PDA

View Full Version : Mass Media's pathological hatred of Bush


GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 08:46 PM
Okay, there was an article that New York Times took another shot at Bush.

New York Times Blames Housing Financial Crisis on Bush (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/12/21/new-york-times-blames-housing-financial-crisis-bush)

They are referring to this article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1229886485-XYjB1wCEX+2kI90mVqbvCQ)

Newsbusters used among other sources:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

And:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. [...]

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
-- New York Times, September 11, 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

That is just one of several New York Times articles that contradict the new hit piece made by the New York Times.

Looks to me that this is latest attack by the New York Times is nothing more than a typical left-wing media smear job.

jrrtoken
12-22-2008, 08:51 PM
Your point? All that I'm hearing is more liberal name-calling.

jonathan7
12-22-2008, 08:54 PM
<snipped for brevity>

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

Litofsky
12-22-2008, 08:58 PM
Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

QFT.

Even if the Media has some liberal bias, if we compare the current state of America (under Bush) and the beginning of his term, America's in a pretty bad state. We're in two wars and a recession, as compared to the budget surplus that Clinton left us with.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 09:27 PM
Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.

Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.

jonathan7
12-22-2008, 09:31 PM
jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.

Lincoln, I trust as he has a brain and integrity - I know bush doesn't have much of the former, and I don't know enough about the man to comment on the latter. Further more I'd argue that Lincoln's war was a just war, where as I don't think you can call Iraq that (though Afghanistan is).

Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.

Well that's true, look at the build up to the Iraq war, I can't remember any descenting news reporting from the American media.

jrrtoken
12-22-2008, 09:34 PM
jonathan7, if you were alive during 1861-1865 you would say the same thing about Abraham Lincoln. I took a course concerning Constitutional History and my liberal professor pointed out the similarities. And Lincoln restricted rights more than President Bush.lol, you're trying to compare Lincoln to Bush? They're complete opposites. Besides, that was the Civil War, where the conflicts took place on US soil. anyways, I'm still loling. :rofl:
Furthermore, these last few years we've seen journalism literally die in America. I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about blatent dishonesty on the part of the media. I'm not accusing them of bias, I'm accusing them of journalistic fraud.Welcome to America, journalism has been like that for decades. Ever heard of Pulitzer and Hearst?

Adavardes
12-22-2008, 09:36 PM
Common sense =/= pathological.

Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...

Agreed, totally and completely. The man sank us into a war we really had no business starting, putting us trillions of dollars in debt, based on intelligence about WMDs that never existed. Period.

Not only that, but what has he been doing to stem the tide of this financial crisis? ****ting around and going to parties, football games, and unveiling a picture of himself. Please, if you do one thing, Garfield, do not try to convince me that Bush was worth those 8 years. Because he was horrible. Bar none.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 09:46 PM
Lincoln, I trust as he has a brain and integrity - I know bush doesn't have much of the former, and I don't know enough about the man to comment on the latter. Further more I'd argue that Lincoln's war was a just war, where as I don't think you can call Iraq that (though Afghanistan is).

We can argue about Iraq till we're blue in the face, fact is the Iraq War was due to bad intelligence (and I would be willing to blame Cheney and Rumsfeld too). Pulling out of Iraq irresponsibly though only makes the situation worse.

Lincoln had a more stringent version of the patriot act, where he suspended habeous corpus.

ForeverNight
12-22-2008, 09:52 PM
Lincoln had a more stringent version of the patriot act, where he suspended habeous corpus.

Source (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Read it. READ IT!!!!!

Habeas Corpus can be suspended when Invasion, Rebellion or Public Safety may require it.

It is NOT a right.

I don't care if you yell 'till you're blue in the face, it isn't a right, it's a privilege, and The Public Safety has been deemed in danger enough to warrant suspension.

So stop beating that war drum, I'm sick and tired of this always being brought up when it isn't an issue.

Note: This goes to both sides of the debate

Jae Onasi
12-22-2008, 10:39 PM
Posts on Ayers were moved to the Ayers thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194576). Please keep the Ayers love contained in that thread. Thanks.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 10:52 PM
Posts on Ayers were moved to the Ayers thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194576). Please keep the Ayers love contained in that thread. Thanks.

Jae, I'm going to request you move those posts back, because I'm talking about the fact the New York Times wrote a sympathetic article towards the actions of a terrorist that got released on 9/11/2001, and that there was a huge public backlash that scared the mainstream media for about a year or so.

