Long ago I quit letting this board get to me. Dale told me once on the phone that at points he had to stop because it was affecting him too much. Much of what I say I really believe. I would say about 85% of it.

Hhmmm...on the Dale part I don't know what to say. Dale is a good guy but I never got the sense he was really in the same ball park as you. I think Dale took an unfair beating here at one point and understandably that bothered him. I think he might feel some folks here are a bit on the hysterical side based on some of his posts and he likes giving them a poke with a sharp stick just to see them squirm. I also think he's given up on communicating in any sort of rational way due to all that and just sticks his head in once and a while to yell fire and see what happens. I think the thing is before Dale was pushed to that point he was a reasonable and rational voice here...ahh...whereas if you really believe 85% of the stuff you toss out in here...um...well...you make even Kent seem down to earth. Doesn't make you a bad person...just a bit of a nut is all. You're not alone but you're not part of the majority you think exists either. It's just that a lot of nuts have a good deal of money and one hell of a platform to get heard at the moment.

I guess I'm a nut that is informed on a lot of things that what I would call moderates are not. They either don't care or are just to busy to put it all together. Bill Orielly has basically put it together in his book Culture Warrior which I will be throwing tidbits up on this site over the next month or so. And for the record you may be an eloguent writer but I still consider you a left wing kook.

Maybe I'm wrong but from my seat I see a world that is not willing to stand up against terrorism. Hell they barely denounce it. I'm just wondering at which point their threshold of pain is where they say "Enough".

Well, the thing is, Pat, when it's so apparent how wrong and radically off course our country is at the moment in its approach to "terror" there will be backlash and perhaps attempts to overcompensate for the stupidity we've unleashed. Sadly though it has been the Bush administration's doing in terms of creating a world where irrational response is the norm rather than the exception. Basically Bushco has done all it can to make fighting "terrorism" more difficult and the worldwide response confirms that.  
Well for the record up to this point we have not had another attack here. Reg we have not even begun to play hardball yet.
That will begin when the Democrats come into power and start putting the U.S. safety into the hands of the U.N. When the Republicans take over the 2nd time we won't be talking about the PC crap that is on the news today. America will be attacked again and when we do the roles will change forever.

Reg for one minute I would like you to  see it from a Conservative standpoint. Take a step back and:
1. Look at the newspaper coverage
a. Look at the stories they cover
b. Look at the stories they don't cover
c. Look at the slant that they take on stories.

2. Watch the Evening News on NBC, CBS, ABC
a. Look at the stories they cover
b. Look at the stories they don't cover
c. Look at the slant that they take on stories.

I'll openly admit the vast majority of my news intake comes from the print media and not television. When I do catch news on tv it's mostly CNN because I can turn that on and it's all news all the time. The nightly news very often does not line up with my personal schedule so it's a very rare thing for me to see anything on any of the major networks. The thing to me about tv news is it all has to be so compressed and dressed up for entertainment purposes it really only seems good for getting an idea of what may be happening so you can follow up elsewhere to get more of the story. I think if that's your only news intake then you are left in the dark as to what's going on in the world.

The print media is probably more blatant than the 3 big networks. This is because they for the most part take their lead from the New York Times which tilts left which is no suprise because most if not all of the writers there swing way left.
The 3 networks ABC,NBC and CBS are a lot more subtle and for someone not looking for it might not notice. I remember telling a friend of mine who was not politically savy if he noticed it and he said no. I said listen to Rush for a week and then listen to the evening news and tell me if you notice a slant. He had never heard of Rush and about 2 or 3 months later he said he saw things in a different light. I will tell you his slant was right to begin with but he had no idea what was going and now he does.

3. Look at the talk shows
a. Oprah Winfry
b. David Letterman
c. Jay Leno

Why should I care about the talk shows? Personally I can't stand them and if I'm up at that hour of the night Leno and or Letterman are not on my radar. I don't even know when or where to find Oprah on the tv and I can't think of a good reason to take the time to look. I could probably be accused of being out of touch with pop culture beyond 1980 and I'd have little to defend myself...but is that really important?
Why should you care about those shows? I'll tell you why. Have you ever seen someone right winger go on one of those show? I have and I will tell you when the barbs come from the host and you hear whoops and hollars from the crowd. I see that we have a stacked deck there. 

Now on Cable look at MSNBC and CNN. Can you name the journalist that slant left? I can

I never watch MSNBC but Keith Olbermann seems to be getting pretty interesting and I guess because he's very critical of Bushco you'd call him a lefty. I do want to check out his show I just have no idea when it's on.  
Funny that you would say you guess he might be called a lefty. That would be like me saying I guess you would call Rush a right winger

His comical over eagerness to bomb all things that are not white and Christian to prevent the spread of terrorism.
Be specific here Reg. You lost me

Well, Iraq for starters but in general you seem to lean toward the idea that we're just not taking "terrorism" seriously unless we're bombing somebody.
Hey Reg I don't support blind bombing in fact how often are we bombing at all. We have troops on the ground over there. They are the ones taking the hits. I do support the gradual withdrawal of troops hoping that we can weed out Iran's injection of paid terrorist in Iraq and setup 3 separate states for Iraq. One for the Sunnei, Shea and Kurds

Case in point Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01 nor was the Saddam regime involved with Osama or Al Qaeda but you supported attacking them.
Attacking them meant taking out Sedaam and his cohorts not attacking innocent civilians.

 Iraq posed no threat to the United States and they had made no aggressive action toward us and demonstrated no ability to even be a threat to their neighbors but we declared war on them anyway  and you felt that was just fine.
And Congress signed over this War Declaration? I do believe Sadaam and Co had ignored U.N. resolutions for years which ultimately brought this on.

 You seem to support bombing Iran, North Korea, and anywhere else Bushco says there are brown skinned folks that "hate America" which I guess is code for Christian "values."
Um Reg you are just being annoying and inflammatory here.

I know I was over the top in my post but that's pretty much where I was going.
----------------------------------------------------

You talking abortion here Reg? You may be confusing me with Kevin G.

You also have played the abortion card here. Are you backing off of that now that it's out Bushco thinks Christians are a joke?
Not often have I played that card.

My big question for you at the moment is what do you think of David Kuo and his book? Just another former Bushco employee gone bad with a book to sell?
Right now I'm reading Culture Warrior. You might take a look at that one