And for all your assumptions, you really don't know what I think of Mr. Bush. I suspect you would be surprised.

[usmc1]

Tim, you're very much mistaken about my responsibilities. I am responsible only to myself to do my best in regards to my family, friends, professional life, civic duties, pets, and spiritual life.

There it ends. I have no responsibility to justify, excuse, explain or prove anything as regards an exchange with anyone on an obsure nudist internet message forum and you in particular.

Take what I say at face value or disregard it entirely or research and test it; but, do not expect that I'm going to jump through my butt to prove anything to you--t'aint my responsibility! USMC don't play dat!

Bush is a Dry-Drunk Sociopath, he fits the criteria as was posted in this or some other thread about a week ago. Find that or not, I don't care. I am satisfied that that is precisely what he is and according to responses to the recent column from Editor & Publisher regarding Bush's mental stability and what it promises for the next three years, I am not the only observer that thinks the punk is barking at the moon and chasing the garbage truck down the street insane:

Here:

Mitchell's Column Hits a Nerve

The only legal remedy the country has to save ourselves is to impeach Bush and Cheney. The sooner the Congress gets started, the sooner the country can be restored to some sort of equilibrium. Hand wringing, emailing and public lamenting will not stop this crowd; impeachment will. If the Democrats fail to exercise real leadership now, in the hope that Bush will hang himself, we will be in double jeapordy. Bush has already hung himself and the rest of us are going to swing too if something is not done; soon.

Name Removed by U.S.M.C.

Bravo, Greg [Mitchell], for a courageous editorial.

For five long years it has been apparent that the emperor wears no clothes, but the observation has only belatedly become conventional wisdom. Ultimately, I believe it is the all-too-visible damage to our economy and future prospects that has turned the national mood. So much more needs to be done. That's where you and other opinion leaders can demonstrate true leadership.

[Mitchell's] column today is a case in point.

Yes, 33 more months of the status quo is utterly unthinkable. Yet, while a Democratic majority in either house would offer subpoena powers to enable vigorous prosecutions of misconduct and wrongdoing by administration officials, we would have a government in disarray and crisis until 2009 –- a troubling prospect given the serious challenges we face from terrorism, energy supplies, and the domestic economy. Impeachment might lead to Bush and Cheney being forcibly ejected from office, but since the line of succession would only give us another neocon Commander in Chief taking the reigns of an embattled administration, the net effect is the same as the first option above.

It's gonna be a rough 3 years.

Name Removed by U.S.M.C.
Jacksonville, Fla.



"But my point here is simply to start the discussion, and urge that the media, first, recognize that the crisis—or, if you want to say, impending crisis -- exists, and begin to explore the ways to confront it.

Perhaps one reason most media, particularly newspapers, haven't confronted the crisis is because almost every one supported the invasion.

Name removed by U.S.M.C.

The way to begin to "confront the crisis" (which actually began from the moment "W" appropriated the presidency) is to follow the advice of Carl Bernstein. At last, a sane voice in this crazy world!

Name removed by U.S.M.C.
New York, N.Y.

First, I want to thank [Greg Mitchell] for [his] clear-headed thinking and excellent writing; I read it all. If you haven't taken a look at Justin Frank's book, Bush on the Couch, I suggest you do. Although it's a long-distance analysis of Bush's mental health, it offers plenty of food for thought -- Bush is a sick guy, basically. How does the media address this important fact? We've got a sociopath in the White House. Who can say it -- and get away with it? If Bush were a family member, you'd avoid him at every get-together; you'd snicker about him to your Aunt Lulu; but he's holding on to the world's most powerful position. He's more than the stuff of a good laugh on The Daily Show. He's truly scary. Now with Iran on the agenda, I fear for our country. He's setting the course for our downfall; there's no doubt about it. Are we going to ride along with him? Are there enough people who can speak out and stop him? Can media outlets come together in a comprehensive, united statement against the Bush Administration's aggressive policy on Iran? Yes, 33 more months of this nightmare ... I don't believe we will survive him.

