Sit down for those of you that can't handle the truth.

[Scoobnfl]

The president declared victory over a year ago, but terrorists continue to pick off U.S. troops and even American civilians at the rate of three per day.

The maniacal dictator may be long gone, but his hard-core followers continue to wreak havoc across the land, with the interim government seemingly powerless to stop the mayhem.

Back home, the press takes an increasingly pessimistic tone, with some of the most prominent news organs pronouncing the U.S.'s postwar strategy an abject failure.

Does this sound familiar?























It should it's from LIFE magazine and is from 1945.

Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945

The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.

This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers form the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15. "We have been talking since the summer about the trouble that we expect this winter," the source said. "That trouble has now begun and we meet it with a plan to withdraw officers from communities where trouble is already being encountered.

"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945

Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration. Government failures were attributed in part to public apathy. The predictions of a coming crisis are predicated upon three points:

1) The failure to start training a civilian corps of administrators to take over when the Army's Military Government pulls out of Germany by June 1.

2) The failure of the Government to set up an expert advisory group, such as that which existed in the Foreign Economic Administration's Enemy Branch to back up the American administrators of Germany with informed advice and provide a focal point in Washington for policy-making on the German question.

3) The failure of the Allies to decide together, or the United States for itself, the crucial economic question raised by the Potsdam Declaration; namely what level of German economic activity is desired over the long term?

"Germans Declare Americans Hated," December 3, 1945

An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently.

Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment.

"German Election Set In Towns of U.S. Zone," December 19, 1945

United States Seventh Army headquarters announced today that plans had been completed for initial German elections in January at Gemuende. A statement said that a vast majority of Germans remained passive in attitude toward politics and displayed no disposition to take over civic responsibilities.

All of these were headlines from the NY Times post WWII.

Notice how bleak a picture they were painting then, compared to the same bleak picture they're painting now. It should also be noted we are still in Germany 59 years after the end of WWII.

Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait, not assuming 2005 Iraq will be identical to 1945 Germany is 'distortion of facts'?

What facts? Your post is based purely on the assumption that the War in Iraq will happen in the the exact same way WW2 did.

WW2: Post-emptive, directed against a superpower with a strong army and allies.
Iraq: Pre-emptive, directed against a weak-ass country with no real army and, later, a shiteload of guerilla warfare and terrorism.

No difference there. I guess we'll be nuking japan again too.

 

[Hapless]

The president declared victory over a year ago, but terrorists continue to pick off U.S. troops and even American civilians at the rate of three per day.

The maniacal dictator may be long gone, but his hard-core followers continue to wreak havoc across the land, with the interim government seemingly powerless to stop the mayhem.

Back home, the press takes an increasingly pessimistic tone, with some of the most prominent news organs pronouncing the U.S.'s postwar strategy an abject failure.

Does this sound familiar?























It should it's from LIFE magazine and is from 1945.












All of these were headlines from the NY Times post WWII.

Notice how bleak a picture they were painting then, compared to the same bleak picture they're painting now. It should also be noted we are still in Germany 59 years after the end of WWII.

Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts.

That has no basis in fact, and I'm sure CptStern and Mech (God, I love those guys) will be here shortly to set you straight. The only people who distort facts are right-wing conservatives. The hypocrisy in this post is repugnant. You can't compare something that happened in 1945 to something that is happening today. There are no similarities.

Edit: I warned you.

 

[Mr.Awesome]

the only people that distort the facts blah blah blah.. is everybody

 

[oberGeist]

the war in Iraq is nothing compared to WWII.
man you should consider learning some more of the latest history...


lol
this thread is going to be fun

/me opens a bag of popcorn

 

[SupremePain]

smoking crack and then posting on the hl2.net forums is bad, m'kay?

 

[kirovman]

It's the Mongol conquests all over again...
Ghengis Khan is ready to slaughter Baghdad! (Formerly the City of Babylon?)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

It's fun to imagine 'soobnfl' as an irate Jack Nicholson.

 

[Mr.Awesome]

if humankind could handle the truth there would be no conspiracy, no drama.

 

[oberGeist]

Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

I love that movie :thumbs:

 

[Hapless]

Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Right on, man. That was awesome!! The way you posted a movie line in support of your point......brilliant! Brings a tear to my eye.

 

[oberGeist]

if humankind could handle the truth there would be no conspiracy, no drama.

for that we should all be equal - no religious, economical, cultural differences.

impossible

there's always only one truth, but it's not necessarily good for everyone.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Right on, man. That was awesome!! The way you posted a movie line in support of your point......brilliant! Brings a tear to my eye.

