WCSox

I'm no legal expert, but I'd say that he could likely be charged with multiple counts of fraud. If I were the prosecutor, I wouldn't push for jail time if the kid is in college and has no prior record. A hefty fine and probation should be sufficient. If I were the university, however, I'd consider expelling the kid for committing a felony on university property.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) I think that Bernard Goldberg's assessment of the "liberal media" should carry authoritative weight in this argument. Here's a recognized leader in the world of the "mainstream media": honored, acclaimed, above reproach. And he asserts there is a definite liberal bias...at least in the mainstream outlets. He analyzes it, though, from an interesting perspective. He says that it is not a deliberate, conscious attempt to sway public opinion or slant the news in a left direction. He notes that the top networks, newspapers, etc. hire from the Ivy League mostly, where liberal thought/biases are just a given. They want to hire "the best." BG recommends that CBS, the NY Times, et al. hire solid graduates from, oh, let's say, the University of Nebraska. That alone would open up the assumptions of those who studied in environments given almost entirely to leftist thought. Plus, who's the say that there would be any significant qualitative difference between a graduate of Yale and a graduate of the University of Iowa? In my experience, hard-working students will be successful in the business world, whoever their profs may have been. If there were true diversity of background in journalists, this would be far less of a problem. Academia is overwhelmingly liberal almost everywhere. I worked briefly at Texas A&M, one of the most conservative universities in the nation, and met very few conservatives among the faculty. Hell, one of them actually had socialist propaganda posted all over his research lab. The student body seemed more conservative than some of the other universities I've been at, but the faculty wasn't.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) I think they may have been slanted at one time. Now I just think they're opportunist and lazy. Good point. I think it's a mixture of both.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 05:48 AM) But to tag the likes of the current administration as a dictatorship in the making takes a lot of backbone. Paraphrasing, she said that it takes time to become a full dictatorship but it's better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end. I'd say it's more "paranoia" and "political slant" than "backbone." I'm glad that she retired.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) So, CBS made one incredibly stupid, probably biased move, and they were punished harshly for it. The Swifties were rewarded quite handsomely for their work. The difference, of course, being that the Swifties don't run one of the major media outlets in the country. There was no pretense of objectivity on their part; everyone knew that they were a bunch of right-wing hacks. However, nobody expected that Dan Rather, a supposedly impartial anchorman, would showcase a fake document on 60 Minutes that was obtained from a left-wing hack.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:30 PM) I think you're right in regard to those two incidents, mate, or to point out that they happened and were nasty examples of Incompetent Reporting on the Latter's Part and Editorializing on the Former's. But they don't point out to "Liberal Conspiracy from Within." The Tet Offensive report Killed the Johnson Presidency, after all, and Rather was forced from "Power," so to speak. That said, I can see how Rather may have just been careless and wasn't attempting to be malicious (although Mary Mapes certainly was, given that she was talking to Joe Lockhart about it). But Cronkite is a different story. He's an ardent anti-war liberal who hated Johnson and his intentions definitely were maliclious. He abused his position as an impartial anchorman by flat-out lying to the American people so that he could force a President out of the White House. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) It simply is beyond me how someone could expect that the media should totally ignore all of the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, because there are so many other deaths that we choose to pay attention to as well. It's beyond me as well, because that's not the point that I was trying to convey... What I was trying to say in that statement is that when soldiers go off to war, it's expected that some of them will be lost. It's unfortunate, but it's EXPECTED. However, it wasn't EXPECTED that planes would be flown into the WTC and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, resulting in the death of almost 3,000 innocent civillians. It wasn't EXPECTED that 230,000 innocent people along the Indian Ocean coast would've perished in a tsunami. It wasn't EXPECTED that over 1,400 innocent civillians would be killed as a Category 4 hurricane flooded New Orleans. Bingo! But there's nothing "unexpected" about a soldier being killed in combat. Unlike the previous examples, there's no pretense of innocence. They all have guns! It's a freaking war! So, why are the casualties highlighted on the front page of the NY Times every single freaking day? I'd like to think that the Times is doing their part to honor the lives of these great men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice in defending our country's freedom and values... but I'm not that f***ing stupid. The high frequency, front-page visibility, and overwhelmingly negative tone of these reports make it very clear that the journalists and editors at the Times don't give a rat's ass about the memory of these soldiers. They're using their deaths as an opportunity to further their own selfish political agendas. That's a good point. But there's a fine line between honoring great people because it's the right thing to do and using their greatness for one's own selfish reasons. Unfortunately, the liberal media seems to be more interested in doing the latter.