Request denied. Ayers posts stay in the Ayers thread. You are free to continue and/or rewrite the portions of posts that don't include Ayers here, however. PM either jonathan7 or me if you wish to discuss this further. --Jae

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-22-2008, 11:47 PM
Jae, I'm going to request you move those posts back, because I'm talking about the fact the New York Times wrote a sympathetic article towards the actions of a terrorist that got released on 9/11/2001, and that there was a huge public backlash that scared the mainstream media for about a year or so.Garfield I'm going to request that you stop dragging Obama and Ayers into everything in an attempt to smear anyone to the left of you politically (read: everyone).

On topic, Bush has been the worst president in US history, he's gotten us into an unjustified war, ruined the economy, and set back environmental policy by years.

mimartin
12-23-2008, 12:19 AM
I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 12:41 AM
Okay, there was an article that New York Times took another shot at Bush.


Don't think that this is a pathological hatred, just a reporting. :)

I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.

Thanks for this insight, mimartin. I just hope it was received by the parties who need it.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 01:26 AM
The situation is that the media was scared after the New York Times' 9/11/2001 fiasco in which the public reacted to their article's sympathy to a terrorist calling for a boycott of New York Times among other things.

Also to get to the MSNBC situation, there have been accusations that MSNBC gave Code Pink protesters their press passes so they could attempt to disrupt the Republican Convention and I do know that the Code Pink People did have press passes.

I'll try to find more sources but here is one: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/05/blogger-says-mccain-speech-protestors-had-msnbc-badges

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 01:31 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/05/blogger-says-mccain-speech-protestors-had-msnbc-badges

OH MY! NEWSBUSTERS! THAT MUST MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

:lol:

mimartin
12-23-2008, 01:55 AM
OH MY! NEWSBUSTERS! THAT MUST MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

:lol:Well Newsbusters once printed a blog that Santa Claus was not real when all the other pro-Santa media outlets pandered to those evil Santa believers. Yes the bloggers were right once and the real media outlets made a mistake, ergo Newsbuster is better than all media outlets. With the exception of Fox News that is allowed to make mistakes, because anytime they make a mistake it is due to the great mainstream media conspiracy.

Achilles
12-23-2008, 03:18 AM
I actually find the charge that the media is the reason for President Bush's problems laughable.

I guess the American people are bias too, seeing how President Bush had the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup.

Let us also remember December 2003 when Bush had 63% the highest approval rating of any president since LBJ had a 74% at the end of 1963 (one month after the death of JFK). Seems the media was not too bias back in 2003.

I do not blame the media. I believe Clinton was bashed more by the media and leaks from the Kenneth Star investigation than George W Bush ever was. I believe all of the Bush administration problems are self-inflicted. If anything I blame the press and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress for not questioning Bush’s policies back when his approval rating were high and before over 4,000 American Military Personal were killed and over 30,000 wounded.

The only way I would put George Bush and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence is it was on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that George W Bush made one of biggest blunders when he told the American people “Mission Accomplished.” That was May 1, 2003. Seems his number stated going down after the American people figured out he was a little wrong with that assessment.With 8 days left, I nominate this for Post of the Year.

Q
12-23-2008, 05:20 AM
I would tend to agree with Garfield had I not watched an interview that with Katie Couric that Bush gave a couple of years ago. He looked right at her, with that stupid, smug smile on his face and said, point-blank, that "...it's not torture."

And I've despised the man ever since.

In all fairness it's not to say that the media and the Obama campaign haven't cultivated and then capitalized on all of the Bush-hate for their own purposes. They have, yes, but it's also not to say that Bush hasn't generously provided them with a ton of ammunition from the beginning.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 01:51 PM
Don't think that this is a pathological hatred, just a reporting. :)

I suppose giving press passes to CODE PINK in order to disrupt the Republican convention is just reporting too...

Well Newsbusters once printed a blog that Santa Claus was not real when all the other pro-Santa media outlets pandered to those evil Santa believers. Yes the bloggers were right once and the real media outlets made a mistake, ergo Newsbuster is better than all media outlets. With the exception of Fox News that is allowed to make mistakes, because anytime they make a mistake it is due to the great mainstream media conspiracy.


Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.

I would tend to agree with Garfield had I not watched an interview that with Katie Couric that Bush gave a couple of years ago. He looked right at her, with that stupid, smug smile on his face and said, point-blank, that "...it's not torture.".

Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

In all fairness it's not to say that the media and the Obama campaign haven't cultivated and then capitalized on all of the Bush-hate for their own purposes. They have, yes, but it's also not to say that Bush hasn't generously provided them with a ton of ammunition from the beginning.