First, scoobnfl asked if what he said sounded familiar.
It did sound familiar, and comically so, as my post pointed out.

Second, bite me. I thought you'd at least have the tact to leave that annoying act in the other thread.

 

[Gray Fox]

Scoobnfl, give us the link so we can see that this is from LIFE magazine.

And second:

Notice how bleak a picture they were painting then, compared to the same bleak picture they're painting now. It should also be noted we are still in Germany 59 years after the end of WWII.

Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts.

What bias, if if this is a true article by the NY times. Well did you think maybe that they just reported what happend like they are doing now, maybe things didn't look bright then. You have to draw your own conclusions. But lest just imagine that FOX news was then it would have reported that eevrything was positief and there are no resentment against the US, not knowing weather it would turn out good or not. Now wouldn't that be even worse.

Thirdly, like oe poster here said, you just can't compare the two. First, the cultural differances between the US and germany weren't as big as he once in Irak. The language barrioer wasn't big, many germans knew English. Secondly the states around germany supperted the US, you didn't see insurgents from France comming to kill you guys. And the US had allies.

Thirdly, while we are at comparing history to now. Why not draw parralels between what west eurpoe was doing in the 18the and 19th century with colonizing the rest of the world. Now many people then belifed and supeprted the colonization because they think those peopel needed to be converted and they lived primitive and harsh lives that needed improvment and the ywere going to bring them civilization. Secondly once thet powers invaded the country the set up pippet regimes to the work for them and so pretending they weren't occupying the country but just helping the lokal government, secondly the only real reason they were there was to expand their influence and exploit the nations recources at the expense of the lokals, and make them buy western products, that they could easly make themselfes but were not permitted to do like this http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/iraq_seeds.htm

 

[SidewinderX]

It should also be noted we are still in Germany 59 years after the end of WWII.

Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts.

Wait, I'm confused. So you're saying leftwing bias is "doomsaying" the situation... Your point is that the situation isn't as bad as the media is making it out to be. But the situation you're comparing it to is Germany....in which you state, in your post that we're still in, after 59 years... Are you saying that it's a good thing that we're still there, and that we shouldn't worry about Iraq because we'll be there for another 6 decades...... and that's a good thing?!

 

[Kommie]

This message is hidden because Scoobnfl is on your ignore list.

:O :thumbs:

 

[burner69]

I won't say that we shouldn't compare history to today, it has limitations, as mentioned by other crazy liberals who can't handle the truth (above). But I'd like to raise two points:
1) What point are YOU trying to raise here exactly? (Don't mean to sound like a p**ck, I'm honestly not sure) Is it that liberals damage work being done after war? Is it that being pesimistic about war helps no-one? By using the example of Nazis, which nobody can dispute was a evil regime that needed overthrowing, are you trying to make liberals seem 'pro-Nazi' or, to be more precise, just anti US? It's a question, I'm just interested.
2) If we're comparing WW2 with today, why not look at some of the German war crimes trials, in which Nazi leaders describe quite accuratley what is going on now (my I-net explorer is knakred at the mo, so I can't give you a link just now). Basically they talk about blinding their population by making them terrified of a group of people, then just taking total advantage of them.

But, as with your example, it's not an entirely accurate comparison to make, although we can learn something from both.

 

[Edcrab]

Obviously his point is we have a military presence in Germany because we're no longer trying to murder each other- we were at peace when I last checked.

Yay for reparations and such like, but I do believe that Iraqi's will harbour resentment towards the Coalition for longer than Germans "hated" the Americans- not to mention because they see it as an attack upon their religion, and the fact foreign fighters are entering the place as steady reinforcement.

 

[CptStern]

The president declared victory over a year ago, but terrorists continue to pick off U.S. troops and even American civilians at the rate of three per day.
.

there are on average between 70-80 attacks daily on coalition forces

also the US wasnt supplying and arming hitler for decades before the war, ...oops my mistake

 

[Scoobnfl]

The comparisons were solely based on the media reports, not actual combat and reasons for going to war. The comparisons of the media are amazingly similar, just substitute Iraq for germany and you'd think you were reading the NY slimes today.


I know the reasons for WWII and also the reasons we should have entered into WWII before we did. Hitler should have been stopped when he violated the treaty of Versailles and began rearming, (reminiscent of years of violating UN security council resoultions) but the appeasers in their quest for peace damned millions to death because they lacked the balls to confront the evil that was Hitlers Germany.

I referenced our continued presence in Germany to show that after 60 years we are still there, and maybe just maybe we will stick it out in Iraq as long as it takes, however long that is. And before all of you start griping over the differing reasons that we're still in Germany. Part of the reason we're still there is those knuckle heads started 2 world wars inside the last 90 years that resulted in over 100 million dead, so yeah part of the reason we're still there is to make sure that they do not do it again, same with Japan.