Name Removed by U.S.M.C.

I removed those respondent's names simply because I'm not certain how they'd feel about having them show up here. If you doubt the veracity, go to E&P and they'll be there.

[shomymojo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by usmc1:
Tim, you're very much mistaken about my responsibilities. I am responsible only to myself to do my best in regards to my family, friends, professional life, civic duties, pets, and spiritual life.

There it ends. I have no responsibility to justify, excuse, explain or prove anything as regards an exchange with anyone on an obsure nudist internet message forum and you in particular.

Take what I say at face value or disregard it entirely or research and test it; but, do not expect that I'm going to jump through my butt to prove anything to you--t'aint my responsibility! USMC don't play dat!.............................................. .................................................. ............................................Thats right Tim...if you are looking for an unbiased credible opinion...look somewhere else...LOL

[usmc1]

As usual, when one stands up to the right, the issue shifts.

Well again, here's another who thinks the Prez is a Macheivellian whack job. And lest you don't like this source, CNN had a recent panel discussion where the questions of W's sanity came forward.

NOT on FOX (which by the way is the topic of this thread) but, CNN.

John W. Dean: 'If past is prologue, George Bush is becoming an increasingly dangerous president'

John W. Dean, FindLaw

President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.

Now, in early 2006, Bush has continued to sink lower in his public approval ratings, as the result of a series of events that have sapped the public of confidence in its President, and for which he is directly responsible. This Administration goes through scandals like a compulsive eater does candy bars; the wrapper is barely off one before we've moved on to another.

Currently, President Bush is busy reshuffling his staff to reinvigorate his presidency. But if Dr. Barber's work holds true for this president -- as it has for others - the hiring and firing of subordinates will not touch the core problems that have plagued Bush's tenure.

That is because the problems belong to the President - not his staff. And they are problems that go to character, not to strategy.



Barber's Analysis of Presidential Character

As I discussed in my prior column, Barber, after analyzing all the presidents through Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, found repeating patterns of common elements relating to character, worldview, style, approach to dealing with power, and expectations. Based on these findings, Barber concluded that presidents fell into clusters of characteristics.

He also found in this data Presidential work patterns which he described as "active" or "passive." For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were highly active; Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan were highly passive.

Barber further analyzed the emotional relationship of presidents toward their work - dividing them into presidents who found their work an emotionally satisfying experience, and thus "positive," and those who found the job emotionally taxing, and thus "negative." Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, for example, were presidents who enjoyed their work; Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon had "negative" feeling toward it.

From these measurements, Barber developed four repeating categories into which he was able to place all presidents: those like FDR who actively pursued their work and had positive feelings about their efforts (active/positives); those like Nixon who actively pursued the job but had negative feelings about it (active/negatives); those like Reagan who were passive about the job but enjoyed it (passive/positives); and, finally, those who followed the pattern of Thomas Jefferson -- who both was passive and did not enjoy the work (passive/negatives).

Interestingly, the category of presidents who proved troublesome under Barber's analysis is that of those who turned out to be active/negatives. Barber placed Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in this class.

In my prior column, I found that the evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush is another active/negative president, and the past two years, since making that initial finding, have only further confirmed my conclusion.

Because active/negative presidencies do not end well, it is instructive to look at where Bush's may be heading.

Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency

Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.

Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because "I'm the decider and I decide what's best." He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: "I'm the Daddy, that's why."

This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.

Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.

Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.

Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.

Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.

The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.

Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.

George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.

Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.

Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.

The Danger of the "Active/Negative" President Facing A Congressional Rout

Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is "I must."

Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: "He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions," Barber writes. He continues, "Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end."

Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.

He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.

What We Can Expect From Bush in the Future, Based on Barber's Model

As the 2006 midterm elections approach, this active/negative president can be expected to take further risks. If anyone doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rove and their confidants are planning an "October Surprise" to prevent the Republicans from losing control of Congress, then he or she has not been observing this presidency very closely.

