don't forget to go vote! at least we can say we tried. altho i really wish they would start putting 'none of the above, we want new choices' on the ballots...

asa hutchinson came back 'home' to run for gov here. looks like i'll be going straight dem on gov and lt gov here this time 'round. (they run separately, we could actually have a gov from one party, and a lt gov from the other!)....asa is ok, but beebe seems the better choice. and we just had a rep for 8 years, and i don't like huckabee one bit--looks like he's going to attempt a run in '08 for pres--we have term limits here, so he's out.

the republican running for lt gov is an ultra-right wing religious zealot. he scares me!!

Rupert,
Come on now!
Do you post things that fit your agenda?
For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace.
Your "trash talk" is getting old.
I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent.
Enough about me.
I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.

S2S,
I don't talk to Mis Cleo, Rupert does.
I don't think Dionne Warwick is running in anything, but if she is, I'd tell her to watch out for Pine Island. Ugly but fast. Cash a big one!
Thanks for your congrats about my son.
DTS

about $2.20 in so. florida. it's interesting that a gallon of gas is no more expensive than a half gallon of milk.

Danzig,
Thanks for the article.
We ALL claimed to have learned much later.
Just ask Dubbya.
DTS

dts---was wondering if you read my (hurriedly, and no doubt poorly) typed posts above? if so, what are your thoughts?

ah, i see i posted while you posted! here's hoping things have already gotten worse, and will now start improving in iraq.

I admit that I usually post things that fit my agenda. I posted the article about Braswell to remind people about how dishonest and unethical Clinton was. I admit it.

However, I am not like you guys when it comes to thinking that any article that knocks my guys must not be true, and any article that knocks your guys must be true, no matter what the source.

I don't think my posts are that confusing but I guess they are because you don't seem to understand anything that I post. I was talking about the lack of WMDs, the faulty intelligence, your assertion that Bush lied, and that type of thing. That is what I was talking about. I was saying that I don't think most Americnas cared about that stuff. The only thing they care about is that Americans are dying and the war does not seem to be going our way. They don't care about whether there were WMDs or not.

I hope this post was more clear.

Danzig,
I really did read the article you put up. Thanks for it.
I'm not sure about how things will shake out in Iraq.
I'll just say that in my humble opinion, it won't be solved militarily. Wars never have been before. It all comes down to those that sit down at a table and negotiate a "political" settlement.
Sure, many lves are expended to getting to that point.
It's sad for me to say that, but history has proven so time and again.
That said, I don't think Iraq will be solved in an improving way unless and until Malili sits down with Sardr (sp), a Kurd, and a representative from (don't fall down) Iran. The US has to allow them to negotiate.
While they talk, we have a way to redeploy our troops to a position away from the battlefield. There really is nothing more we can do to improve the situation. Our brave troops have certainly done their best.
I don't think Great Britain wants any more involevment and they'll be going away sooner than later. Blair is being questioned.
Leave out the UN.
If you will allow a "poker" metaphor...
When you hold cards, you have the luxury of betting big. If you don't, you can bluff for a while...until you're called and the bet is too big for you to continue with what you're holding.
Then, you fold. Throw your cards on the table and let the others around the table to decide how the pot gets divided.
It all happens around a table.
There will be other hands dealt.
I hope this makes sense to you.
DTS

Last night he said he didn't know Mr. Jones.

Lie 1

Today he says the hotel referred him to Mr. Jones for a massage.

Lie 2

You guys are so critical. What happened to the days when a guy could take some meth and have sex with a man without having to get grief about it?

The leader of the 30 million member Evangelical Organization admits to buying METH.....Case closed..........

In the words of the Chisox announcer .........."HE GONE."

It's the hypocrisy that makes these things interesting.Some guy buying drugs and sex is not all that interesting (unless he has preached against those activities himself.)That's what makes it a story. 30 million people thought he was totally against such activities.

I know. I was just kidding around.

Damn it.Why can't they spell it hypocracy? Doesn't that seem like the way that should be spelled?

Look at all the fun stuff I miss when I spend an evening napping and watching "Battlestar Galactica...."

Rupert, can your posts be any more hyperbolic? To say that I, or anyone, would defend someone purely for being a moslem is absurd. Since you don't seem to know much about radical Islam, let me enlighten you-- Radical Islam has the same position on women and gays as radical Christianity-- that the former is inferior and the latter is evil. Why in the world would I defend a radical Moslem who openly attempts to influence elections against gays? For that matter, why would I defend a fundamentalist of any religion? Do you even READ any of my posts? Of course not, I'm not on the Drudge Report... ;)

Because that is what the deal with Haggard is-- he actively campaigned to deny gays rights. That's why this little "massage" buddy came out, if you'll pardon the pun, against him. If the massage guy wanted to make money, he'd have blackmailed him, and those evangelist mega-churches have some serious coin, so I bet he would have gotten a lot of moola. But he didn't. He came forward because of Haggard's pushing for the gay marriage ban in... criminy, I can't remember which state. Which state? There are a lot of them being voted on lately...