What are all of you nay sayers going to do if the elections work out and the elected officials continue down the road to democracy over the next few years and Iraq flourishes? What leg will you stand on to defend your position?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are you saying that it's a good thing that we're still there, and that we shouldn't worry about Iraq because we'll be there for another 6 decades...... and that's a good thing?!

I think your avatar would explain why we stayed there for 6 decades...

 

[Scoobnfl]

What facts? Your post is based purely on the assumption that the War in Iraq will happen in the the exact same way WW2 did.

Do you share that view when Iraq is held up by the left and compared to Viet Nam?


be honest.



I wasn't comparing WWII to Iraq. I was comparing the post WWII press to the post war in Iraq press and they are strikingly similar.

I can understand ya'll lefties being upset when left wing bias is exposed. No one likes being accused of being biased, or of supporting someone or an institution that's biased. Relax, it won't change much, you can still get your lies, half truths and misrepresented disinformation from the MSM.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Are you saying that it's a good thing that we're still there, and that we shouldn't worry about Iraq because we'll be there for another 6 decades...... and that's a good thing?!

It was more to show that where our intersts are and the security of our nation is at risk, an extended stay is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Uh, elections won't change the fact that far more people died than probably had to, they won't make up for the three or so years where finding bin Laden was put on the backburner, and they aren't going to find the WMDs.
It also won't turn back the clock and stop weapons programs in countries that actually do have WMDs from making progress, and it's not going to go back in time to fight in more worthy places that were largely ignored, like the genocide in Sudan.
America still won't have as much international respect as it did before the war, and it won't stop the 'new breed of terrorists' created by the war that the CIA predicts will be flooding out of Iraq in the next few years. And Afghanistan will still be somewhat of a mess.
And, by the time actual stable elections happen, there'll probably be another similar crazy war starting somewhere else in the world.

Of course, that's just if the elections end up working.

Edit:

Do you share that view when Iraq is held up by the left and compared to Viet Nam?

If I had to choose between Vietnam and WW2, I'd say Iraq is closer to 'nam, yes.

I wasn't comparing WWII to Iraq. I was comparing the post WWII press to the post war in Iraq press and they are strikingly similar.

So, your point is that two new reports concerning completely different things sounded similar. Hooray?
And I really don't think we've seen 'post war in Iraq press' yet, considering that the war isn't over.

I can understand ya'll lefties being upset when left wing bias is exposed. No one likes being accused of being biased, or of supporting someone or an institution that's biased. Relax, it won't change much, you can still get your lies, half truths and misrepresented disinformation from the MSM.

Dude, you still haven't shown any proof of a bias, let alone 'lies half-truths and misrepresented disinformation from the MSM'.
All you have is a summary of a story from an old magazine that you condensed and reworded to be similar to a synopsis of the Iraq war.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did the same thing with the CBS 'Rathergate' scandal.
Would that be proof of a lack of bias?
I could probably do the same thing with a story about my cat's chew toy.
Would that be proof that this thread is dumb?

I don't even know what an MSM is.
Please enlighten me, he who is without bias. (except against those lefties. God I hate those lefties!)

 

[Hazar]

you practically have a worse chance of dying here then over there.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It also won't turn back the clock and stop weapons programs in countries that actually do have WMDs from making progress

L-I-B-Y-A. Although it doesnt fit the technical definition of your statement, it is relevant.

 

[SidewinderX]

It was more to show that where our intersts are and the security of our nation is at risk, an extended stay is not necessarily a bad thing.

and when was Iraq EVER related to the security of the nation? I am pro-america... but I have yet to see conclusive evidence that Iraq was a threat to national security.

We stayed in Germany for 60 years because on the otherside of the fence was an enemy that was just as powerful as us/ could destroy us. There is no such enemy now.









Anyway, on a different note: did you even consider the fact that, *maybe*, the headlines say what they says because, *gasp*, they're true? What else do you expect them to report? Violence sells papers and airtime. It's been that way for decades. If you want to change that, talk to America. The media is a business.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Uh, elections won't change the fact that far more people died than probably had to, they won't make up for the three or so years where finding bin Laden was put on the backburner, and they aren't going to find the WMDs.
It also won't turn back the clock and stop weapons programs in countries that actually do have WMDs from making progress, and it's not going to go back in time to fight in more worthy places that were largely ignored, like the genocide in Sudan..

