for YEARS on end,

done all they can to slant the news to the left. And any person who does not see that, if they have PAID ATTENTION to the news for decades, is simply a self deluded left wing thinker.

OF COURSE Dan Rather has slanted the news. I once saw an interview with this clown... in which he claimed that he had never engaged in any left slanting, and that he never KNEW of any leftward slanting. I almost fell out of my chair LAUGHING at his face. You... MUST be kidding.

Dan Rather has been a staple of the Left's media diet for years. He personifies everything that a leftleaning journalist is, and was, and HAS BECOME. He's OBVIOUSLY biased. It's not an occasional thing with him-- he is biased now; he was biased 30 years ago; he was biased ten years ago. He's been biased all along. The man exudes the sentiments of the political left.

And I am not saying that this is a crime.

But PLEASE don't tell me he has been fair and balanced. I read Al Franken's book at the library. This guy is despicable. He's profane to the point of obscenity, erudite only to the point of obnoxious audacity, pompous to the point of incredulity. His entire points on the environment were summed up in one chapter about pig shit lagoons, which to me was his finest hour. The rest of the book was a slam on his hated nemesis Blonde of the Right Anne Coulter, and a diatribe against Rush Limbaugh. Now certainly Limbaugh just stuck his foot in his mouth better than any journalist has in years with his comments on a Philadelphia quarterback, but he has a following, and he's sometimes right on the money. I don't particulary care for him, as I think his high school education shows in what he says sometimes.

Nevertheless, Franken's book is a savage assault.

And you can bet Dan Rather agrees with every chapter.

If there was EVER, in modern history of America, one well known news host that obviously slanted news to the left, it has been DAN RATHER.

And if you already hate anything the right has to say, Dan is your man. You won't have to investigate ANYTHING he says. Just tune in and tune out. All your paradigms will be fullfilled. He's got the answers you are seeking; think no more!

But what he said was UNCALLED FOR, and I thought it was simplistic, over reaching, dull, and un-needed in scope. We have like 7 different NFL quarterbacks who are black, and to say that the MEDIA is in some weird conspiracy to sponsor them, or to decrease critique of those black quaterbacks who are not doing as well....is just LUNACY.

Indeed, the Philadelphia airwaves are chock FULL of lambasts against their quarterback, and few among them are racial in nature. That guy is simply JUST above average as quarterback. He is nowhere NEAR a ranking that can take that team to the play offs. NOW, sure enough, those stats ALONE would get him lambasted in the airwaves,

but to have Rush Limbaugh come in and say that it is a media conspiracy?

Rush needs to have his head examined if he thinks that.

The NFL is WAY too competitive to cut some lousy quarterback some slack because he is black.

And yes there ARE 'liberal attempts to classify opinions that they don not like as hate speech'....

that race baiting game has certainly been done.

General Clark is not going to win the democratic nomination, and he is not going to win the election. The election will be Dean, Lieberman, Edwards or Miss Clinton... against Ex Texas Governor and President Elect G. W. Bush.

And I predict it will be ANOTHER close one.

I also agree that there is a far ultra left agenda that would LOVE to say that free speech which they do not agree with constitutes a phsyical assualt; these bozos would like to say that some bozo who spray paints a swastika on a mailbox should go to a Supermax, and still have the audacity to question jury make up on a crime where the victim is caucasion and the accused perp is black.

The double standards of the poltical left are STAGGERING to comprehend.

I agree with that statement. It's readily apparent.

Rather's words:

"A reminder that television sometimes has trouble with perspective, so you may want to note that in some areas of Iraq, things are peaceful."

Rather said SOME areas. YOU quantified the areas with a GUESS. Neither you or Dan Rather possess an accurate measurement of the level of peace Iraq has.

However, I would say Rather knows more about Iraq than you do. I would also say there are SOME areas that are peaceful in Iraq.

If Iraq were totally secure and tranquil, MOST of our boys and girls would be home by now, if we go with your faulty logic.

Now get to that recruiter's office boy! BTW, the copy and paste of that letter below was done months ago on this board. I can't recall if it were by you or your other handles - CQB, hard69rock, etc. I'm surprised others didn't notice it before.