And that's why it's news. And frankly, the reason Dems are bringing this stuff up is because the Republicans seem to think they have a right to tell everyone what to do in their own bedrooms, and then again and again, prove that they also think those laws they push for don't apply to them. If the Republicans would STOP legislating morality, this wouldn't be news. If these damn mega-churches weren't lecturing about gay sex, they wouldn't be caught with, um, egg on their faces when their leaders turn out to not be as heterosexual as they claim people must be if they want to see Heaven. It's not the crime; it's the coverup. And the hypocrisy. The reason Dems don't care about what other Dems are doing in the bedroom is because the average Dem knows it's not his fracking business! But quite frankly, it's really good theater when the puffed-up moral crusader turns out to be just as human as the people he rails against.

Rupert, the stuff you post is from Drudge and Fox and sources that are well-known Republican spin machines. That's why they're not being taken seriously. You can protest all you want that they are "unbiased" but that doesn't make them unbiased. You WANT them to be unbiased because they tell you what you want to hear. But they're not; they're spin machines. And reading them doesn't make you a conservative; it makes you a Republican. Small c- conservatives are livid at the way Bush has trashed the conservative legacy.

You'll notice, I never post stuff from Daily Kos or Michael Moore or any of the sources I consider left-wing spin machines. Look, I enjoy Michael Moore's stuff-- it's entertaining and once in a while he makes a good point, as he did in "Bowling for Columbine" in fingering the media for encouraging a culture of fear in the US that contributes to gun violence (it's not the guns; it's the media!). But I'd never, ever use him as a source if I'm trying to prove a point. I can't count on the information to be completely factual, just as you cannot expect Fox and Drudge to be factual (Fox listed Foley as a Democrat, for God's sake, and then refused to correct it).

If you really want to open your own horizons, take some time to see what's out there on the web-- I highly recommend andrewsullivan.com, http://www.balloon-juice.com/ (John Cole), slate.com and salon.com. Salon is a progressive-leaning site, but their news is usually fair (they posted articles denying Ohio was stolen, even though their readership would have preferred an article saying it was). And their Daou report will give you links to oceans of right- and left- leaning blogs.

And in the end, Rupert, it's easy to slam the Republicans because quite frankly, they're doing a piss-poor job in every conceivable area of government right now-- Iraq is a mess, the deficit is ballooning, jobs are oozing overseas, and we are no more ready for a terrorist attack on our soil than we were in 2001. And they're the ones in charge-- the Dems are the minority party. Dems can yell and scream, but they can't force any changes in legislation-- and to read the Rolling Stones article I posted a while back, they're being kept out of legislation sessions entirely.

Which isn't to excuse the Dems for being cowards when Bush and Rove first started the reprehensible "Democrats are soft on security" crap they began in '02. I wish the Dems had come out swinging, instead of sitting around and letting themselves get beaten up. But in the wake of 9/11, I think we were all willing to trust what our govenment told us-- I know I thought the Iraq intelligence seemed fishy, but I just couldn't believe my government would lie us into war, and I couldn't believe all of Congress would fall for it. I'm not that naive anymore, and I never will be again. I learned from trusting Bush once. Never, ever again.

If the Dems were in charge right now, and this were going on, I'd be voting them out. I'm not a blind partisan; I think the Republicans are in bed with big business and that's not good for the average Joe. And I think single-party rule is bad. It was good for the country when the Dems lost in '94 and it will be good for the country if (please, God, please) the Republicans lose on Tuesday. But that's going to take people being willing to see beyond their "team" and honestly do what's good for their country. And indeed, their party. If you keep voting your party, no matter how corrupt, back into power, where is the motivation to clean up their act? All you're doing is enabling. Time for an intervention, Republicans! Take your damn party back by sticking them in the naughty corner for a few years.

Dear God; I need to go handicap! Later, everyone!

First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said.

With regard to the drudgereport, you can believe whatever you want. I think I know a little bit more about the site than you do, since I read it regularly and you do not. Are you denying that Drudge posts negative articles about republicans? Drudge will post any story that is major news or any story that is interesting for that matter. He probably is a republican and he probably is happier when he finds dirt on a democrat than a republican, but he will print dirt on either.

I challenge you to go to the site and tell me how he has slanted any story. Go check to see the articles that he has posted on the Haggard scandal. Tell me how his coverage is slanted compared to other media outlets. You won't be able to do it.

