If George Bush was a baseball player who would he be - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

If George Bush was a baseball player who would he be

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu May 06, 2004 10:47 am

Good read fellas.


A couple notes - Clinton never ran a true budget surplus. Our social security savings are comingled into the general account, and an increase in people who are peaking in earnings yrs added more to SS than normal (Baby Boomers), thus inflating the asset side of the equation. During the 2000 election, both sides campaigned on how they would spend the "suplus" - when in FACT what they were referring to was how they would spend our social security savings. Again, this was both D and R.

Also, those complaining FOX to be too far to the right, now you know what people on the right have been saying about CBS, NBC, ABC for many many years. When all you here is left wing propaganda, even a moderate voice will sound far to the right.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby mtarail » Fri May 07, 2004 2:23 am

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
Also, those complaining FOX to be too far to the right, now you know what people on the right have been saying about CBS, NBC, ABC for many many years. When all you here is left wing propaganda, even a moderate voice will sound far to the right.


That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at is that there are bunch of moderate, middle of the road voices and Fox is waaaaay to the right.

It seems a little bit of a narrow perspective to accuse every major American broadcast network besides Fox of being involved in "left wing propaganda."
Bluto: Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL, NO!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
mtarail
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2433
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on the 3B line stands at TEP

Postby jeffc_76 » Fri May 07, 2004 2:33 am

There's really no disputing that all the major television news networks have leaned left for years, just like talk radio has been to the right. Fox News may be right of center but imo it's less so than all the others have been to the left for years. Might just stand out to a lot of people because they're so used to the constant liberal spin. O'Reilly's a moderate conservative (on most issues) and Hannity is definitely a hardcore right winger. But they still have Colmes. Not our fault that he's a zero-charisma, rat/human cross breed.
Image
jeffc_76
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 663
Joined: 1 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby wrveres » Fri May 07, 2004 3:29 am

what about the ...


C linton
N ews
N etwork

They don't get much more left than that. Paula Zahn and Lou Dobbs, just to name a few. Hate George W.
Soledad O'Brien, Bill Hemmer and Jack Cafferty on their morning show called ironically, "American Morning" spend 3 hours a day 5 days a week just Bashing on George W. Watch Cafferty sometime. He must get 20,000 emails a day (just a guess) but he always reads 5 ... 4 negative against the President, and one positive. I sit in bed and watch, always 4 against and 1 positive just like it was "Produced to be" ...

And for somebody to sit here and say that Dan Rather
of CBS, Peter Jennings of ABC, and Tom Brokaw of NBC are a "bunch of moderate, middle of the road voices" ... hasn't seen their ratings lately ...

As for the tax issue ..... Sorry I didn't reply. I am not smart enough to get into the symantics. But being a baseball junkie, I also understand that anybody can always spin numbers to their favor, so its no use trying to argue ...

For me it comes down to this ....

One of the Parties "Major" political platform basically is ....
Free the Prisoners ...
Lock up the guns ...
Kill the Babies ...

sounds kinda hypocritical to me, and I don't agree with any of them ...

So I choose the other ..
25                "Love the Padres"
Rafael

Dodgers FAIL|Mets FAIL|Canada FAIL
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31781
(Past Year: 734)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby osb » Fri May 07, 2004 3:55 am

yes, the lower levels were left out of the 03 tax cut or tax acceleration... what was the percentage of tax paid by those people before 2001?... i don't really have the time to look it up right now, but i do know that the percentage of tax paid by those lower brackets will remain the same and was scheduled to remain the same throughout the original plan as it was in 2001... so in the 2003 tax acceleration who benefitted? those people whos tax cuts WERE accelerated... who is that? everyone but the lower two tax brackets... now who had the largest reduction? the HIGHEST bracket... so in fact, yes, the lower two tax brackets WERE left out of the 03 acceleration AND the HIGHEST bracket saw the largest decrease in taxes paid... the only tax cuts phased in more quickly were the ones for the wealthiest americans... and as i've said before, it's wrong for bush to go around saying that his 2003 tax cut would cut taxes for EVERYONE... that's just not the case... no, the liberals are not saying that the rich are saving more money... that's obvious ... the only thing that i've heard liberals say is that bush is cutting taxes for the rich, which he has, i don't really have a problem there, if you're gonna give a cut give it to everyone... and that he's cutting the percentage of income tax MORE for the rich, which he has... if bush is going to go around trumpeting his 2003 plan as good for the little guy, then he should know his facts first, that's all... either that or quit distorting the truth