What will that surprise be? It's the most closely held secret of the Administration.

How risky will it be? Bush is a whatever-it-takes risk-taker, the consequences be damned.

One possibility is that Dick Cheney will resign as Vice President for "health reasons," and become a senior counselor to the president. And Bush will name a new vice president - a choice geared to increase his popularity, as well as someone electable in 2008. It would give his sinking administration a new face, and new life.

The immensely popular Rudy Giuliani seems the most likely pick, if Giuliani is willing. (A better option for Giuliani might be to hold off, and tacitly position himself as the Republican anti-Bush in 2008.) But Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Bill Frist, and more are possibilities.

Bush's second and more likely, surprise could be in the area of national security: If he could achieve a Great Powers coalition (of Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and so on) presenting a united-front "no nukes" stance to Iran, it would be his first diplomatic coup and a political triumph.

But more likely, Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden.

If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. Without such a gambit, and the public always falls for them, Bush is going to lose control of Congress. Should that happen, his presidency will have effectively ended, and he will spend the last two years of it defending all the mistakes he has made during the first six, and covering up the errors of his ways.

There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Copyright © 2006 FindLaw

[NakedTao]

usmc1, I'm not at all surprised that CNN - which, unlike Fox, actually tries to be responsible with its reporting - would do a panel on Bushie's sanity. Also, I noticed that John Dean was on the panel. Dean, of course, was the counsel for the Nixon White House and testified before Congress during Watergate. Dean sees in Dubya's White House many of the same things that occurred in Nixon's. May I suggest Dean's book "Worse Than Watergate."

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Tim, you're very much mistaken about my responsibilities. . . . I have no responsibility to justify, excuse, explain or prove anything as regards an exchange with anyone on an obsure nudist internet message forum and you in particular. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

USMC, if you are going to be credible in any walk of life, when you first assert a position in a debate, you have the responsibility to present evidence for your position IF you want to be taken seriously. If you don't, then don't bother. QED.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you haven't taken a look at Justin Frank's book, Bush on the Couch, I suggest you do. Although it's a long-distance analysis of Bush's mental health, it offers plenty of food for thought -- Bush is a sick guy, basically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I have not read Mr. Frank's hatchet job, I have heard of it and heard some analyses of it, from both Left and Right. I have also heard Mr. Frank on the radio talking about his book. Since I haven't read it, I won't presume to pass judgment on its details. However, I did personally hear Mr. Frank say that he had never met Mr. Bush. That he would presume to psychoanalyze at length someone he has never met tells me all I need to know about his professionalism. I do personally know psychological professionals who tell me that to presume to diagnose someone without ever having met them is the height of incompetence and malpractice. It appears to me that Mr. Frank's premise is "anybody who disagrees with me has got to be crazy, and since Bush disagrees with me, therefore he's crazy." I suspect political differences have been twisted into alleged psychopathologies here. Not unlike the favorite tactics of the "doctors" employed by Messrs. Hitler and Stalin, as I recall. But that aside, on a purely professional basis, and based on Mr. Frank's own admissions, I would not trust this book to be accurate. That those on the Left would rally round such malpractice so fervently also tells me the degree to which they're willing to disregard professional responsibility and objectivity if the results pander to their prejudices.

[nacktman]

usmc1, you may wish to leave off responding to the hack.
The only reason it begins posting on a thread is to create such animosity and division to get the thread closed to further posts because the thread is not favorable to the starboard ala.

Everyone with any brain cells active at all knows FAUXNews is just a propaganda arm for the starboard ala and a bad one at that.

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
usmc1, you may wish to leave off responding to the hack.
The only reason it begins posting on a thread is to create such animosity and division to get the thread closed to further posts because the thread is not favorable to the starboard ala.

Everyone with any brain cells active at all knows FAUXNews is just a propaganda arm for the starboard ala and a bad one at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't got the guts to do it yourself, eh, Nacktman? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Lingua Factiosi, Inertes Opera! Ridiculus Est Ira Scymnus.

