First, to Sebby:

I have several times in this forum declared that I would not be voting for Bush unless Al Qaeda tries to pull a Spanish Dhimmitude on us by engaging in a mass domestic attack just prior to the US election.  The reaons I have given are that I am a social liberal, a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy realist, while I see Bush as also a foreign policy realist, but his socially conservative and fiscally irresponsible positions are politically unacceptable to me.  Hardly agreeing with Bush on everything; in fact, only agreeing with him on one thing, the necessity to proactively pursue the war on terrorists.

Rhino: Your position seems to be approaching the one that the execrable Hermit formerly proposed; to morph this site from one in which these issues can be fairly and honestly debated into just another anti-Bush hate site like Smirking Chimp.  This would, of course, mean that the CoV would devolve from a forum that studies memes into just another memetically infected site.  Is this what you truly desire?  If so, why?  And why should even the assertion here of a differing position to be met, not with reasoned debate, but with censure?  Is it because Jonathan is correct, and the opposition to such a position is logically, evidentially and intellectually bankrupt, and motivated solely by a surfeit of irrational emotion, and furthermore, becomes incensed when this inconvenient fact is pointed out?
And I post other things besides politics here for the same reason that I post politics, and for the same reason, I suspect, that you also post both politics and other things; a judgment that they are interesting and informative.  Of course, some people would prefer (to the point of major upset) that other people, or even themselves, not be made aware of some of the information that I reference, when that information clashes with their ideologically-driven memetic filters; this fact says more about them than it says about the references I post.

As far as Carlita goes, the liberal press is no myth.  Once again, an extreme, rather than mainstream, source is quoted (Robert Parry of Consortium News) to 'prove' such an assertion.  Of course, for extremists, all other positions must be seen as extreme themselves, and motivated by stupidity, ignorance, or malevolence, as a self-concept-preserving memetic necessity.
I, not being extreme, prefer to reference a mainstream source such as the prestigious Pew Research Center survey, quoted in the admittedly liberal Editor & Publisher:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets
By E&P Staff

Published: May 23, 2004 4:00 PM EST
NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E&P summary will appear Monday).

While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.

The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way.

When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News "especially conservative." Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled "especially liberal."

Not surprisingly, views of how the press has treated President Bush break down along partisan lines. More than two out of three liberals feel the press has not been tough enough on Bush, while half the conservatives feel the media has been too tough.

Still, a little over half of national journalists (53%) give national media coverage of the administration an A or B rating.

While the sample of 547 interviewees is not large, Pew says that this selection represents "a cross-section of news organizations and of the people working at all levels of those organizations." Newspapers were identified and circulation ranked using the 2003 Editor & Publisher International Year Book.

In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong "libertarian" leanings among journalists, including doubts about the role of "big government."
As to the typically Hermitian epithets and those of his Irvkenian minion, nothing need be said.  They reveal their authors' character - or lack of same - so clearly that any explication by me would be redundant.

Of course such people will blame all the murdered in Iraq not upon their murderer Saddam, but upon the US, the UN, Bush, anyone but the actual Pol-Pot-ranked despot who perpetrated them, in keeping with their principle that if the US does something bad, it is actually much, much worse, while if someone else does something bad, it is actually the US that did it, the same biased and hatred-based nonlogic that also occurs with tinfoil-hat moonbat conspiracy theories that the US perpetrated 9/11, ragardless of Bin Ladin's videotaped admission, and that the madly prancing, Allahu-Ackbar ululating band that haggled through Nick bergs necs were US black ops.

These people will also see the US as destroying the credibility of the UN, rather than the fact that this has been done by the narrowly self-interested and oil-contract-bought votes of France and Germany, and the Oil-for-Food kickback bribery of high UN officials.  In fact, by enforcing the UN resolutions in Iraq, the US has maintained that organization's global credibility in spite of itself.

As to the Palestinians, Arafat is the person whom eveb Clinton blamed for the collapse of talks, when he was offered practically everything he asked for, and still refused.  It is interesting to note that, when Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held the gaza strip, this fact did not prevent genocidal war from being waged against Israel, nor were the palestinians asking for their own country then.  Since the surrounding Muslim countries could not defeat Israeli soldiers from the outside in a military conquest, they have opted for an internal insurgency, cynically using the Palestinians as brainwashed suicide-bombing pawns to attack Israeli civilians from the inside, in a guerilla jihad insurgency.  However, the splodeydope attacks are diminishing as a result of the decapitation of the Palestinian terror networks and the quarantining of the memetically miasmic swamps from which such shaheeds issue.

I also note the convenient omission of the hermitic and metahuman/demon posts to which my replys posted were responses, but the infamous 'slimed screen' post is all too sadly typical of them, and of the total lack whatsoever of any standards or decorum in the part of their authors.