When Clinton was in office oil was around $10.00 a barrel, and when he left office it was over $30.00 a barrel. Does not seem like much now but that was big deal at the time.

For more than seven years under Bush, the man who “stole” the election and is openly despised by the left, we had “the greatest story never told”* by our great left wing media. Unemployment was the lowest in the history of the Republic, but many Americans were not participating. Why? Our great left wing monolithic education system was not educating our students for the technological revolution we were in.

Of course the left cannot say that because our monolithic education system is controlled by the UNION. The union, whose job it is to protect and serve teachers and not the students, set the Marxist agenda.

If conservatives, whether Republican or Democrat, want to take back the country first you must take back the education system.

* “the greatest story never told” a line often used by Larry Kudlow, one of America’s great economists, and TV business show hosts.

Having mainstream news papers, magazines etc. admitting bias in a crucial election is an admission of betrayal to the country, and citizens that support and depend on them.

Those gullible enough to have taken them seriously through this election have just been publicly made the fool and should be busy lashing out over at their playgrounds, I believe WaPo has a comment section. Shall we call it an outlet for the misled? Something obviously, hasn’t sunk in to these poor little suckers yet. sigh.

It’s just a fact that we need to consider. Perhaps they should be on the Lepers list:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/erick/2008/nov/05/operation-leper/

I never read something as stupid as the article you have linked in your last comment. What a waist of time reading this stupidity. I will remember your name and never again will I read one of your idiot’s links.

WSJ– But over the next decade and a half all that changed. Magazines like the Public Interest and Commentary became required reading for anyone seriously concerned about domestic and foreign affairs; conservative research institutes sprang up in Washington and on college campuses, giving a fresh perspective on public policy. Buckley, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Peter Berger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Norman Podhoretz — agree or disagree with their views, these were people one had to take seriously.

Coming of age politically in the grim ’70s, when liberalism seemed utterly exhausted, I still remember the thrill of coming upon their writings for the first time. I discovered the Public Interest the same week that Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, and its pages offered shelter from the storm — from the mobs on the street, the radical posing of my professors and fellow students, the cluelessness of limousine liberals, the whole mad circus of post-’60s politics. Conservative politics mattered less to me than the sober comportment of conservative intellectuals at that time; I admired their maturity and seriousness, their historical perspective, their sense of proportion. In a country susceptible to political hucksters and demagogues, they studied the passions of democratic life without succumbing to them. They were unapologetic elites, but elites who loved democracy and wanted to help it.

So what happened? […Read on…}
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html

VOTERS END LABOUR’S RULE IN NEW ZEALAND

After a week in which the world’s focus was on political change in America, New Zealanders have voted for their first conservative government in almost a decade, ending the tenure of one of the world’s longest-serving elected female leaders.

… In their hundreds and thousands across the country they have voted for change, Key told supporters in Auckland. ‘Today New Zealanders have voted for action, for a safer, more prosperous and more ambitious New Zealand.’ Record numbers of people voted in the election, which polls had predicted would spell the end of Labour’s nine-year rule.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/09/new-zealand-labour-helen-clark

I think I’ve given you more than is due, Mata.

And considerably more than I care about, Sam. Here’s hoping your local gig attendees are more interested.

Still engaging in first grade taunts, Craig?
Very witty.

It’s the Starbucks energy drink.
And, Mata, thanks for indirectly agreeing with me.

Dreams unwind
Loves a state of mind
Dreams unwind
Loves a state of mind
-Stevie Nicks

Hope his music is better than his analysis…

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need
- Mick Jagger and Keith Richard

or

Well, I think Ill go turn myself off,
And go on down
All the way down
Really aint no use in me hanging around
In your kinda scene
-Jimi Hwendrix

Philip said: And again, you misread her article to claim that the 66% and 53% are based on stories from the Post.
They are not.

Howell said she considered it “comparable” to the media studies finding bias in the media. But as you want to take her remarks from her one linked article, and not her comments from the Annenberg quotes from her, and her previous August column on the same subject saying Obama had a 3 to 1 advantage over McCain… well… what can I say but parrot Dylan’s words back to you…. “It’s not my problem”.

Philips said: And again, you confuse the Op-Ed pages with the the front page.

No… your comprehension is confused. The op-ed pages have “tilt”. News stories are not supposed to. However the volume, plus placement, of the supposed “news” stories involve a “tilt” all on their own.

And the fact that the WaPo gave 3 to 1 front page placement to Obama over McCain is yet another sign of Howell’s admitted bias… which was not only the subject of this post, but a fact you agree to. In fact, you say the admittance of media bias is johnny-come-lately.

This is all you get from WaPo… and all you do is defend it as *not* admitting bias… bias that is clearly present in:

1: supposed “non-tilted” news priority 3 to 1 favoring McCain in placement, plus majority of stories covering Obama

combined with

2: a deplorable and overly overt bias in the op-ed pages.

I confuse nothing, but to consider you worthy of responding to. But, ya know… I’m a quick study, if not a patient tolerant type. The former revelation was evident to me a couple of responses back. And the latter? You’ve run out of credit there.

You urge me to read Mrs. Howell’s article.
I take the information from Mrs. Howell, draw out the percentages and you respond with
“or perhaps to demonstrate your cut/paste prowess. ”

And again, you misread her article to claim that the 66% and 53% are based on stories from the Post.
They are not.

And again, you confuse the Op-Ed pages with the the front page.

God bless.
PhillipMarlowe

Here he comes, he’s all dressed in black
PR shoes and a big straw hat
He’s never early, he’s always late
First thing you learn is you always gotta wait
I’m waiting for my man
-Lou Reed

PS. Gas was $1.00 when Bush was elected. It rose to a high of near $4.00.
It is now back to $2.30

PPS:
“since they believe you are incapable of doing it yourself. And ya know, they just may be on to something.”
As witnessed by this exchange, I beat you. Is that projection on your part?