I'd probably have to say Scalia because of his strict, narrow adherence to the Constitution rather than a broad interpretation. Unfortunately, he's also an arrogant and polarizing figure. I'm hoping that Roberts and Alito will follow Scalia and Rhenquist's narrow interpretation of the Constitution.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) CBS directly presented a case which was given to them by others. Don't forget, the forged documents didn't make up that entire story. They also had another person, Ben Barnes, who testified that he had helped Bush get into and out of the guard in the first place. The documents were also presented to them by others, and they talked to others about it. Specifically, Bill Burkett, who is probably the guy who did the forgeries, gave them to CBS. So it's not like CBS just forged those documents on their own. The documents were forged by someone else and presented as fact, just as the swift boat guys lied repeatedly and had their statemetns treated as fact by many in the media. I never claimed that CBS forged the documents. But the NETWORK directly made the claim to the public via their employees. That's a lot different than allowing some political hacks on one's show to give their account of what happened. The end result is the same, but the role that the media played in the two scenarios is vastly different. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) Um, it was presented first on 60 minutes, not the evening news. My bad. :banghead

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) So, we can't prove Bush didn't finish his guard service. And nobody can prove that he went AWOL either. They can be filed right alongside the books about how the media is creating news to push a liberal political agenda.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) And the networks also looked into Swift Boat. I make no defense of Rather. Instead, I am just trying to point out that as much crap as there was being thrown at Bush about his Guard duty, there was just as much crap about Swift Boat (along with his use of his medals, etc.). The media explored both sides, albeit poorly. I agree with that part. The Swift Boat Veterans were definitely running a smear campaign. But you're wrong here. CBS was directly involved in pushing the falsified documents that lead up to Rathergate. They presented that information on the CBS Evening News, which is supposed to be free of political bias. That's a lot different than simply allowing the Swift Boat Veterans on your show to give THEIR opinion. Unlike Rather, these guys were definitely not operating under the guise of objectivity.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) How about the reward offered to anyone who could prove that they served with Dubya in the guard, and could prove it? No takers. (Link) Yeah, I'll bet there was a HUGE sack of money that was left unclaimed. :rolly So, would those contain credible evidence or just opinion? I wouldn't know because you're being intentionally vague. :rolly I'll take that as a, "No, I don't have evidence."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) Not what I said. Read my post. Most Americans do not see a way to stop a murder - it is easier to pick one person they think caused many deaths. That could be Bush, or Islam, or the Iranian Premier or whomever. That is what I am getting at. Of course we can do things about murder generally, and we have. Murder rates are down nationally, and have been on that trend for a decade or more. American troop deaths have been down significantly since World War II. What's your point?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) No I'm absolutely not - let me be clear there. They didn't check into it nearly enough, and failed in their journalism. But I don't think it was a liberl athing - I think it was "Get this dirty laundry into the news ASAP", and it would have been the same for Kerry. And it was - Swift Boat appeared in the MSM plenty. The Swift Boat and Rathergate situations are not comparable because the Swift Boat Veterans MADE THEIR OWN CASE. Sure, they were on TV, but their argument was being made by them, not the network. O'Reilly has left-wing nutcases like Al Sharpton on his show all of the time, but that doesn't mean that he's promoting their ideas. On the other hand, Dan Rather and CBS were the ones who directly presented the case about Bush's military record.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) If you think that the fake memo is all the evidence, or even the most important evidence, that Dubya skipped out on his national guard duties, then I really don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.. Oh, did you have evidence to prove otherwise? I'm all ears...