molson_golden2002

I'm not buying the gist of your argument. In fact I think it has very little basis in fact. Have you ever done research using old newspapers? I can tell you there was a great amount of fluff in the past as there is today. Can you tell me the basis of your conclusion that newsstories are not as well fact checked now as in the past? Have you ever heard the term "Yellow Journalism?" That is an old term, not a new one. Let me throw one example at you. McCarthyism thrived because "Tailgunner" Joe claims of 205 commies in the State Department went unchecked and unchallanged. In fact, McCarthyism was a massive media failure. Also, the centralization of media organizations doesn't necessarilly lead to more sensationalism. Competition beteween smaller news organizations can alos lead to the reporting of rumors, half truths and opinions that act as news.

Ugh you are stupid! Maybe different media outlets appeal to different customers? The New York Times will try and attract the more educated in the population while Fox news will go for the semi-literate and moronic elements like you.

See, I can't get past the "these days" part of your your's and Will's argument. Why do you think things are worse now than the 1950's? I choose 1950's because Robinson and Dimaggio were from that time [and 40's also] and Will mentions them in his piece. What I think Will is doing is feeding off the ignornace of people who believe in some imaginary past where everything was wonderful. A past that never existed.

Are you trying to out do Wacka for the "Idiot of the Board" award this year? If the system was designed to target my ignorance, stupidity and retardation, then why am I the one questioning the stupid thing? Do you think at all before you write your moronic posts? How many times do you bang your leg with knee jerk reactions? And BTW, you get my vote! Sorry Wacka

I didn't miss the point. I disagreed with it.

I just don't see how we were such a tolerant nation in the past. That just doesn't square with the facts, Joe Demogio aside. How many lynchings have we had lately? This seems like a nostalgia piece to try and make the current polical situation to seem perverted because the Conservatives are the focus of much of that hate with the majority of Americans. He uses liberal San Franciso as an example, go figure!

I think you picked out the key quote from this George Will piece. I might add the last line in it: Yes. He seems as guilty as anyone. This was a really idiotic piece, written to simply dismiss Bush haters as irrational. I love how he compares Bush haters to Clinton haters, when he himself was a Clinton hater par excellence. When he uses the example of Jackie Robinson to show how our heroes were quiet, composed types in the past, I would hold up frothing at the mouth George Wallace. Americans have always been angry. Don't most Buffalo fans admire the quiet and composed Chris Drury? What Will is doing is trying to explain away the deep contempt for a President, and really the failed, exposed and corrupt Conservative movement as a whole which is at its lowest point since the mid-1960's. Long gone is the Reagan Revolution. The hypocracy of Will's argument shines through when he compares Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter of all people. Sure, Krugman attacks Conservative policies and incompetence, but he doesn't run around calling people fags, girlie men and other childish names. That's a pretty ugly attack. As to Bush haters vs Clinton haters, I'll just say I never really got the Clinton hate. Sure, that may say a lot about my political views, but I never saw where he screwed up so bad he deserved the hate that came his way. Bush on the other has a solid record of fug ups, big ones, that I need not mention. Will's opinions reflect the backruptcy of the Conservative movement at this time.

Hey, I'm not the one stuck in Cincy. Anyway, Lenin couldn't have been thinking about me, I wasn't born yet. You should write more clearly. And furthermore, these terror alerts were right up his ally. Using propaganda to motivate stupid people like you.

But the alert level hasn't been raised since the election is my point. And you of all people, defending the terror alerts, should not be calling other people useful idiots! You fit the definition to perfection.

Do you forget things often Wacka?

Alternative to what? Trying to freek everyone out? You really think this was made to stop terrorists? And why did they happen right up until the 2004 election and then stop?

So you are one of the people who believed them, I take it.

The war was the most heinous act of the Bush presidency, but those terror alerts sure were damned dispicable, too. They served no other purpose than to terrorize the section of the public that actually believed them to be legimate government warnings. They were a significant factor--along with the gay marriage amendment--that won Bush a second term.

OMG! Supporting the "fight" against cancer is not the same as going to Iraq and facing roadside bombs. Get a grip dude

Some news outlets are better than others and do serve a very important public good. You have to take the good with the bad. The news media is an extremely important part of our society.

That the media has always been about profit and sensationalism. Blue Fire was arguing that 60 Minutes somehow changed the media industry, I think that's silly

I never said they "Must" join up, I'm just questioning their integrity in supporting a war that they will not fight in. They vote for, scream for and promote the war, but won't go, that's someone else's risk. Cowards really.

1) I feel so awful 2) If you think this adventure in Iraq is as important as the College Republicans think it is, you should go and join up, IMO. They want to call Democrats names on their web sites but they won't go and fight. I think that's pathetic. 3) No, the troops over there are not fighting for me. I don't see what they are doing in Iraq as helping me or the United States at all in the long or short term. I think its really funny and sad you think they are fighting for my freedom in Iraq. Pathetic! Shouldn't the College Republicans show there support by joining the troops over there? I mean if our freedom and way of life are at stake, wouldn't they want to? Or is that all bull sh--? 4) I have already done my four years, got the GI Bill and used it to get my degree. But, if America really was in danger, as the College Republicans say, I would join back up.

What's wrong with that? I thinki its good we have liberal institutions in the country. Seriously, why does that upset you?

I was asking a serious question and am pretty disappointed in the answer. Media has always been about profit. The Hearst newspaper chain was pretty consolidated, don't you think? And a good argument can be made that the internet has serioulsy de-centralized the media. Are you seriously arguing that media wasn't profit driven before 60 Minutes came along? Or that entertainment value wasn't a factor in determining what got on the air? Ever hear of the Lindburg kidnapping? How many "Crimes of the Century" were there in the last century?

Interesting. Can you please tell us about how long this process of the "decline" in media quality has been going on because of that industry's slavery to profit?

Army and Defense Department investigators said officers looking into Tillman's death passed along misleading and inaccurate information and delayed reporting their belief that Tillman was killed by fellow Rangers. The investigators recommended that the Army take action against the officers, but suggested no specific punishments and left it to the Army to decide what to do. Possible steps could include demotions, dishonorable discharges, jail or letters of reprimand. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_...n_friendly_fire

Dave, do you think our being there is really a problem towards stability itself? Really, when anyone who works with us is killed, can't you see that the government we prop up is viewed as a foreign entity? And why after all these years, with unemployment so high there, can't they get an army, police force and everything else together? The middle class has fled, the government is corrupt to the core and a majority of Iraqis think attacks on our troops is a good thing. Its time to bring our kids home. How many tours of duty do we ask them to serve there? Its so unfair.

There are no solutions to Iraq. Its been blown apart. How do you put humpty dumpty back together without these people? From the Los Angeles Times today: Iraq's urban, educated, largely secular middle class had everything to gain from the fall of Saddam Hussein's oppressive and isolating regime. Four years later, it is on the way to being wiped out. Writers, doctors and university professors are hunted down and killed. Entrepreneurs and engineers are kidnapped for lucrative ransoms. And the symbols of Iraq's intellectual heritage — its bookstores, libraries, museums and archeological sites — have been plundered and burned. More than 200 Iraqi academics, 110 physicians and 76 journalists have been killed since Hussein's fall, according to figures compiled by government ministries and professional associations. Thousands of others have fled the country. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world Sounds like a Conservative wonderland, all the thinking people gone and nothing left but violent religious freeks

Screwing the troops is sending them back for their fourth and fifth tours. Where are all the college Republicans?