and i very highly doubt that i can ever convince you of not supporting this presidents fumbles and bumbles in this war either... i'm not against removing saddam, i'm not against our troops, i'm against this president and i've cited over and over again why... it has nothing to do with my priorities... i know what is important to me, #1 is not losing another life in a war that was propagated by a man and a cabinet hellbound and determined to take someone out, it just so happened that out of the three "axis of evil" nations, saddam had no WMDs... do you think they would have, or will in the future, invade north korea? no way, they'll never take the chance of kim jong il launching against us... iran? we know they have biologicals... with saddam, it was up in the air and they all knew it before the fact... he might have them, he might not... but we were all shown pictures of 18 wheelers and the like and told they were "mobile biological weapons manufacturing facilities"... we were all told that someone in saddams cabinet had meetings with muhammed atta, that he was funding terrorists and had ties to al qaeda...

you're right, if there's one thing that this president is NOT, it's humble... the world sees him as a cowboy, he doesn't care what the world thinks and i'm sorry, this is wrong... this guy ran on the platform that he's a "uniter, not a divider" i heard that line so many times, i thought i'd puke if i heard it once more... the world hates us... not just the radical islamists, everyone... the world hates bush... half of this country can't stand him... some uniter, huh?

bush never had any plans to go to war and remove him until september of 02... what? all of a sudden saddam is a major threat to the US? ... why? what was saddam doing? nothing, he wasn't going around meeting with al qaeda, he wasn't training terrorists within his borders, he wasn't even funding terrorists, he even said he'd allow the inspectors back in... but somehow, he got tied to osama, and then all of a sudden his flaunting of the UN became a problem... saddam a couple of months away from a nuke? laughable... if that was the case we would have found something by now and believe me Faux News would make sure everyone knew it... you don't just process a nuke in a couple of months, it doesn't happen that way... gassed his own people? yeah, in the 80's, it wasn't so bad then was it? of course not, he was on our side against iran (who we were also funding btw)... murdered thousands of people after the first war? yep, you know why? because the first bush was trying to inspire and incite a revolt against saddam and then didn't go into baghdad and left those who were willing to revolt against saddam swinging in the wind...

like i said, i'm all for saddam being removed, but go about it the right way... no we're not going to make everyone happy, but the least he could have done is take a little more time and build a coalition that has not been paid and cajoled into following us and doing so in name only in some cases... he could have gotten more troops, more money and if he would have waited a little longer, i think he could have gotten the UN to at least come in and become a peacekeeping force AFTER combat had ended (which was more than a year ago, according to dubya).... our armed forces were not meant to be peacekeepers, they are ass kickers, not cops...

the way he did this was ridiculous... he underestimated the cost, he overestimated the reception we'd get once in iraq, and he has no clear exit strategy... he rushed in, much to the dismay of the joint chiefs of staff, who publicly criticized him... two former weapons inspectors told him that saddams military capability was negligble at best... his own secretary of state, colin powell was against this war... did he listen to any of these people? no... he has set a dangerous precendent of preemption that is going to do nothing but cause us trouble down the road... consider the possiblity of us going to war with anyone that bush sees as a POSSIBLE threat to our national security or standing as a world power... consider how many more wars we're going to have to fight if he is reelected... where are the extra troops going to come from? draft? i wouldn't be surprised to see it come back... think about that...

so you seriously think we won't have any say in iraq's new government? they'll be handpicked by us... we'll have much more than just a small military base there and we will be there for a long time... #1, it's in the middle of the middle east, which is a huge strategic advantage... #2, you think we're just gonna pull out and let the radicals from SA or iran come in and take over? no way... you actually think that their government is going to be strong enough to withstand that? #3, they have the second largest oil reserves in the world... what was the first area secured by our troops when we went in? the oil fields... there's no way we leave them to their own devices in regards to those oil reserves...

