Reply With Quote
when is back then? then reagan admin?
Recent headline I got from Yahoo.
"World military spending nears Cold War peak"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050607/...ms_spending_dc
Two questions:
1. What message is the headline trying to convey?
2. What emotions does the article appeal to?
Ponder this quote from the article before you answer "The major determinant of the world trend in military expenditure is the change in the United States."
Now consider that a .99 cent can of campbell soup cost .30 cents back then, and that a $26,000 Ford Mustang Cost $7000 back then and you can see that inflation adjusted the world is spending less than 1/3 of what they spent at the height of the cold war.
Guess this headline wasn't sexy enough "World military spending nears a third of cold war peak"
when is back then? then reagan admin?
article says '87
i was thinking a mustang didnt cost 7K in 87
i could be wrong though
i only have data as of '82 and a mustang was below 5k so i work in an increase maybe the mustang was more like 9k but certainly not close to what it is today.
Might the more telling stat be that currently spending is at 3.9 GDP whereas at the cold war peak it was at 6.0 of GDP.
Speaking of bias, anyone hear a peep out of the network newsies about the Downing Street Memo?
Good call.
And, John Kerry was going to start suggesting impeachment hearings on Monday -- what happened?
The AP/Reuters Headline is one of the last bullets the MSM media has. Hope they enjoy it while it lasts.
Saw one from AP yesterday...:"US confirms: Urine sprayed on Quran"
It was almost breathless in it's delivery. The only things missing were the exclamation points, and the sub le, "See, you asshole right wingers, there WAS Quran abuse! GOTCHA!!"
I mean, it's so pathetic.
What is? The fact that urine was sprayed on the Quran, or the fact that the media had the gall to report it actually happened?I mean, it's so pathetic
thank you, someone with some senseWhat is? The fact that urine was sprayed on the Quran, or the fact that the media had the gall to report it actually happened?
its like if the media ever reports on anything that any conservative might think is bad, theyre liberal, biased and unamerican
Koran Abuse??? give me a ing break!!! those mother ers have it better in gitmo then they did fighting living in ty foxholes with nothing to eat and i'm sure no clean korans.
I gave you a perfect example of bias, don't get distracted.
How about both?What is? The fact that urine was sprayed on the Quran, or the fact that the media had the gall to report it actually happened?
I shat on a Torah today. Somebody call Reuters.
that might offend some
1 god brother
Yes, the media is baised against Bush... but really, can you blame them?
This would also be a good time for me to point out that Bush is just Warren Harding for the dense.
Bush is a disaster even in conservative circles, so It's easy to find fault with Bush. I just hate the fantasy, lies, and bull the media produces. Stick to the facts and Bush looks bad.
WTF does trying to make the comparison between today and the cold war have to do with anything? Especially when the lies in the comparison are laughable at best.
The second the media mentions anything conservative, people think they're being righteous and normal (like the zombie of terry shiavo)
but when they are being non-conservative people's chodes explode because they think the media are going off the deep end.
www.infowars.com
What the does pissing on a Quran have to do with Conservatism or Liberalism?
the name of the thread.
and that generally conservatives think the story is made up by the liberal media to hurt bush.
ignore the first story.
NEOCON- you don't do anyone any favors by thinking everything that hurts bush is biased. Sometimes it's just reporting.
However, you won't see too many stories on how the Muslims are overreacting. If it was a bible being pissed on and christians reacting the same you would see stories about the second coming of the crusades.
"Bias" is not necessarily Conservative or Liberal. Bias can also be pro-war or anti-war, and those positions don't necessarily follow ideological lines.the name of the thread.
no
but an antiwar postion is GENERALLY considered "liberal"
Last edited by mookie2001; 06-08-2005 at 03:15 PM.
It could also just be that this writer is an idiot.
...but then again, the Bush administration didn't include additional war cost in either of its last two yearly published budgets. If we add an additional $200 billion in unbudgeted bi-yearly war cost, the writer may be closer right, especially when you figure in the current attriation in experienced US combat troop levels (it cost a lot to recruit and train and retain troops) and the deterioration of tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters, plance, etc because of the harsh climate in the ME. It costs a lot to keep a war machine going.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
