As a matter of fact I am proud of myself, my country my Army, and my president. That has not changed since I swore an oath to protect and defend my country (and your right to say whatever you want) 14 years ago. You see it does not matter to me who is in the white house, I respect the office of the presidency and always render the proper courtesies due. Don't believe the left wing rant that the we (the military) don't have enough to do our jobs, we do. And please don't disparage the president and the congress by saying they short changed our pay, they have not. I am paid very well and make a good living. We have had more pay raises (as a %) under this admisistration than in the previous 10 years.

Except that I can point to a reliable source that backs my viewpoint. I doubt that Art can do the same.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Here are the only two facts I know

1.Bush had daddy get him in the gaurd and he then learned to fly and rode the system.

2. Kerry was a typical officer and puffed up his medal count and used it to get home.



All that really matters is they are both political leeches and their defenders make me laugh.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Are you referring to Russert? Give me a break. He grew up with a politically active Democratic family and was chief of staff to both Cumo and Moynihan. You really can't get better Democratic credentials than Russert's.

I agree that 90 plus percent of the time his obvious political leanings don't much affect his work. He is a pro.

He does fall off the wagon at times. His interview of Hillary Clinton a while back was pathetic. Everyone has an off day though, so it is tough to complain much.

If the rest of the MSM took its cue from Russert, you wouldn't hear whining about bias, and their ratings would be much better. I grant he is not a total, unabashed liberal, so you won't see him in the anchor chair for the nightly news ever. It is hard to think of a better man for the job though.

And please don't disparage the president and the congress by saying they short changed our pay, they have not. I am paid very well and make a good living. We have had more pay raises (as a %) under this admisistration than in the previous 10 years.


FYI,

the higher pay raises under the BushAdministraion are due to the "FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act" that was signed by Clinton, and the previous years wages were capped by a law that was signed by Bush I

http://www.defenselink.mil/.../04_annualraise.html

Annual military pay raises are linked to the increase in private sector wages. Beginning with the January 1, 2000 pay raise, annual pay raises through 2006 were to be one-half percent above private-sector average increases as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This is an important change. Since passage of a 1990 law, the annual military pay raise was capped at one-half percent below private-sector growth unless specifically granted a larger increase by Congress. The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act directed that pay raises for 2000 through 2006 will automatically be one-half percent above the private-sector wage increases. Pay raises may exceed these automatic levels if authorized and funded by Congress.

Here is your chance to put your $$ where your mouth is. If you have an example contact Neal Boortz and he will pay you. Remember, not opinion but actual news reporting.



http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Is it bias for one or more news anchors to repeat incorrect information (over and over) that originates from conservatives? For example, stating that the Florida neurologist is "Nobel prize-nominated"? Contrast that with Dan Rather repeating the apparently-incorrect story about those Bush memos (which is held high to proclaim the left-leaning bias of CBS).

Does Fox do any actual news reporting? It's so hard to tell...



(Edit: how about this from mediamatters:

Following a March 8 pro-Syrian demonstration in Beirut, Lebanon, organized by the Islamic militant group Hezbollah, media figures downplayed the rally's significance in order to suggest that the Lebanese people uniformly oppose Syrian influence in Lebanon and favor Western-style democracy. In fact, the pro-Syrian demonstration was far larger than recent anti-Syrian rallies, and far from demonstrating unity, the rally offered clear evidence that "Lebanon's political and sectarian fault lines have re-emerged," as The New York Times wrote.

On the March 8 edition of Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson, chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron falsely reported that while the protest was "huge," it was "much smaller than any of the anti-Syrian demonstrations that have taken place in recent days." Later in the same program, host John Gibson similarly downplayed the demonstration's size: "t's a lot of people but isn't a huge number." In fact, The New York Times reported on March 9 that the protest "was far larger than the anti-Syrian demonstrations of recent weeks that have drawn broad international support." On March 10, the Times described the scene as "one of the biggest demonstrations of recent Lebanese history."



Or is John Gibson not someone who reports "actual news"?)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

So, as the story was breaking on the 24/7 news stations, the early reports had the relative proportions off. Later reports had the story more accurately.

This is something unusual?

Do you really think Gibson was sitting there with correct numbers, but he decided it didn't sound right so he lied?

Early reports are always wrong. Good grief.