Where is the UN on the issue of Sudan? Where is the EU? Where is Canada? I'll tell ya where they are, they're standing in the corner waiting for the USA to act. Just like with the Balkans, where all of the highbrows in Europe and their ability to accomplish so much while sitting around talking about how high their brows are, did nothing.

America still won't have as much international respect as it did before the war, and it won't stop the 'new breed of terrorists' created by the war that the CIA predicts will be flooding out of Iraq in the next few years. And Afghanistan will still be somewhat of a mess.
And, by the time actual stable elections happen, there'll probably be another similar crazy war starting somewhere else in the world.

Of course, that's just if the elections end up working.

new breed of terrorists? are they going to be gentically altered so they're born with bomb belts?

and as for respect, who cares if joe shit the ragman in some armpit of a hellhole of a country thinks we're shit..... as long as the leader of that hellhole knows that if ya fawk with us we'll end your ass, I'm fine with that.

Iraq will stabilize and flourish.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Dude, you still haven't shown any proof of a bias,

RatherGate is a perfect example. Read through the NYTs sometime, if you cant notice it...

 

[Scoobnfl]

and when was Iraq EVER related to the security of the nation? I am pro-america... but I have yet to see conclusive evidence that Iraq was a threat to national security. .

We are fighting the war on terror.
Iraq supported, trained and funded terrorists.
Iraq also had for 12 years violated gee I don't know, all of the UN security council resolutions imposed on her.
Iraq's general over ripeness for regime change coupled with its splendid geographical location of being directly in the middle of all of the problem countries that support, train, fund, etc........ ME terrorism.

We stayed in Germany for 60 years because on the otherside of the fence was an enemy that was just as powerful as us/ could destroy us. There is no such enemy now. .

Wrong. That would have been 45 years we were there to fight/halt/deter the Soviet threat, remember that Germany was reunified in 1990. We have remained for the other part, being

those knuckle heads started 2 world wars inside the last 90 years that resulted in over 100 million dead, so yeah part of the reason we're still there is to make sure that they do not do it again, same with Japan.

Anyway, on a different note: did you even consider the fact that, *maybe*, the headlines say what they says because, *gasp*, they're true?

Would that be the same "truth" as when Walter Cronkite reported the Tet offensive as a success for the NVA?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

RatherGate is a perfect example. Read through the NYTs sometime, if you cant notice it...

I've already addressed that in your rathergate thread.
One person's actions at CBS are hardly evidence of a media-wide bias.
Fox news has done five times as much stuff, that I know of, and I'm not using that as proof of a media-wide right-wing bias.

Where is the UN on the issue of Sudan? Where is the EU? Where is Canada? I'll tell ya where they are, they're standing in the corner waiting for the USA to act.

I don't know about the rest, but Canada still has most of it's forces trying to fix up Afghanistan after you all pulled out.
Remember Afghanistan? Yeah, that other war.

new breed of terrorists? are they going to be gentically altered so they're born with bomb belts?

The CIA said that, not me. It was on the front page of the local paper yesterday. Enough people are pissed about Iraq that the CIA are afraid that the war will cause a new wave of terrorism.

Last time they mentioned a 'new breed of terrorist' was, I think in 1994, when they were talking about Al Queda. Remember them?

and as for respect, who cares if joe shit the ragman in some armpit of a hellhole of a country thinks we're shit..... as long as the leader of that hellhole knows that if ya fawk with us we'll end your ass, I'm fine with that.

And that's beautiful. You don't care about the horrible foreign 'ragmen'... Unless you're making their elections for them.
Then, suddenly, you care a lot. Is that some sort of slur, by the way?

Plus, the less respect your country has, the more likely that 'ragman' is going to try and 'end' your ass.
That's that 'new breed of terrorist' thing I was talking about.
Maybe you should care.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Dude, you still haven't shown any proof of a bias, let alone 'lies half-truths and misrepresented disinformation from the MSM'.

Biased----definition-----To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

and ridiculous headlines such as

"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945

are biased.

MSM = mainstream media

 

[Mechagodzilla]

headlines such as

"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945

are biased.

Biased against what? Against Germany?
The headline make it sound as though they're afraid of america losing. A valid concern.

Against america in general?
Do you really think the entire media was pro-nazi?

Or do you think the media was too biased against the decisions of Harry Truman? The democrat?!

I repeat: this is a dumb thread.

 

[Scoobnfl]

One person's actions at CBS are hardly evidence of a media-wide bias..

cuz it was one person at CBS right

I don't know about the rest, but Canada still has most of it's forces trying to fix up Afghanistan after you all pulled out.
Remember Afghanistan? Yeah, that other war..

Wow, the USA pulled out of Afghanistan? Really? That couldn't be your bias talking could it?