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) How does the fact that it was organized by a "Grassroots organization" (which oddly enough was funded by the same grassroots folks that funded Bush's anti-McCain ads in 2000, or even Bush 1's Willie Horton ad in '88) change the fact that they were on the air spouting complete nonsense? Every single network ran stories on the Swifties...their ads got tons of free air time on the Cable networks, and they stayed in the news despite repeated reports which proved unequivocally that they were lying at every turn. CBS got what it deserved for running those documents. Rather is out of a job, their network took a ton of disgrace, etc. Yet all of the networks which ran the swift boat pieces got George W. Bush in the White House. The Swift Boat story campaign was presented as an opinion and it was obviously a very partisan one. Anybody with two functioning brain cells knew that their motives were political. On the other hand, Rather is supposed to be an objective anchorman. His job is to read the news, not offer commentary or opinion. He presented what was supposed to be an official military document (a FACT, not an opinion) to the American people that was later shown to be unathentic. I agree that what the Swift Boat Veterans did was low and I think that it actually hurt Bush more than it helped him. But the way they presented their case and the way that Rather and CBS presented theirs were very different. QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) The Swift Boat nonsense was treated as actual news, however. No, it wasn't. It was a bunch of old war veterans who thought that Kerry didn't deserve some of his medals. It was an obvious smear campaign.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) I addressed all your points in an earlier post, except this one above. I disagree with you there as well. Murder is not "beyond our country's control." That's why we have the police and the FBI. The news media isn't interested in removing crime from our inner-city streets. They're interested in embarrassing the Bush administration and putting liberals in positions of political power. The letter was the most important piece of evidence and it was determined to be not authentic by multiple experts. The document, supposedly written on a typewriter in the '70s, was determined to have been written on a computer with Microsoft Word! And Dan Rather happily declined to attempt to authenticate the document before reading it on the air to tens of millions of registered voters. No time for the truth, there's an election coming up soon! The Swift Boat campaign was indeed nonsense. The obvious difference was that it was organized by a grassroots organization and not a major media outlet. On the other hand, Mary Mapes' unathentic documents were presented on air by Dan Rather of CBS News. There's bias everywhere, the the MEDIA bias in this case was definitely on the liberal side.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) You didn't answer the question. How is reporting combat deaths of thousands of American troops not news? The deaths of our troops in Iraq is no more news-worthy than the deaths of the hundreds of people in our nation's poor neighborhoods. Why don't the major media outlets report that? Why aren't they reporting the deaths of homeless people from starvation and drug addiction? Here's why: There's no political gain in doing so! OK, how about Dan Rather's fake story about Bush's military service record, conveniently aired right before the '04 election? Is that current enough for you? QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury? Because that news won't get a liberal into the White House!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) I don't see how you can consider the reporting of a soldier's death a liberal saturation of the news. It would be reported regardless of who was in office, guaranteed. Most liberal media outlets are anti-war and anti-military. Most of the major ones in this country are also anti-Bush. Walter Cronkite going on the 6:00 news and flat-out lying to millions of Americans about what happened during the Tet Offensive tells you all you need to know about liberal media bias during a time of war.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) Sorry for the piling on, but, what you would like to see reported from Iraq? How is it not news whan US Servicemen and Servicewomen die in a military action? So, when news media with blatantly-liberal columnists/reporters saturate their papers/newscasts with these stories day after day after day, they're only reporting the news and are not at all attempting to dictate policy?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) So let's see, thus far in this thread, you've said that the reason the media should have reported on 9/11 was that the hijackers weren't wearing military uniforms, but that it's ok to not report on things in Iraq because despite the fact that they aren't wearing military uniforms, the war in Iraq is a war while the war against Al Qaeda is not. Again, you're missing my point. When American soldiers invaded Iraq, one had to assume that there would be at least some casualties. Said soldiers were wearing American military uniforms (i.e., the invasion was an act of war, rather than an act of terrorism. When passengers at Logan boarded their planes and people went to work at the WTC on the morning of September 11, 2001, there was no reason to expect that almost 3,000 people would be killed. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) Not so mind-boggling, since we get to torture 'em if we call 'em terrorists. :rolly But we can only torture them if they operate outside of the guidelines of war. :rolly