as far as the emmisaries from jordan, i'm not sure what they were doing there, i do know that there had been ongoing negotiations between the taliban and several oil companies about an oil and natural gas pipeline from one of the old russian satellites, kazakastan maybe, through afganistan and ending up in india... the sad thing is that the taliban is coming back, it's not going away... we don't have enough troops in the area to completely stamp them out... it seems that the main objective is trying to find osama and the rest of the country has suffered for it... it's the forgotten war now...

as far as kerry vs bush goes all i can say is that our nation is not in great hands... this is obviously a matter of opinion and i could sit here and go through a laundry list of bush missteps, blunders and flip flops... when you say that kerry is the most liberal, he may be, but that is in the senate and all i have to say is, how many votes in the senate or congress go straight down party lines? the thing about the presidency is that to be an effective president, you have to be able to govern from the center, something that bush has definitely not done... i have a feeling that if dubya was ever in the congress or the senate, his record would have been just as conservative as kerry's was liberal... heck, take a look at his record as governor of texas... very conservative, very corporation friendly... you keep on talking about our criminal justice system, but i'm just wondering, what exactly has bush done to make it any less embarassing?
osb
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 338
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: somewhere in the hillbilly land of southwest Virginia

Postby osb » Fri May 07, 2004 4:12 am

here's an article i think is pretty interesting...



Fox News Is Biased? Next You'll Tell Me The Pope Is Catholic


Mar 14 2004
Counterbias.com
John F. Szamosi


Who says Fox News isn’t "fair and balanced"? It started out as the “red headed stepchild” of CNN’s second marriage, but soon became the standard bearer in the realm of cable news, and is now the great American story for the modern media. Even more impressive than its rise to prominence is how Fox News has gone about its business without ever smearing the other cable networks. They never implied that MSNBC and CNN are biased, with the exception of Bill O’Reilly making this claim repeatedly in his three novels, or Fox News’ famous motto: Fair and Balanced (which itself implies that everyone else isn't). They never criticized MSNBC for using Peter Arnett as a war correspondent. Okay, there was one ad criticizing MSNBC, but they deserved it.

Fox News is far superior to CNN and MSNBC, both of which sacrifice entertainment for accuracy. Maybe accuracy was popular when cable was reserved for the liberal elitist crowd, but there’s a new audience here, folks; we don’t want education, we want fun--and happy bombs tearing into Saddam's evil cronies!

Another reason to love Fox News is its complete lack of sensationalism. I can hardly watch MTV, VH1, BET, or E! Entertainment Television without being bombarded with “news” about celebrities. Fox doesn’t only talk about celebrities in trouble; their morning show, Fox and Friends, talks about sports sometimes! What was really impressive was during Michael Jackson arrest in November 2003, when Fox News didn’t focus on a private airfield for two hours nonstop like some cable news channels: instead, they took commercial breaks! It was impressive on Fox's part, though underappreciated I’m sure, to unwaveringly focus on Michael Jackson. The network was so intent on reporting this story, that Fox didn’t bother their viewers with news about a catastrophic al Qaeda attack in Turkey. Al Qaeda is so September of 2001 anyway.

I will admit that I believed the smears against Fox News; for example, that they only employed loud-mouthed conservatives repeating RNC talking points. That Fox News was, in fact, unfair and unbalanced, as opposed to Fox’s claim of being fair and balanced. I believed this because I wasn’t a regular viewer of Hannity And Colmes. After watching the show very often during the past year, I have come to the conclusion that I was misinformed, and I’m ashamed to have believed the liberal lies.

