For the Liberals...

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by flange

Prove it. Hard-line conservatives make this claim all the time, but I've never seen any kind of real proof. I'll completely agree with the idea that an individual media outlet will have a bias whether it's intentional or not. But the idea that the entire swarm of media (minus Fox News, of course) has an intentional liberal slant is completely ridiculous. So once again, if you're going to make the accusation, then prove it.

What do you need? Here... an example...

Election In The Streets - 08/28/06 - Media Research Center Special Report

Here are some admissions by people inside the media...

Media Bias Basics

Some facts about WHO is the media...

Media Bias Basics

The bottom line is that the people that shape the news and present it are predominately Liberal and most of the media has a liberal spin on it, it's human nature. Fox actually has some liberal hosts on it's network hence the name fair and balanced. What balance is there on MSNBC?

[JayhawkMom]

Originally Posted by Reddemons54

Look, I know you all think that Bush's agenda is oil, and I really can't argue that, but I think its a good one to have considering the times we live in. How much time did you want him to take? Enough to have 2-3 more 9-11s? I mean, he acted on the Hurrican relief when it was legal for him to do so, but you blame him for not acting quicker? You can't have it both ways.

Now, back to oil. What happens when oil is so expensive the farmers can't afford to operate their tractors? We get less food, the globe experiences a famine, and, oh, I dunno, lets say 1/6th of the worlds population dies due to this, thats 1 BILLION people!!! So, while life is very important, we have to look at the big picture here people. If we didn't act, and we just let Hussein and his cronies do as they please then who knows how the world would be today, or if we would even have a world today. If you think getting him out of power was bad, then you are a complete idiot.

You are joking, right? Your post makes it sound like you support our government invading any country for it's oil reserves.........

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by JayhawkMom

You are joking, right? Your post makes it sound like you support our government invading any country for it's oil reserves.........

No it doesn't. I support protecting the most precious natural resource that is currently in the world. Hence meaning that when people start blowing up the wells and refineries, well thats just a bunch of crap.

Your post makes it seem you don't care if 1 Billion people die as long as we avoid losing 50,000 in a war? Whats better, 50K or 1 Billion?

[JayhawkMom]

I simply am not in favor of our government being able to invade a nation simply for it's oil reserves........or any of it's natural resources for that matter. You think the oil is about keeping the farmers farming?? HA HA HA....it's about rich folks getting richer......if you think any differently you are completely demented........

[The Drifter]

Originally Posted by Reddemons54

Now, back to oil. What happens when oil is so expensive the farmers can't afford to operate their tractors? We get less food, the globe experiences a famine, and, oh, I dunno, lets say 1/6th of the worlds population dies due to this, thats 1 BILLION people!!!

you're into biology...thats carrying capacity brotha...

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by Reddemons54

l If we didn't act, and we just let Hussein and his cronies do as they please then who knows how the world would be today, or if we would even have a world today. If you think getting him out of power was bad, then you are a complete idiot.

Seems to me that Hussein was the only person that could control the "ragheaded idiots" over there. I guess that is what they want in order to maintain control of their country. A "no nonsense" criminal, that kills everybody if they get out of line!! They have been fighting and killing each other since the dawn of their civilization. We are not going to stop it. Only they can stop it!! I say, let them "hash out" their own problems, and we ought to keep our noses out of other peoples business!! We have enough of our own problems over here to solve!!

[Reddemons54]

You all don't understand what I am saying I think, but thats alright I guess, let me try again. You see, all the tractors in the world require oil. If American farmers can't afford it, no other country is going to be able to afford it either. If the worlds agricultural production slows down even - not even stops just slows down - we go into famine and people start dying until, as Drifter stated, we get below the carrying capacity. So, we are at 6 Billion right now as a whole, it slows down, and realistically it would be more than a 1/6th drop off, people die at the same rate. Now, if you want the drastic measure, what happens if mechanized agriculture stops all together? We go back to hunter/gatherer days, or maybe family gardens. If that happens, nobody works anymore, because they have to work all day long to produce enough food to feed themselves. Can you all see where I am going yet?

Eventually oil is going to run out anyway, so yes we need to figure something else out, but we don't have that technology yet, and if the oil is just cut off we won't have the chance to invent that technology.

[Detector]

It's called "protecting our interests." Although at this time America is working toward reducing our dependency on oil, our economy would crash without Iraq. If Iraq were to be taken over by say a Chavez of Iraq we'd be in big trouble. Iraq and Iran, together, could bring America to it's knees and they know it.

Just another reason why "Failure is not an option" is a fact.

Source: Oil Wars: Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service

Oil Wars
Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service
by Michael T. Klare

American leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to stability in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by employing military means to guarantee the unhindered flow of petroleum. This approach was first adopted by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations after World War II, when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals in the Middle East seemed to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf oil deliveries. It was given formal expression by President Carter in January 1980, when, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow of Persian Gulf oil was in "the vital interests of the United States of America," and that in protecting this interest we would use "any means necessary, including military force." Carter's principle of using force to protect the flow of oil was later cited by President Bush the elder to justify American intervention in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, and it provided the underlying strategic rationale for our recent invasion of Iraq.

[Highwayman]

It’s about oil in the sense that we can not allow Iraq to fall under control of al-Qaida or any other terrorist group including terrorist allies Iran and Syria. Our enemies would use the oil money to finance their war on us.

Of course you could try letting Nancy Pelosi open a dialog with al-Qaida and see if she can keep her head.

[TexKan]

Now that's a thought!! I don't think she'll bite tho........... LOL