[nacktman]

Found this illustration of a typical FAUXNewscast.
This video capture says it all.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/dizzy2.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cuckoo.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/dizzy2.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cuckoo.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/dizzy2.gif

[usmc1]

Tim writes,

"USMC, if you are going to be credible in any walk of life, when you first assert a position in a debate, you have the responsibility to present evidence for your position IF you want to be taken seriously. If you don't, then don't bother. QED."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Tim, you're very much mistaken about my responsibilities. . . . I have no responsibility to justify, excuse, explain or prove anything as regards an exchange with anyone on an obsure nudist internet message forum and you in particular. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which I would like to add exhortives about things one can do with rolling doughnuts, but, respecting the sensibilities of those who moderate, I shant.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:

... However, I did personally hear Mr. Frank say that he had never met Mr. Bush. That he would presume to psychoanalyze at length someone he has never met tells me all I need to know about his professionalism. I do personally know psychological professionals who tell me that to presume to diagnose someone without ever having met them is the height of incompetence and malpractice.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh My!
My! My! My!
Double standards abound.
Did not the neo-cons and 'publicans rally around their next presidential candidate when he (mis)diagnosed Terry Shiavo by watching a videotape that was over a decade old?
Hmmm. Since you must believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander would you suggest that Dr. Frist is incompetent? Is this Republican candidate guilty of malpractice?

[nacktman]

Using that standard NudeTopher, yep Frist sure is guilty of malpractice.

The shrub has all the appearences of a mentally unstable individual however diagnosis would need to be through in person sessions and observations.
From a professional Psychologist stand point ... in his words, actions and mannerisms one can see Paranoid Schizophrenia written all over them coupled with a Personality Disorder.
He may be "acting the part" but there is no actor THAT GOOD to be good enough to pull off the sublties in speach, actions and mannerisms of Schizophrenia and fool most of the general public let alone Psychologists.

Of course, you won't hear about any of that on FAUXNews!

[Naturist Mark]

Frank can only assert that Bush's publicly exhibited characteristics and known medical history are consistent with a certain diagnosis. Fortunately Frank has far more evidence to work with than 5 minutes of spin doctored video edited out of hundreds of hours of footage.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Let's see how, or if, Fox covers this story:

Rice may have leaked classified intel to pro-Israel lobbyist (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/04/rice_may_have_leaked_classifie_1.html#more)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday.

Prosecutors disputed the claim.

The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information. [/list]

And here is the answer: Spokesman Denies Rice Leaked Defense Info (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192709,00.html)

-Mark

[ncnudlady]

Okay that was "fair & balanced" now wasn't it!?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher Oh My!
My! My! My!
Double standards abound.
Did not the neo-cons and 'publicans rally around their next presidential candidate when he (mis)diagnosed Terry Shiavo by watching a videotape that was over a decade old?
Hmmm. Since you must believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander would you suggest that Dr. Frist is incompetent? Is this Republican candidate guilty of malpractice? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree with you. It was malpractice. Frist and everybody else who jumped on that bandwagon should be ashamed of themselves. It was disgusting how so many Republicans tried to hijack the pain & suffering of that family for political ends. They should have kept their noses the hell out of other people's business and let the family work out their own decisions.

I suspect you are a mite surprised. But like I said before, you guys have made a lot of mistaken assumptions about me, particularly my opinions of Mr. Bush.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher Oh My!
My! My! My!
Double standards abound.
Did not the neo-cons and 'publicans rally around their next presidential candidate when he (mis)diagnosed Terry Shiavo by watching a videotape that was over a decade old?
Hmmm. Since you must believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander would you suggest that Dr. Frist is incompetent? Is this Republican candidate guilty of malpractice? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree with you. It was malpractice. Frist and everybody else who jumped on that bandwagon should be ashamed of themselves. It was disgusting how so many Republicans tried to hijack the pain & suffering of that family for political ends. They should have kept their noses the hell out of other people's business and let the family work out their own decisions.