I suppose them wearing Obama shirts at the Democrat Convention and chanting his name is proper behavior for journalists.

Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?

Astor
12-23-2008, 01:55 PM
Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

Every news outlet does that, so I don't see why it's a crime for CBS to do it.

Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?

I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 01:56 PM
This is about Bush, not about Obama, okay?

Source please...I believe that this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/eveningnews/main1979106.shtml) is the one the Q was referencing to.

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 01:58 PM
I suppose giving press passes to CODE PINK in order to disrupt the Republican convention is just reporting too...

Source other than Newsbusters, please.

Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.

He asked for sources on sarcasm.
:rofl:

Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.

New rule: unless you yourself have actually given sources that aren't completely hollow and baseless, or only present twisted truths to suit the conservative bias, you aren't allowed to ask for sources. Source for proof against CBS. No Newsbusters please.

While I appreciate your frustration with sourcing issues, we on the staff will set the rules. Thanks. --Jae

I suppose them wearing Obama shirts at the Democrat Convention and chanting his name is proper behavior for journalists.

Because liberal journalists show pride in their preferred candidate winning the presidential election, and it's immediately uncouth behavior for proper journalists, but Conservatives are allowed to belittle the man with absolutely no factual basis for argument, and for Fox News, which you seem particularly fond of, it is completely acceptable to pick constantly on the one Liberal voice on their station, Colmes, who is now retiring. No, seriously, they pick on him like snot-nosed toddlers, shining flashlights in his eyes, calling him names, etc. Tells you what kind of behavior conservatives expect from their journalists.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:01 PM
Every news outlet does that, so I don't see why it's a crime for CBS to do it.

It is when they are editting it to try to advance a political agenda. Furthermore, not every news station does it. Fox News only split up Bill O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary, Obama, and McCain on seperate nights because it wouldn't all fit in one show, but they aired the entire interview.



I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

It was a scandal that brought down CBS's host Dan Rather because he used fraudulent documents to try to smear President Bush during the 2004 election.

mimartin
12-23-2008, 02:08 PM
Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.
Why? So that you can completely ignore them. Since I've already provide you with soures, that you completely ignored, I'll provide you with a link to that page to refreash your memory. http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327306&postcount=5


http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2327306#post2327306

I have no doubt that you will either completely ignore them again or try to change the subject by showing how CBC, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, BBC... or some other media outlet made a mistake. They are all bias including Fox News.

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 02:09 PM
It is when they are editting it to try to advance a political agenda. Furthermore, not every news station does it. Fox News only split up Bill O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary, Obama, and McCain on seperate nights because it wouldn't all fit in one show, but they aired the entire interview.Please provide proof other than the Dan Rather debacle that shows that CBS is out to smear conservative politicians by editing parts of interviews to make them look like idiots. Right now, your argument has little value.

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 02:11 PM
Please provide proof other than the Dan Rather debacle that shows that CBS is out to smear conservative politicians by editing parts of interviews to make them look like idiots. Right now, your argument has little value.

Proof =/= blogs, btw.

Astor
12-23-2008, 02:12 PM
It is when they are editting it to try to advance a political agenda. Furthermore, not every news station does it. Fox News only split up Bill O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary, Obama, and McCain on seperate nights because it wouldn't all fit in one show, but they aired the entire interview.

But surely, you've only got O'Reilly's word for that? If so, how can you be so sure?

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:16 PM
Please provide proof other than the Dan Rather debacle that shows that CBS is out to smear conservative politicians by editing parts of interviews to make them look like idiots. Right now, your argument has little value.

Wasn't Dan Rather employed by CBS?

Joe Lockhart, the Kerry aide who called CBS's source, former Texas Guardsman Bill Burkett, dismissed the charge as "a smear campaign" by Republicans. Another Kerry aide, Michael McCurry, said Kerry has been briefed and is "satisfied" with Lockhart's explanation that it was an innocuous conversation. -- Washington Post: White House Links Memos, Kerry Effort (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40000-2004Sep21.html)

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 02:24 PM
Wasn't Dan Rather employed by CBS?No, by the Queen of England. :rolleyes: Yes, he was, but Dan Rather and George W. Bush has nothing to do with Katie Couric and Sarah Palin.
-- Washington Post: White House Links Memos, Kerry EffortIf you read the rest of the article, you'd see that CBS as a whole denounced the incident
CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards, asked about Mapes's actions, said: "It's obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."