At times, I've been able to drive across the Windsor/Detroit bridge without presenting any ID. At other times, I've had to present my ID and to sit and wait while they searched my car. Definitely bring your driver's licenses. DO NOT bring photocopies of your birth certificates, as that may cause suspicion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) I don't recall many of the suicide bombers in Iraq wearing uniforms either...and you just said/agreed with statements that the liberal media is only reporting on suicide bombings in Iraq because they want to hurt Bush, and then said specifically that you feel the media shouldn't be reporting on those things because they're a war. So which is it...should the media not report things going on in Iraq because it's a war, or should they report on them because they're not wearing uniforms when their cars explode? When someone gets on a plane, nobody expects terrorists to take over the cockpit and fly it into a skyscraper. That's news. When American soldiers invade another country, one expects that they'll meet resistance in one form or another and that they'll incur casualties. Daily front-page news stories that include a tally of soldiers lost mainly serves political purpose. You mean that soldiers are being killed in a war? No way! Is that clear enough?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) Personally, I read that one more as saying that the Liberal Media shouldn't have reported on 9/11 because it was a war and the media shouldn't care about casualties in a war, but I guess it's open for interpretation. Funny, I don't recall the hijackers wearing military uniforms. :rolly After all that's happened, it's mind-boggling that some people still can't distinguish between soldiers and terrorists.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) So liberal media has been bashing Islam forever. Conservatives started after 9/11? When did I ever say that? My feeling is that conservatives have been (justifiably) bashing Islamic extremists since the '70s.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Well, since thus far the only opinion that's been raised here regarding the media is that it's the liberal media covering things like bombings and riots which has led to this decline of trust in Islam...let me just say that there are others out there who might have had a hand in causing people to dislike Islam through their words. Radio Host Jay Severin: "I think the only meaningful gesture we might make to them in that regard would be to cut off our own heads right now as a gesture of good faith. Maybe, they would regard that as an act of friendship." Ann Coulter: "If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?....Or is NATO -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved?" Catholic League President W. Donahue on Scarborough Country: " Now, in this country, we are civilized. We don't appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they take the uncivilized approach. And then they wonder why so many people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it. In this country, we prize freedom of religion. They abhor it." Coulter again: "But apparently the Koran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Koran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it. [...] Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this. " Oliver North: "And it shows that the words 'Islamic moderates' are -- that's an oxymoron. There is no such thing as an 'Islamic moderate,' or they would be out ordering calm and talking about the consequences of government censorship, which, of course, is what you're going to have under the caliphate if the so-called extremists have their way." Pat Robertson: "Don't you feel it rather interesting that every time you have a story about terrorism, it is linked to Muslim extremists? You don't hear somebody, "Christian extremist killing film producers, Christian extremists blowing up trains." It just doesn't happen. But it's Muslim extremists and, ladies and gentlemen, Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence. It's there in the Quran in clear, bold statements. Well over 100 verses dealing with violence against infidels, and that is what they're taught. " Franklin Graham: "In Islam, there is a lot that I have serious questions about, but the god that I worship doesn't require me to strap a bomb on myself and go blow up innocent people to prove to God that I love him and that is the way I can have salvation. Jesus Christ died for me. I don't have to die for him. God gave his son for me. I don't have to go give my life or take other people's lives to please God." And those are just a small selection from the last year. There are many more statements flying through the media like those, calling Islam violent, evil, bashing them for the cartoons, bombings, etc. Now whether or not you agree with those sentiments is not the point...the point I want to make is that there's many reasons from the "Conservative media" that would also make this country more suspicious of Islam in general. Interestingly, those articles didn't appear until 19 "Muslims" hijacked three planes and killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans in September of 2001. I wonder how Israeli journalists approach this subject? BTW, the "jihad monkey" comment is classic.