What should the U.S.’s role be?

discreetgent: Do you believe that some of the policies and actions under GWB that were vilified in the press should escape the same level of ridicule and vilification under BHO? Originally Posted by gnadfly

Amazing the pass the current President gets from the media related to the military....

Nukes are the only current technology that has the potential to be a significant portion of total energy sources. Wind, solar and other "alternatives" (including that ethanol crap) are just rounding errors that waste lots of national resources to make a few liberals feel good. This shit is also a breeding ground for crony capitalism. Originally Posted by pjorourke

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENS?!?!?!!

You can't beat the ROI of punching a hole in the ground to get the potential energy to fulfill several states' transportation and utility needs for years. Many of these vocal environmentalists and global warmers and their enabling politicians are simply delusional.

BTW, where are all those 'shovel ready' and 'green' jobs President Obama promised?

BTW, where are all those 'shovel ready' and 'green' jobs President Obama promised? Originally Posted by gnadfly

China.

A no-fly zone over Libya would be a complex operation

To establish a no-fly zone, the U.S. and its allies would need to bomb Libya's air defense system and devote hundreds of aircraft to patrol the country, military officers say.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

Amazing the pass the current President gets from the media related to the military.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

It may not be so much the Pres as the SOD. Rumsfeld was an easy target...Gates not so much. I think the Press likes Gates. And he's a holdover from GWB to boot.

It may not be so much the Pres as the SOD. Rumsfeld was an easy target...Gates not so much. I think the Press likes Gates. And he's a holdover from GWB to boot. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yeah, Obama would never get favored treatment from the media. . .

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-s...mes-more-obama

I agree. It used to be easy to find unslanted written data. Now, it's really hard. Almost every link/publication linked by PJ, DFW5, CM and others, are written from their own POV. Same goes for the left hand side of this Board. I have been remarkably unable to find one source I consider to be a neutral reporter of facts.

I don't think I ask for a whole lot. Let me ingest the facts on the neutral basis so I can make up my own mind on issues. However, every writing I've seen since the Eisenhower administration has had its own bias.

Walter Cronkite used to be regarded as the pinnacle of even-handed reporting. I don't think there are many on this board that believe that he actually was, but that was his reputation. Is it so much to ask that there be one source that is reliable and trustworthy?

Apparently so. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yeah, Obama would never get favored treatment from the media. . .

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-s...mes-more-obama Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Could you please find an UNBIASED source??? I'm not opposed to your POV as long as the source material is unbiased. Obviously, you don't realize how much it impairs your POV by presenting such a biased position as your authority for the position.

Rather than hide behind disdain for those who gathered the data, how about addressing it.

The facts speak for themselves, and you're neck deep in denile (not the river).

Not a drive by for me.

Could you please find an UNBIASED source??? I'm not opposed to your POV as long as the source material is unbiased. Obviously, you don't realize how much it impairs your POV by presenting such a biased position as your authority for the position. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

LOL! the words pot and kettle come to mind I've came up with sources on some of my stuff from left wing sources and it's still dismissed. Even the right wing sources can be verified if the target of the post has the balls to do his own research.

Rather than hide behind disdain for those who gathered the data, how about addressing it.

The facts speak for themselves, and you're neck deep in denial (not the river). Originally Posted by Iaintliein

There, fixed that for ya. Since you want to belly up to the bar, here we go (my comments in blue).

Networks Link Bush to 'Skyrocketing' Gas Prices 15 Times More Than Obama

By Julia A. Seymour | March 01, 2011 | 11:05

As gas prices rose in 2008, network reporters mentioned President Bush in 15 times as many stories than they brought up President Obama in a similar period in 2011.
Bush drew gallons of coverage in 2008. Comparing a 20-day span of rising gas prices in 2008 to 24 days of rising prices in February 2011, the Business & Media Institute found the networks did more than 2 ½ times as many stories during the Bush years versus Obama.
Unrest in the Mideast has hit American consumers hard, driving up gas prices that had already been above $3-a-gallon since Dec. 23. The national average for gasoline hit $3.36 on Feb. 28, the highest ever for the month of February according to The Associated Press. But the amount of network news coverage of rising gas prices did not reflect it.
All three broadcast networks together averaged just one story about rising gas prices per day. In contrast, when gas prices rose similarly in 2008, the networks averaged more than one story, per network, per day.
It took 24 days, from Feb. 1, to Feb. 24 for the national average for unleaded gasoline to climb from $3.101 to 3.228. The last comparable period of "eye-popping" gas prices: the 20 days between Feb. 21, 2008, and March 11, 2008, when the national average climbed from $3.086 to $3.227. First of all, you can't compare 2011 to 2008. Bush started 3 wars and that was why the Middle East was in turmoil. It was Bush's own doing. He made his bed, he needed to lie in it. In 2011, the Middle East is in turmoil because long-time dictatorships are being overthrown by overly oppressed people. That is not turmoil created by the President, unlike 2008.
Some 2008 reports including the March 6, 2008, "Early Show" exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump that was charging $5.19-a-gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower. Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe."
The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 ½ times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011. So, what? Different times, different stories. Relate this to FACTS that show a deliberate bias on the media's part, not innuendo or fake slants.
But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media's willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush, and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned "Bush," the "president" or "government" in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1). Same comments as above. Facts, man, facts. Just aligning the number of stories proves nothing. It's not even a statistical measurable quantifier. A number of stories portrayed Bush as out-of-the-loop when he was asked about the possibility of $4-a-gallon gas and hadn't yet heard that prediction. How many? 1, 20, 100? And did you measure them against the number of stories portraying Obama that way, because there are some?
In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush administration when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention the president was NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24. Tom Costello's report on the impact of surging gas prices quoted President Obama who was "optimistic."
Obama said, "We actually think that we'll be able to ride out the Libya situation and it will stabilize." Costello didn't question the president's statement or mention any of the administration's policies that will constrict the supply of oil and gasoline and could further increase the price of gasoline for consumers.