Hannity And Colmes is certainly the absolute best debate show on at nine on Fox News during the work week. I don’t care what critics say about the show; there is absolutely no bias towards the right. Who cares that Sean Hannity is given more airtime than Alan Colmes; he's more insightful and intelligent anyway! Plus, if I missed Sean’s radio show, I can tune into Hannity And Colmes and essentially hear a short version of it. It’s also apocryphal to imply that the strength of the guests on the show slants to the right. Granted Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, and Franklin Graham are on quite often, while their equals on the liberal side, such as Katrina vanden Heuvel, Paul Krugman, and Al Franken, have been on about five times total.

To the liberal naysayers: Susan Estrich is on like twice a week! She worked for Michael Dukakis’ 1988 Presidential campaign, and when someone says “political seriousness” I think “Michael Dukakis’ Presidential campaign.” How many campaigns has Paul Krugman worked for? Katrina vanden Heuvel worked for which administration(s)? Paul Krugman is only a columnist for the New York Times, an Economics professor at Princeton, and a contributor to Fortune magazine. What could he possibly know? Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editor of The Nation, America's pre-eminent progressive periodical; what makes her an appropriate choice to be on a left-right debate show? To be even more serious, I hereby state that any claim of conservative bias in Hannity and Colmes is pure fiction, like Sean’s latest novel Deliver Us from Evil.

I feel compelled to write this column, because it’s hard to watch those despicable so-called liberals trash this very decent network. So what if Fox News happens to be less interested in facts and more interested in hearsay? What does it matter if they’re the only news channel that uses the Bush Administration’s term “homicide bomber” instead of “suicide bomber”? This doesn’t make them deferential to a conservative President. Why should you care that the chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, is a hardcore Republican, who doubles an advisor to the President? Of course, if you're interested in honest and objective reporting, these facts may bother you. But judging by the number of people who watch Fox News, more and more Americans couldn’t care less about real fairness and true balance.
That--let me toss my sarcasm away for a second here--is a tragedy.
osb
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 338
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: somewhere in the hillbilly land of southwest Virginia

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Fri May 07, 2004 11:45 am

I'm not going to get into this (partly because I just don't have the time today) but the idea that the media is liberal is just one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Here's a link to a study done on the bias in media: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
To save you time, I lifted this from the conclusion:

"This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.

The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content..."

Here's a link to another article that talks about the myth and where it came from: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... =alterman2
It also explains why the myth exists, though I think this quote from William Kristol - editor of the National Standard - sums up the reason very well. "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

And if George W. Bush were a baseball figure he'd be Bud Selig. No explanation needed.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby blankman » Fri May 07, 2004 4:50 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:I'm not going to get into this (partly because I just don't have the time today) but the idea that the media is liberal is just one of the silliest things I've ever heard.


Then you must have been living under a rock all this time
blankman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

Graphics Expert
Posts: 10770
Joined: 6 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Transmogrifier » Fri May 07, 2004 5:35 pm

jeffc_76 wrote:
Much of the money spent has been on defense and the war on terror which in my view was necessary post-9/11.


I don't have the time, nor the inclination to read this whole thing, but in skimming it, I found this. While a lot of spending has been on defense, his discretionary spending increases have been bigger than anyone recently too. Take the Farm bill, for example.

Anyway, I think it's sad when anyone thinks "liberal" or even "conservative" is a bad word. We need to respect each other's opinions, not put them down.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby mtarail » Fri May 07, 2004 9:14 pm

Thanks absolutely adequate.

It blows me away that supposedly "fair and unbiased" observers could make some sort of claim with any air of objectivity that every major broadcast news outlet is left-leaning except--you guessed it--the one that they obviously agree with. And what evidence is used to support the claim? Lou dobbs, Paula Zahn, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings are obviously leftist!! How could I have forgotten that....LOL.

Lot's of people smarter than me have said: "Follow the dollar sign." If that applied to the news media they would have every reason of supporting a right-leaning news media, since Republicans have for years been more supportive of big business than Democrats. So what reason would every media outlet besides Fox have for being biased towards the Dems?
Bluto: Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL, NO!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
mtarail
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2433
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on the 3B line stands at TEP

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Sep. 18
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Texas at Oakland
(3:35 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Cleveland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Philadelphia at San Diego
(9:10 pm)
Seattle at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact