Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by DRB, Dec 7, 2005.
Please register to disable this ad.
I am outraged!!!
I hope everyone is ready for the coup/civil war in '08.
My sarcasm meter broke on that one.
I'm assuming that you aren't really outraged, but I'm wondering why you aren't. Wouldn't you be outraged if a democratic president did that? Why the double standard? Why is it OK for Bush but not for a democrat?
(note: if you truly are outraged, then my apologies.)
Clinton did it too.. I was there for one occation.
That doesn't answer my question.
Was it OK when Clinton did it? Is it OK now when Dubya does it? You seem to think that it is OK now, but I doubt you thought it was OK for Clinton. So, what's the difference?
I don't remember feeling out raged at Clinton for doing it, but when Bush does it, I am!!!
You are funny. Misguided but funny.
Um, how am I misguided?
Sarcasm to the point of absurdity, when we all know you are just being an ass, is neither productive nor worthwhile.
No really... I wasn't then, but I am now. Just like the mainstream press and all.
He does have a point.
If you really were serious, that's all you had to say. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.
No one in the press gave a rat's ass what Clinton did and all was sunny and gay. However, when this evil shrub does it, I, as a free thing independent, am totally out raged as is the press!!!
Oh I know it's a double standard but we all hate Bush so let's just pile on.... right?
I think the press is more about entertainment and profits now than journalism.
So I don't think it's Clinton/Dems vs Bush/Repubs when it comes to press coverage as much as that the media have become whores.
I guarantee you that the next time the Dems are in-charge, the press will do the same thing as they're doing now.
Wanna bet? They will be in a state of perputual orgasm like with Clinton.
so you think it's that the media hates Bush... as opposed to becoming a joke in themselves?
When the big three TV networks started making stuff up, it was the beginning of the end of reputable journalism. Would you agree? If so, do you somehow think they'll find some ethics with a new admin?
Let's just say that I doubt they will be so 'eager' to run with phony stories a' la 60 Minutes and the Air National Guard story.
Example: they sat on the the real story of Monica's dress until Matt Drudge when public with it. Would they do the same in Bush's case... no way.
N8, you have a point, sort of. Everyone hates the Evil Shrub, in other countries they hold rallies to watch the burning Bush. People are starting to react like he's a cholla cactus. Once they are touched by him they can't shake him off fast enough.
But I have to disagree about the press. Almost from the day Clinton entered office the press ran the Paula Jones story, rumors of Clinton fooling around...I think they didn't run the blue dress story because it didn't seem credable. Clinton went through impeachment proceeding for the love of pete. The Republicians were on every talk show egging the press on "It's about the Lie" they said. Now the evil shrub tells bald faced lies, and no one even gives it a second thought. Republicans are being indicted left and right. A rep from San Diego just stepped down, Delay and Frist are both facing actual or pending charges. Republicans have gone from the harpies of morality to wearing the scarlet letter. They impugn the reputations of people who actually fought in wars, while following a guy who got out of 'nam because his father was a congressman.
They'd run the story now and apologize later if it was false.
The rest of your post, yeah, this admin has provided constant, non-stop news often bordering on absurd for five years now.
Besides the president has almost always been a fluffer for the military...It's part of the job description.
So liberal brothers, are we still be outraged at the shrub for this or not?
I am thinking yes... maybe.
This story? It's like going to a restuarant, getting a plate full of feces, and then complaining that the coffee could be a little hotter, all while chowing down on the feces.
I am not really mad at all about this. I guess that it is hard to be outraged when you set your expectations so low.
Meh..Not really. Bush enrages me, just because of all the crap he's gotten away with in his life, and all the silver spoons he dropped, and the way he tries to ruin people while pretending to hold the moral high ground. It's like watching Forest Gump, except Forest was poor, honest, and went to 'Nam. On second thought he's more like Marion Barry with a last minute religious converstion and a rich father.
Like I said, the president has always been a fluffer for the military, it's his job. As long as they have the access to alternative sources of information, and he doesn't start trying to contravene the constitution, or ask for campaign contributions I think he's more or less doing his job.
Interesting that you should bring that up. If I recall correctly the story itself wasn't phoney, it was just a forged memo that was phoney. Not the same thing.
And have you considered that the press might have given Clinton just as hard a time as they are giving Bush if he'd taken the US into a pointless, wasteful conflict on the basis of falsehood?
Of course I realise that asking you two questions in one post is just silly but then I don't expect a reasonable answer to either.
The funny thing is, despite the mainstream media's alleged intention of being left-ist, they've become much more a tool of the right. The republicans have a far greater ability to manipulate the framing of issues, so that regardless of the slant of the speaker (from journalists to Democrat politicians) there mere fact of bringing the issue to attention serves the right...
So you can stop being paranoid any day now. The right is winning the media war, even if the left controls the media outlets.
You mean, even as a liberal, I can still hate the media? It's just that it's now called the conservatively controled media?
The bigger issue is not Bush speaking in front of a military audience but always speaking in front of a military audience or other "friendly" arena. Never taking questions he only delivers the message he and his people have carefully crafted. This has worked well for a while but in the long run I think this has really hurt him because when he ignores a question for a long time it makes it look like he is ignoring the issue altogether. That is why under job requirements for executives they always include "good communication skills".
No they can't - because if they can't run around claiming they are the victim of some evil conspiracy against them - someone might actually start paying attention to what they do...
I actually give the republicans a lot of credit - amazing propaganda/spin machine. It's too bad that the US population keeps falling for it.