Networks Fail to Mention Obama's Anti-Oil Actions
President Obama is the most anti-oil president in years So, you're not a patriot unless you curry favor with big oil?? and has taken specific steps to limit domestic oil production including a moratorium on deepwater drilling in May 2010 after the BP spill and the recent imposition of new regulations on the industry. Yet, the networks refused to notice in the recent gas prices stories BMI analyzed, just as they did in December 2010. Refused how? Was it brought to their attention and they refused? Did they think it was not worthy of reporting? Did they think it was inappropriate to report upon? Is your judgment on this issue better than theirs?
Not a single one of 2011 stories about rising gas prices BMI examined brought up any of Obama's anti-oil policies despite the impact they could have on supply and prices.
Obama's drilling ban was overturned by a federal court judge in June, but his administration continued to enforce it. On Feb. 3, Bloomberg reported that the administration "acted in contempt" of court by doing so. "Acting in contempt" is not contempt. it is only contempt if the Court finds you in contempt after someone brings a contempt motion. This is merely conjecture and a blatant attempt to bias the reader.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled on June 22, 2010, that the ban was "overly broad," according to Bloomberg. The following month Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put a second moratorium into effect, but voluntarily lifted it in October.
Some industry insiders claim there is still an "informal moratorium" on offshore drilling. "President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months," Jim Adams, the Offshore Marine Service Association's president, said in a press release quoted by Bloomberg. They fail to state how many permits have been applied for. Without that information, it is really hard to assess not having one issued.
Adams said the consequences have been thousands of lost jobs and higher prices for gasoline and heating oil. At least one company, Seahawk drilling, has filed for bankruptcy blaming Obama administration policies.
The Heritage Foundation wrote on Jan. 11, 2011, that only two new deepwater permits have been issues since the end of the Obama moratorium, "down 88 percent from the historical average." Heritage also said shallow-water permits are down 11 percent. Again, they fail to state how many have been applied for. The Obama administration has also cancelled four pending lease sales in Alaska and reinforced existing offshore drilling bans, which prevent exploration in 85 percent of coastal waters. You think the class action lawsuits have anything to do with the canceling of lease sales?
"The lack of exploration and production means fewer jobs for out-of-work Americans and less money flowing into federal coffers," Heritage concluded.
Action on at least several of those permits may be forthcoming now that Feldman has ordered Salazar to decide on five permit applications from Ensco within 30 days.
Investor's Business Daily argued in a recent editorial that the Obama administration is intentionally allowing prices to spike in order to make green energy more desirable. OK, with regard to all statements which use the term "editorialized," they are bunk. An Editorial is merely someone's opinion. Oftentimes, it isn't even based on facts, but is merely the POV of the author. To use an editorial as fact is a journalistic fallacy, and the worst kind of journalism. It's not fact. It's not even hearsay. In this instance, it's opinion based on opinion.
On the issue of rising prices, IBD editorialized: "It's not just Mideast turmoil that has brought us to this point. It's also a deliberate program of restricting domestic energy to make so-called green energy more attractive and necessary, keeping an Obama campaign promise that energy prices would 'necessarily skyrocket' on his energy agenda."