I can come up with more examples of major news outlets showing bias than Drudge. The Los Angeles Times is a perfect example. When a few of Gray Davis' female aids came forward with repots that he had abused them, the LA Times refused to print the story. When the same thing happened with Schwarzanegger(females accusing him of abuse), they immediately printed the story. Now that is slanted news. The same could be said with CBS. They had no problem running the story about Bush' National Guard Service, even though they coudn't verify that their sources were accurate. They normally never run a story if they can't verify that the sources were accurate. They would have never run that story if it was about a democrat.

That is two examples that I have given you about liberal news sourses slanting their coverage. I bet you can't give me any examples of slanted coverage on the drudgereport. And you are sadly mistaken if you think that I don't use many different sources for my news. I have suscribed to the LA Times(a liberal paper) for 20 years.

Going back to the drudgereport, you probably didn't know that many of his stories are from the New York Times and the Washington Post which are two liberal newspapers. Less than 5% of his stories are his own stories. His site is a site that carries headlines from all different newspapers. I bet you didn't even know that.

Hey Genuine Risk, The drudgereport has 5 articles posted right now about Haggard. That's probably more articles than any other site has about the case. How do you explain that?

A few weeks ago you recommended I watch Fox News and suggested I would see a balanced report. I did tune into Hannity and Colmes the night of the Kerry furor a few days ago. It was after Kerry had issued his apology. The story lead the show and lasted about 10-12 minutes. During that time, Hannity and "analyst" Newt Gingrich ripped Kerry and the Democrats for all but about 15 seconds of the segment (when the obligatory Colmes retort was issued). Hannity and Gingrich denied there was an apology then said even if there was one, it was insincere and politically motivated. Hannity went on to to liken Kerry to Mel Gibson, stating that when someone is "joking" there are more likely to be speaking their true feelings; much the same as people, including Gibson, do so when a bit boozy.

Point is, so what if some of the media is liberal? That's true, but some of it is conservative as well (Wash Times, Fox, etc). With all the freaking media that's out there, people have to sift through it to get the real story and to form their own opinions. Most people are too lazy or don't care enough to do so and are happy to simply subscibe to liberal or conservative ideology because that's the easy thing to do.

I happen to like Drudge a lot.

And here's a prediction. I have never heard a bad word spoken regarding the the Military Times. I bet we will now see conservative media bashing this publication and Gannett.

And I have a question for you. Do you think Bush's job approval rating is negatively effected by the totality of all media coverage? Personally, I dont think so, but rather believe it's a result of Americans disliking war coupled with him being a second term president.

With regard to Fox, I was talking more about their actual news coverage than their shows. I do like some of the shows. I think O'Reilly is alright most of the time. At times, he can be really obnoxious but most of the time he is alright. He is very conseravtive on most issues but he has liberal guests on all the time that he debates, so both sides get their voice heard. I like the fact that O"Reilly will always give the guest the last word. I think that is the fair thing to do.

With regard to Hannity and Colmes, the show is probably not quite as balanced as it should be beacuse Hannity is really the star of the show and he comes on much stronger than Colmes. I'm not a big fan of Hannity. He's a conservative hack. The guests on the show are usually alright. They usually have a good mix of both liberals and conservatives.

With regard to your question about Bush, I do not think that his job approval has been hurt by media coverage. I think the media has been fair with him overall. I think the only thing that has really hurt him is the war. And the war would not have hurt him at all if it would have gone well. Americans are results oriented. If we would have won the war, everyone would be happy.

I agree with you about the Drudgereport. I like it because it has a good mix of articles from both liberal and conservative papers. It has all the interesting headlines from all the big newpapers.

I think Bush would be doing far better on the public's view of his handling of the war, not to mention that the war itself might go better, if he cut Rumsfeld loose. I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I've felt this for a couple years.

I just do not get Bush's devotion and while I guess I admire Rumsfeld's desire to get the job done, I think we'd all be better off with change there.

It's been 5 years since 9/11 and four years of war. If the country were a corporation, Defense was it's biggest division and Rumsfeld was in charge of that division, there is not much chance he'd still be in the job. Why is this different?

When things go bad, people get stale and you can't replace all of the troops. But you can change the leadership and sometimes change for the sake of change alone is reasonable.

Frankly, this puzzles the hell out if me.

I think Rumsfeld is probably a victim of his own success. He's been so successful at everything that he's done in his life that I think it has made him a little stubborn. I heard that he was broguht in as CEO at two different companies and totally turned the companies around. I think he's worth over $100 million. Sometimes guys who are that successful think that they can do anything. They think they can walk on water. I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than all of his generals and he may be, but that doesn't mean that he knows more about fighting a war than they do.

The truth of the matter is that it's a really tough situation over there and I think there would be serious problems no matter who was in charge. But like you said, sometimes it can be better to change things just for the sake of change. Bush probably doesn't have the nerve to fire him. He probably felt lucky to get him in the first place. It would be like if you owned a team and you convinced some legendary coach to come out of retirement and coach your team. If things didn't go well, you still may not have the nerve to fire him. You feel so grateful that he took the job in the first place that you wouldn't feel right about firing him even if you felt that he wasn't getting the job done.

