Well, I was watching Glenn Beck the other day, and he presented some pretty interesting facts. IED deaths have decreased in Iraq by 78% since June, overall US military deaths are down about 65% since June and overall civilian deaths in Iraq are down by over 50% since June, but all of a sudden, the news media seems to be more interested in forest fires than the situation in Iraq. That's weird, if the statistics were the other way around, meaning all the death numbers were up instead of down, I am willing to be that's all you'll see in the news. So yah, way to go fair and unbiased news media, way to be objective and getting the facts out to us.

But you have to ask, why June? What was so significant about June that correlates with all of these sudden declines in deaths? Well, "coincidentally" June is when the troop surge was completed. *gasp*, you mean the liberal media's prediction that more troops would equal more deaths was not correct? *faints*

I mean seriously, I completely agree with the phrase "common sense is not so common." It's pretty obvious and logical that an increase in troops would increase our effectiveness which would equal fewer deaths. I mean, DUH, would you say to decrease police fatalities you should have FEWER cops on the street? lol, of course not! Man, I love it when the mainstream media is proven wrong, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside. Good thing it happens so often...

I really do wish we had an un-biased media.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention It's good to hear about good things coming out of the troop surge.

This is why I rarely watch TV news, They are all owned by Left-leaning corporations. Un-biased internet news FTW!

Although a better source the internet is still a haven for conspiracy theorists, racists and weirdos. So it has its own fair share of heavily biased media too. Of those new numbers I hope there's no cooking of the stats, that happens with crime reporting of some police departments.

quote:

Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox:
This is why I rarely watch TV news, They are all owned by Left-leaning corporations. Un-biased internet news FTW!

News Corperation's Fox News is right winged as is Rupert Murdoch, the owner.

OMG, Foxnews is right-wing, that completely balances out the fact that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and any other corporation that deals out news is liberal, lol. Don't even get me started on newspapers. What does the right-wing have, wall-street journal? lol

We (I am a conservative, don't know about you guys) don't have much. The media being biased is only half of the problem, the other half are the stupid people that believe the bias news.

quote:

Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
We (I am a conservative, don't know about you guys) don't have much. The media being biased is only half of the problem, the other half are the stupid people that believe the bias news.

Exactly. While we conservatives do not have much, at least we have one outlet. I want to see all the liberal media pay out of their own pockets for everything they want the government to pay for. Maybe then they will think a bit differently.

Exactly! They (liberals) want everything to be paid for them. They want free healthcare, free education and higher educatoin, blah blah blah. They seem to forget about who actually has to pay for all of the "free" services.

BTW, noting personal to anyone.

At one point and time this country will likely have a comprehensive socialized health care system IMO. It'll probably take something like a major flu pandemic/national crisis in order to get it enacted though.

Cut the pork in all departments and this nation probably wouldn't have much trouble at all paying for extra programs.

The liberals all want the government to support programs to help everyone, but those programs are paid for by taxpayer dollars like mine. I want the liberals to pay instead of me if they want them so badly. I prefer to keep my hard earned money in my pocket and not going to someone who just wants a handout provided by the government.

Been reading somewhere about the Federal Income tax actually being illegal. Anyone have any good sources on that one? Something about the 16th Amendment not being properly ratified or something along those lines.

Interesting. I would like to hear more bout this.

Not to mention what is going on in Washington DC. Finally a court has ruled that banning guns is unconstitutional. DUH

Have you noticed that every right that is promised in the constitution is always a MINIMUM right meaning states can always choose to give the people MORE rights than the constitution promises but NEVER less than what the constitution promises? Yet, how come when it comes to guns, the constitution promises that everyone has the right to own firearms and states can choose to LIMIT our rights more than what the constitution says? That doesn't make any sense. It's 100% unconstitutional to have any kind of gun ban or gun registry.

So somehow the right of a convicted felon to pick if he wants crunchy or creamy peanut butter while he's in prison is guaranteed, but the right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms is not. Makes total sense to me, how about for you? lol

That is why I don't live in New York. They have way too strict laws regarding firearms, and I wuvs my guns.

TBH I've never understood how someone could be extremely pro free speech and anti-gun or vice versa for that matter. Limits on either one of those is a bad thing.

Defiantly. If you outlaw things like guns, you lose control of them.

Sorry. I might be derailing this thread.

Another interesting point from Glenn Beck. He talked about how liberals are so against vouchers and giving people a choice as to where to send their children. He was saying how it's ironic that liberals are so for pro-choice when it comes to killing babies but are completely against pro-choice when it comes to educating the ones that are born. And how liberals are so for universal if it's for healthcare but so against universal when it comes to education. So it seems as if education is last in their list of priorities and I think education is key to solving almost all of our social problems. But then again, if you don't have people who are at the bottom of the social-economic barrel like criminals, the libs would probably lose a major source of their votes, lmao.

So true. About the healthcare, I am very against universal healthcare. I don't want to be paying for bums who just live off the system. They need to get their acts together and pay for themselves. If they can't, they need to get jobs. I am all for personal responisbility and taking action for yourself, not looking for someone else to take care of you. That's what socialists do.

quote:

Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:


So true. About the healthcare, I am very against universal healthcare. I don't want to be paying for bums who just live off the system. They need to get their acts together and pay for themselves. If they can't, they need to get jobs. I am all for personal responisbility and taking action for yourself, not looking for someone else to take care of you. That's what socialists do.

This is what I have been talking about. If any liberal, whether a politician or a reporter (TV or newspaper)/opinion writer wants to the government to support caring for everyone, then let them pay out of their pocket and stay out of mine.