What High Gas Prices Mean for the U.S. Economy?
Moratoriums and permit delays have already costs jobs and threatened businesses and "soaring" gas prices could damage the fragile U.S. economy even more. Some analysts have predicted $5-a-gallon gasoline which would be "devastating," but "serious" consequences could result even if prices only reach the $3.75-a-gallon range.
AP reported that some businesses are already taking the hit for extra fuel costs because they don't think the economy is strong enough to pass it on in the form of higher prices.
In that same report, AP quoted Oil Price Information Service's chief oil analyst Tom Kloza. "[He] believes that the normal seasonal rise in prices has been pulled ahead by events in the Middle East, but he still expects prices to rise further. He predicts prices will reach $3.50 to $3.75 per gallon, barring more chaos in the Middle East," AP said.
Kloza said that would have "very serious consequences for the economy."
AP also reported that, "Over a year, analysts estimate, oil at $100 a barrel would reduce U.S. economic growth by 0.2 or 0.3 of a percentage point. Rather than grow an estimated 3.7 percent this year, the economy would expand 3.4 percent or 3.5 percent. That would likely mean less hiring and higher unemployment."
According to John Challenger, chief executive officer of global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, rising fuel prices be the "biggest obstacle yet" to job growth. Challenger said in a release, "Companies will be reluctant to pass along their higher fuel costs to consumers. So, the more companies are required to spend on fuel, the less they have to spend on expansion and hiring."
Higher prices, such as the $5-a-gallon prediction would be even worse for the economy. University of Maryland economist Peter Morici told BMI: "$5-a-gallon would be devastating if it's in 2011, if it's in 2014 it might not be devastating. But right now, if we went to that by July it would kill the recovery. It is unlikely that we will get to $5-a-gallon because it would kill the recovery before that point and then prices would go down."

First of all, you can't compare 2011 to 2008. Bush started 3 wars and that was why the Middle East was in turmoil. It was Bush's own doing. He made his bed, he needed to lie in it. In 2011, the Middle East is in turmoil because long-time dictatorships are being overthrown by overly oppressed people. That is not turmoil created by the President, unlike 2008. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Then again, Bush wasn't pursuing moronic energy policies which have a more direct impact on prices.

Care to list your 'approved' websites CT2005? I could use the chuckles.

"First of all, you can't compare 2011 to 2008. Bush started 3 wars and that was why the Middle East was in turmoil. It was Bush's own doing. He made his bed, he needed to lie in it. In 2011, the Middle East is in turmoil because long-time dictatorships are being overthrown by overly oppressed people. That is not turmoil created by the President, unlike 2008."

Well, certainly there were wars, one re-started by Sadam Hussein by breach of UN mandates which nullified the cease fire, another started by a group of terrorists in Afghanistan, both of which the US responded to. I guess 1+1 =3?

"President Obama is the most anti-oil president in years So, you're not a patriot unless you curry favor with big oil??"
It looks like you are the first one to interject the word patriot into the conversation, so, I'll leave it to you to give us your definition. As for the article, I agree that this statement is dead wrong. Obama went out of his way to protect and shelter BP (a major campaign donor) by suppressing news coverage of the gulf spill and bypassing the judicial system set up to deal with such incidents. I still wonder how much of the slush fund put into escrow will make it's way back to BP and how much will make it's way to the DNC. Please note, the last sentence is my opinion. . . and that's a fact.

" So, what? Different times, different stories. Relate this to FACTS that show a deliberate bias on the media's part, not innuendo or fake slants."

Actually, different administrations, same problem, same media the media proves it's bias on a daily basis.

"Refused how? Was it brought to their attention and they refused? Did they think it was not worthy of reporting? Did they think it was inappropriate to report upon? Is your judgment on this issue better than theirs?"

I'm not questioning their "judgment" they do not report that which they judge to detract from the liberal agenda and choose to report on anything that might further it.

"On Feb. 3, Bloomberg reported that the administration "acted in contempt" of court by doing so. "Acting in contempt" is not contempt. it is only contempt if the Court finds you in contempt after someone brings a contempt motion. This is merely conjecture and a blatant attempt to bias the reader."

You might get farther by responding to what they wrote instead of what you assume they meant. Your statement in no way challenges what was actually written.

""President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months," Jim Adams, the Offshore Marine Service Association's president, said in a press release quoted by Bloomberg. They fail to state how many permits have been applied for. Without that information, it is really hard to assess not having one issued."

You got me there, those big, greedy oil companies are so frightened of Obama that they don't dare apply. . . or maybe the good shepherds in DC haven't provided the right forms yet, those clever fellows.

Investor's Business Daily argued in a recent editorial that the Obama administration is intentionally allowing prices to spike in order to make green energy more desirable. OK, with regard to all statements which use the term "editorialized," they are bunk. An Editorial is merely some one's opinion. Oftentimes, it isn't even based on facts, but is merely the POV of the author. To use an editorial as fact is a journalistic fallacy, and the worst kind of journalism. It's not fact. It's not even hearsay. In this instance, it's opinion based on opinion.

Again, you point out in your response that the sentence is clearly labeled as an editorial, yet you feel compelled to define what "editorial" means. What is your point of disagreement? That your opinion is different than theirs? I'll grant you it is.

I've said my piece, anyone who cares to look can easily decide that all media is biased, but the vast majority of traditional media outlets in the US are highly invested in propping up Obama as they spent what little credibility they had left getting him elected in the first place.

Night, night