Rumsfeld was CEO of Gen Instrument and Searle. He's a tremendously wealthy and successful man. I think he was also Chairman of two or three other firms as well.

He got elected to Congress very young ...28 or 29 I think.

The most interesting fact I know about him is that while he is now the oldest person to serve as Sec of Defense, he is also the youngest person to have held the position (back with Ford).

Yes, that is right. He was both the youngest and oldest Sec of Defense.

I respect the man. How many guys in there 70's wanna be working night and day and constantly being bashed? He is not on a beach with a paper umbrella in his drink. He really thought he could get the job done. And he did. But vastly underestimated the aftermath.

Rupert,
Here are your words:
"First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said."

First of all, you are making an outrageous assumption that demands an apology. I will not tolerate your lie.
Secondly, your clumsy attempt to refocus the topic of the debate from Haggard to me, like somehow I am the reason for his actions, is also tranparent.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish as am I.
I base mine on truth.

DTS

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

You can correct me if I was wrong. Would you have been interested in the story and posted the story if it was about a Muslim? If you would have, then my assumption was wrong and I apologize.

Anyway, I'm done debating with you. It's a waste of time.

In what way did I bring the word Muslim into the debate?
YOU brought that into the debate, not me.
Debating?
You have demonstrated your lack of skills.
I do agree that you are wrong.
Your "apology", couched in the words you stated, amount to bu-l ****.
To the "honey wagon" you go! Along with the war criminals you so dearly defend.
Good bye!!

This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP. ;) No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS. :) ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:

<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority

Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.

Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."

The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."

Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."

Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.

So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>

That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.

Of all the abortions that are done in the US, what percentage of them are done to save a woman's life? I don't know the answer but my guess is that the number is extremely low. I doubt it's higher than 1% or 2%. O'Reilly probably should have used the word "rarely" rather than "never".

I don't know how you can make the accusation that O'Reilly is encoraging terrorists by criticizing abortion. You have always scoffed at that argument when conservatives make that argument about opponents of Presidnet Bush and the war.

Quick questions Rupert,
Does the government control what you chose to do with your body (if you are male and not doing anything illegal like drugs)?
Should the same apply to females?
Should government have a "say" in determining the choice of the ones that are chosen by the individual as their "love interest"?
Should ALL Americans share the same rights and privileges?

I am not in favor of outlawing abortion.

The governmet should not have a say in a person's "love interest".

Yes, all Americans should have the same rights and privileges.

Why do you keep asking me questions? I thought that we agreed that we would not debate any more.

Rupert,
I wasn't debating. I was asking questions.
Actually, I agree with your answers.
It's consistant with my long cherished belief that there should be "liberty and justice for all."

Bad Boys! Bad Boys! Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You!

I'll hope they don't have extra nooses beside Saddam's for the real war criminals.
HANG EM HIGH!!!

Hope the band plays "Hail to the Chief" when the frog march begins.

DTS: I was talking about Haggard actually! I think it's unfair of you to call the Administration war criminals. It's oK to dialogue about the war etc etc but the diatribe against Bush is wrong. I've disagreed with much in the 38 yrs since I became eligible to vote..even worked to change decisions,laws,perceptions,but I drew the line with calling our leaders war criminals.

Timm,
Haggard admitted to his doings. his "church" has dealt with him.
Now it's time for the world court to bring the criminals to their justice.
Charges will be filed in Germany next week.
The USA set the precedent at Nuremburg.
The only way the USA will regain credibility with the other nations that share our planet is to abide by the standard that's been set.
You certainly are entitled to your views.
To me, you can dress up the skunks in any costumes you buy them to trick-or treat in, but they're still going to smell the same.
Sorry Timm, they're war criminals.
They sold it. We bought it. They own it.
Just like Saddam, Nixon, Hitler, and all of their buddies.
Hang now...burn later.

In case you missed it, here's Haggart's letter of apology.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184&secid=1

Now, if we could just get Cheney, Rove, and others in the administraton to help Georgie-boy write his.
They need all the help they can get.

*note...in Kenny's letter, he doesn't ask forgivness from the only ONE that is capable of forgiving him.
"Blind men lead other blind men into the pit."
-Jesus

O'Reilly didn't use the word "rarely;" he used the word "never." He said "never,' therefore he meant "never." What? You can easily believe Kerry really did mean to insult the troops, but you can't believe O'Reilly meant "never?" Now who has a double standard?

And now it looks like an investigation may start against him for leaking information. From AOL.com:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001

I'm not claiming he meant to say "rarely". I'm saying that he should have said "rarely". I think he was wrong to use the word "never".