SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: TimF who wrote (16925)1/23/2007 11:41:49 PM
From: TimF
   of 70871
 
Here are the 15 states that set historical record low jobless rates in 2006:

Alabama: 3.2% in November
Arizona: 3.6% in August
California: 4.5% in October
Florida: 3.0% in June
Hawaii: 2.0% in October
Idaho: 3.2% in December
Illinois: 4.1% in December
Louisiana: 2.9% in July
Montana: 3.4% in March
Nevada: 3.6% in January
New Mexico: 3.8% in December
New York: 4.0% in October
Utah: 2.5% in October
Washington: 4.6% in March
W. Virigina: 3.8% in January

mjperry.blogspot.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16847)1/23/2007 11:47:56 PM
From: RMF
   of 70871
 
"inconvenient facts that don't comport with the spin they are presenting is ignored"


THAT'S Fox News in a nutshell.


Condi Rice even said she gets along great with "her boys" at Fox News (or something very close to that).


If Fox News is so great, then how come they get such a SMALL percentage of news viewers?


You CAN'T tell me that the Major Network News telecasts are SO interested in promoting their "liberal spin" (according to you) that they would do so at the expense of their bottom line and corporate profits. Are you trying to tell me that?


"Uninformed people don't figure out facts". THAT'S the only reason that Fox News has been able to stay on the air...LOL

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Peter Dierks1/23/2007 11:50:04 PM
   of 70871
 
The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.

48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.

The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll — down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.

foxnews.com

From: PROLIFE 1/20/2007 8:54:51 PM
2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) of 757945

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: RMF who wrote (16927)1/23/2007 11:57:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks
   of 70871
 
If you believe what you wrote you must be intentionally misinformed.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (16925)1/24/2007 12:00:07 AM
From: Peter Dierks
1 Recommendation   of 70871
 
Thanks for finding it. This is from that speech.

Alan Greenspan ... told me of his belief that the correct tax on capital gains is zero. His position, which he has since made parenthetically to the banking committees of this body and the other when testifying on monetary matters, is that a tax on capital gains is a tax on the national standard of living. My epiphany was completed a few weeks later, in a conversation with Ted Forstmann, who may well be the most successful entrepreneurial financier of our time. It was Forstmann, now a man of immense wealth who began his career with nothing more than a good education at Yale and a trust fund that provided him $500 a month, who let me in on a secret. Men of wealth, he told me, are not interested in a lower capital gains tax, because their gains are behind them. The people who benefit most from a lower capital gains tax, he said, are those who have no wealth, but aspire to it. Independently of Greenspan, Forstmann told me the correct tax on capital gains is zero. What we are talking about here is the essence of capitalism, which is why this has become the defining economic issue of the Republican Party.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: PROLIFE who wrote (16849)1/24/2007 12:06:02 AM
From: RMF
   of 70871
 
Did you ever think that maybe there's a reason that ALL the other News outlets seem skewed to the left to YOU and a very small proportion of the population, but seem O.K. and objective to a LARGE MAJORITY of the people?


NO...you probably never thought about the obvious.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


From: Peter Dierks1/24/2007 12:23:31 AM
1 Recommendation   of 70871
 
Jordan seeks to establish own nuclear programme
BEN LYNFIELD JERUSALEM
JORDAN is seeking to establish its own nuclear programme "for peaceful purposes", according to the country's king, Abdullah.

In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, the king spoke openly about desires for a Jordanian nuclear programme for the first time and said discussions were already under way with western countries.

"The rules on the nuclear issue in our region have completely changed," King Abdullah said.

"The Egyptians are striving for their own nuclear programme and so, too, the Persian Gulf countries."

Although Jordan would prefer to see a Middle East free of nuclear weapons "every desire we had on this has changed", he said.

King Abdullah's declaration of nuclear intent follows a December announcement by Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries that they intend to establish a peaceful nuclear programme and a September announcement by Egypt that it will revive its long-dormant nuclear power programme for peaceful purposes.

Although none of the Arab countries has said so openly, Israeli analysts believe that concern over the prospect of an Iranian nuclear bomb is behind their sudden surge of desire for nuclear power.

Iran, which says its research is for civilian purposes, has refused to suspend uranium enrichment activities despite the imposition of limited United Nations sanctions last month

Israel, widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal of its own, is worried about Iran's programme given statements by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.

Critics of Israel holding a nuclear arsenal say this threatens regional stability and gives the Iranians a justification for pursuing nuclear technology.

Adnan Oudeh, a former adviser to the Jordanian monarch, said Jordan needed nuclear power in order to "build a competitive economy".

"Jordan has the human resources for this, we have the scientists," he said. "The problem for us is economic, but we are in need [of nuclear power] more than the other Arab countries because we are a country without a power supply."

Mr Oudeh stressed that Jordan had been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for more than 30 years and that it had signed and adhered to a peace agreement with Israel. The treaty allows countries to build nuclear power stations under international supervision.

However, Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he did not believe Jordan actually intended to embark on a nuclear programme.

"It makes no sense," he said. They don't have those kind of energy requirements and won't for generations to come."

Rather, King Abdullah's comment should be seen as "pressure on the international community to take the Iranian threat seriously".

Web links

Israeli Government
gov.il
Haaretz
haaretzdaily.com
Jerusalem Times
jerusalem-times.net

Related topic

Middle East conflict
news.scotsman.com
This article: news.scotsman.com

Last updated: 20-Jan-07 01:24 GMT

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16929)1/24/2007 12:28:33 AM
From: RMF
   of 70871
 
Tonight I was listening to Bush's speech on Fox News Radio and even there they were piling up the deck with right-wing guys.


Like I said to prolife, when 95% of people like OTHER News outlets more than yours, then maybe YOU'RE the one that is "intentionally uninformed".

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: RMF who wrote (16931)1/24/2007 12:31:05 AM
From: Peter Dierks
   of 70871
 
Wow. You had convinced me you were a reasoned, reasoning person prior to that.

Why does most of the population call the leftwing biased media liberal? Could it be because the leftwing partisan media is biased? According to you, that couldn't be true. Just for grins would you call 56% a "very small proportion of the population"? We know your answers. If you need help getting sand out of your hair when you get your head out of the ground...





From: Brumar89 1/12/2007 11:36:28 AM
3 Recommendations of 25169

..56% of Americans think the media's coverage of events in Iraq is inaccurate, nearly two thirds of those believing that the media portray the situation as worse than it is..

I'm posting this article just for that passage. An encouraging sign of wisdom in the public.

Beyond Bias: When the Media Fabricates News
By Steven Zak
A recent Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans think the media's coverage of events in Iraq is inaccurate, nearly two thirds of those believing that the media portray the situation as worse than it is. A biased, always bad-news-baring mainstream media trying to discredit our war effort is a disgrace. But worse is the blatant manufacturing of news through editorials disguised as reports.
A case in point was the "reporting" in the Los Angeles Times on the execution of Saddam Hussein.

While even liberal bastions such as the New York Times and the Washington Post ran objective headlines -- "Dictator Who Ruled Iraq with Violence is Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity," and "Saddam Hussein is Put to Death," respectively -- the Los Angeles Times loaded its headline with editorial content: "Hussein Executed -- And Iraq Braces."

Hussein was indeed executed, but the idea that "Iraq Braces" is pregnant with anti-war innuendo. A less subtle headline might have read: "Hussein Executed -- One More Bad Event In A Bad War."

To back that up, the Times ran a second A-section story headlined: "Impact of Hussein's death likely to be limited." Not even characterized as "analysis," this story "reported" that Hussein's execution "seemed to be much less than the historic turning point many once had anticipated." (As a former writing professor once counseled, beware the passive word "seemed.")

The Times -- perhaps following the example of the Iraq Study Group -- cherry-picked its experts to offer but one point of view.

It quoted a former State Department official that the Hussein execution was "not what it might have been."

And a spokesman for the U.S. Institute for Peace that "I just don't see this as a big turning point."

And someone from the Endowment for International Peace who called the execution a mere "sideshow."

And, as a topper, "Mideast specialist" Juan Cole, the über-leftist University of Michigan history professor who has likened the state of Israel to a puppeteer with a fearsome "level of control over a branch of the United States government." Cole warned that Hussein's execution would likely provoke violence as, "To the Sunnis, it will look like just one more slap in the face."

Presenting a committed leftist like Juan Cole as an academic offering impartial scholarly analysis is bad enough. But the Times' "report" offers not one alternative view.

Couldn't find one? The Times could have asked former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who called Saddam's execution "a positive watershed." Or military expert Ralph Peters, who characterized the hanging as "an important milestone." (As opposed to the grim milestones the MSM endlessly "reports.") One significant impact Hussein's execution will have, Peters wrote, is that "no dictator will sleep quite as soundly now."

The Times could also have included "man-in-the-street" opinions from Baghdad -- like that of Suad Shakir, who, according to the Washington Post, said that "People will be relieved" by Saddam's death. Or of a Baghdad barber who said of Saddam: "He does not deserve to be alive."

But when you're writing an editorial -- including one in disguise as news -- you seek authority in support of your view.

Let's concede that there's reason for bad feelings in your gut over the execution of Saddam -- and over Iraq generally. A video showing thugs of Iranian agent and terrorist Moqtada Sadr rebuking the former dictator as he stood on the gallows could make you wonder who we're fighting for. So could this recent report about our Iraqi "allies":

As politicians, religious leaders and other soldiers watched, five Iraqi soldiers bit the heads off live frogs while a sixth slit a live rabbit's stomach and "ate its heart before tossing the carcass to his comrades to chew on."

All in "a display of courage."

You can pardon Americans for a lack of enthusiasm at the thought of blood and treasure spent on liberating barbarians.

But none of that excuses an agenda-driven media nor rehabilitates the self-inflicted damage to that media's reputation.
In a footnote: Four days after the Times' report, the paper ran a small wire service story which contained this observation: In reaction to Hussein's execution, Sunni Arabs "have taken to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations."

So much for Juan Cole's Mideast expertise.

Steven Zak is an attorney and writer in California. He has written for publications including the Atlantic Monthly, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
americanthinker.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16928)1/24/2007 12:38:55 AM
From: pompsander
   of 70871
 
Peter, why not also point out that in that same poll the President's unfavorable rating was 58% and Pelosi's was 25%. While only 4% of the responders had no opinion of the President, 23% had no opinion of Pelosi and an additional 20% had never heard of her.

Just printing Prolife's "take" on the poll data, or the Fox News feed from Brit Hume is hardly a fair analysis. Yes, the "favorable" percentage was higher for the President but do you really think that number alone told the story?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.