And that's beautiful. You don't care about the horrible foreign 'ragmen'... Unless you're making their elections for them.
Then, suddenly, you care a lot. Is that some sort of slur, by the way?

Plus, the less respect your country has, the more likely that 'ragman' is going to try and 'end' your ass.
That's that 'new breed of terrorist' thing I was talking about.
Maybe you should care.

no slur. Joe shyt the ragman was the dumbass dude referred to in training. i.e. sittin there like joe shyt the ragman, or Joe shyt the ragman walks up and........ etc...

Plus, the less respect your country has, the more likely that 'ragman' is going to try and 'end' your ass..

Well, considering that most people in the USA would like for everyone around the world to enjoy the same freedoms that we have, it makes me feel sorry for poor ole joe shyt, that he would like to harm the people who want to see him enjoy opportunity and freedom. I do not think higher of him, or fear the likelihood of him showcasing his ignorance and intolerance and becoming a terrorist. I prefer that we keep our military over there so the Jihadi fawkwipes like Joe Shyt that are currently streaming into Iraq to fight us are killed as quick and conveniently as possible.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Biased against what? Against Germany?
The headline make it sound as though they're afraid of america losing. A valid concern..

please explain how that was a valid concern?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

please explain how that was a valid concern?

Um, because America losing against the Nazis would be... bad?

cuz it was one person at CBS right

As far as I can tell from the evidence i've been shown by people like SR, yes. One person messed up the fact-checking and four people apparently failed to catch the problem.
All have been fired.

Wow, the USA pulled out of Afghanistan? Really? That couldn't be your bias talking could it?

They did pull out troops, yes. To go fight in Iraq.
Jeez, it's like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say.
Your bias talking????

no slur. Joe shyt the ragman was the dumbass dude referred to in training. i.e. sittin there like joe shyt the ragman, or Joe shyt the ragman walks up and........ etc...

That entire sentence made no sense to me. 'Ragman' sounds suspiciously similar to 'raghead' though.

But seriously, lets forget the odd morality behind your idea to use Iraq as bait to attract terrorists. This isn't an Iraq war debate thread.

You are calling the entire media 'leftist' because one magazine vaguely criticised a DEMOCRATIC president!
In 1945!
Don't you see the foolishness in that?!

 

[Scoobnfl]

Um, because America losing against the Nazis would be... bad?

But you failed, in all of your wisdom, to notice that at the time of that article, the war was over. We had already beaten the Nazis.

That is/was my contention of bias. The story was bullshit, an attempt to influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice which is a definition of bias..

You are calling the entire media 'leftist' because one magazine vaguely criticised a DEMOCRATIC president!
In 1945!
Don't you see the foolishness in that?!

1 magazine and 1 newspaper with several headlines. Finding that took 5-10 minutes. And I doubt very seriuosly that was all of the articles out there indicative of the left wing bias experienced after WWII or that we're experiencing now.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You cannot have a leftist bias against a leftist person!

If those articles were at all biased, it would be right-wing bias.
BECAUSE TRUMAN IS A DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRATS ARE ON THE LEFT.

But there is no bias.
The articles all say that Germans shouldn't hate Americans, and that something must be done to make them stop hating!
THAT ISN'T A BIAS. HATRED IS BAD.

You have chosen the exact opposite of a leftist bias, and are using it as evidence of a leftist bias!

Arg! Stupid thread! Stupid, stupid thread!

 

[Scoobnfl]

Soooo..... this

I don't know about the rest, but Canada still has most of it's forces trying to fix up Afghanistan after you all pulled out.
Remember Afghanistan? Yeah, that other war..

really means this

They did pull out troops, yes. To go fight in Iraq.

Let's not forget that even though we may have realigned troops and put some into Iraq from AG there are 17,000 US troops versus 850 Canadian, that's a..... uh.... 20 to 1 ratio there buddy. Don't make too much of a token commitment or I might have to call it a token commitment. ooooops.

 

[Scoobnfl]

You cannot have a leftist bias against a leftist person!

If those articles were at all biased, it would be right-wing bias.
BECAUSE TRUMAN IS A DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRATS ARE ON THE LEFT.

But there is no bias.
The articles all say that Germans shouldn't hate Americans, and that something must be done to make them stop hating!
THAT ISN'T A BIAS. HATRED IS BAD.

You have chosen the exact opposite of a leftist bias, and are using it as evidence of a leftist bias!

Arg! Stupid thread! Stupid, stupid thread!

saying Truman was a lefty is Stupid. Apples to oranges buddy. The Democratic party of Roosevelt and Truman were not the democratic party of Kerry and Edwards.