I suspect you are a mite surprised. But like I said before, you guys have made a lot of mistaken assumptions about me, particularly my opinions of Mr. Bush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall (m)any on the right voicing a different opinion from Rove/Bush/Frist either on CFF or in the media. Their behavior is consistant with their party's platform - controlling individuals. Whether it's a woman's right to choose, gay rights, or the right to die the right wants to define and control the population. Allowing choice is not one of their hallmarks. Perhaps that is why people vote Republican - it's easier then thinking.

[nacktman]

Original FAUXNews promo pulled because it was "fair and balanced"!

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
And do they ever!

PBS had a special titled, OutFoxxed, ... I am looking for a copy of that DVD. If you can get your hands on one, worth watching.

Allie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I'm surprised PBS could show that film, considering the right wingers who have taken over control of the network. Probably just shown on a local affiliate like WGBH.

Outfoxed can be purchased here: www.outfoxed.org (http://www.outfoxed.org/) for just $7.95 plus shipping.

http://www.outfoxed.org/images/logo_text_tag.gif (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

-Mark

[Conor B]

A great study in how propaganda techniques can be used in TV news.

And, could there be a worse visual image for 'the Liberal point of view' than Alan Combs. One look at him and I could feel my self thinking that Liberals were mealy, squishy and spineless.....

[NakedTao]

Love the graphic, nacktman. It says all you need to know about Fox. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[usmc1]

Israeli media reporting U.S. troops killed in the Sinai as the result of continuing Al Quaeda actions. Mossad has clamped a lid on it, Fox, CNN and MSNBC doesn't seem to have it yet.

It's not just that our media is complicit, it is as brain dead and and uninspriring as as week old pulled pork sandwich.

4:30 PM CDT

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Israeli media reporting U.S. troops killed in the Sinai as the result of continuing Al Quaeda actions. Mossad has clamped a lid on it, Fox, CNN and MSNBC doesn't seem to have it yet.

It's not just that our media is complicit, it is as brain dead and and uninspriring as as week old pulled pork sandwich.

4:30 PM CDT </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was an unsuccessful suicide attack on the multi-national peace-keeping force in the Sinai:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/04/26/1551339-ap.html

In Canada, we're getting a lot more military deaths in Afghanistan due to the growing strength of Al Qaeda and general instability: our new Conservative government has taken yet another page from the Bush's play book and stopped the media coverage of returning coffins. Here's a great article on the subject by (small c) conservative columnist Charles Adler:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Adler_Charle...6/04/26/1550723.html (http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Adler_Charles/2006/04/26/1550723.html)
(recommended reading for both Americans and Canadians)

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Israeli media reporting U.S. troops killed in the Sinai as the result of continuing Al Quaeda actions. Mossad has clamped a lid on it, Fox, CNN and MSNBC doesn't seem to have it yet.

It's not just that our media is complicit, it is as brain dead and and uninspriring as as week old pulled pork sandwich.

4:30 PM CDT </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was an unsuccessful suicide attack on the multi-national peace-keeping force in the Sinai:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/04/26/1551339-ap.html

In Canada, we're getting a lot more military deaths in Afghanistan due to the growing strength of Al Qaeda and general instability: our new Conservative government has taken yet another page from the Bush's play book and stopped the media coverage of returning coffins. Here's a great article on the subject by (small c) conservative columnist Charles Adler:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Adler_Charle...6/04/26/1550723.html (http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Adler_Charles/2006/04/26/1550723.html)
(recommended reading for both Americans and Canadians) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israel has changed from deaths to "casualties", but, that was after Mossad stomped around. The attempts, as near as I can determine, were not completely unsuccessful and may or may not ahve resulted in U.S. Military deaths. The disinformation has begun. By tomorrow, a few will have been skinned up in an auto accident.

First reports from the scene cited deaths.

[nacktman]

Business as usual, heh?