Yar-El
12-23-2008, 02:26 PM
Bush, goes down in history as the worst president in history, even if the media has been biased, etc etc. That cannot change the above fact. Is America better or worse off due to Bush's Presidency? I don't see how anyone on review of the current situation can say America is better off...
Our current mindset on Bush is what your saying. He is the most hated president in current US history. We have had others who were equal to or wose than Bush; however, events following their reign have proven otherwise. Many people who live in the US focus on short-term events. Four to eight years from now people will be saying Bush Who?. Historians will judge him on the events following his administration. Obama's actions or inactions will be center stage for the next four years. How the world changes from here forward can either redeem or reinforce people's perception of Bush. Obama has to stand up and play healer now; however, he must do so without compromising the American public's interest. Its a tough job.

Q
12-23-2008, 02:32 PM
Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.
Actually, the words were, "...we don't torture." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074_page3.shtml) And yes, I saw the entire interview, because it took place at the time when Bush was asking Congress to split hairs over whether or not the treatment of the detainees was lawful and I was actually interested in that sort of thing at the time.

You know, as politically active as you are, I find it rather hard to believe that you don't know to which interview that I'm referring. I mean, how many one-on-one interviews with Katie Couric has Bush held?
I suppose them wearing Obama shirts at the Democrat Convention and chanting his name is proper behavior for journalists.
Source please...
Your turn. :D
Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?
Of course. Not that it was news to me. I've known that Rather was full of it since the '80s.



EDIT: Woah, this place has exploded! :xp: PastramiX beat me to the link. Thanks, man!

Yar-El
12-23-2008, 02:37 PM
Actually, the words were, "...we don't torture." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074_page3.shtml) And yes, I saw the entire interview, because it took place at the time when Bush was asking Congress to split hairs over whether or not the treatment of the detainees was lawful and I was actually interested in that sort of thing at the time.
I will go on record as a witness. I saw the same interview. I agreed with the use of small scale torture; nevertheless, those comments gave me a chill. Publicly admitting the use of torture is political suicide; thus, I understand why he came out with the statement.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 02:44 PM
Our current mindset on Bush is what your saying. He is the most hated president in current US history. We have had others who were equal to or wose than Bush; however, events following their reign have proven otherwise. Many people who live in the US focus on short-term events. Four to eight years from now people will be saying Bush Who?. Historians will judge him on the events following his administration. Obama's actions or inactions will be center stage for the next four years. How the world changes from here forward can either redeem or reinforce people's perception of Bush. Obama has to stand up and play healer now; however, he must do so without compromising the American public's interest. Its a tough job.4-8 years from now people won't be saying "bush who?", he and his administration have royally screwed up this country and it will take years to recover from this.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:45 PM
Actually, the words were, "...we don't torture." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074_page3.shtml) And yes, I saw the entire interview, because it took place at the time when Bush was asking Congress to split hairs over whether or not the treatment of the detainees was lawful and I was actually interested in that sort of thing at the time.

You know, as politically active as you are, I find it rather hard to believe that you don't know to which interview that I'm referring. I mean, how many one-on-one interviews with Katie Couric has Bush held?

First, you only saw what CBS chose to let you see. Second, I've got my problems with Bush, just the Democrats chose either lunatics or people that have competitency issues to run against him. If the Democrats had Evan Bayh run against Bush in 2004, instead of John Kerry I would have voted for Bayh.

Fact is I think Bush exercised poor judgment in appointing who he appointed and choosing his running mate. Do you have any evidence that Bush signed off on actually torturing prisoners like what happened in Abu Grabe (sp?), cause Gitmo's living conditions look like a tropical resort compared to the prison system we see in the United States.


Of course. Not that it was news to me. I've known that Rather was full of it since the '80s.

The fact is what Rather and CBS did was beyond bias, if it had been a private citizen and not a public figure whom is in the spotlight constantly, they would have been sued for slander. I still thing President Bush should have sued them.

4-8 years from now people won't be saying "bush who?", he and his administration have royally screwed up this country and it will take years to recover from this.

More likely, people will remember the Bush as the good'ol days 4 years from now cause Obama and the Democrats will ruin the country so badly that this recession will look like the days of plenty.

Btw, the reason why I'm questioning CBS, MSNBC, and CNN's credibility includes:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/

Ordinarily I wouldn't use hotair.com but there is an audio tape that is embedded that is of interest.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 02:52 PM
More likely, people will remember the Bush as the good'ol days 4 years from now cause Obama and the Democrats will ruin the country so badly that this recession will look like the days of plenty.yeah, the good old days of trillions of dollars of debt, two wars, an end to government credibility, ostracism from the international community, and no viable environmental policy. you'll forgive me if i disregard your predictions as meaningless.

Yar-El
12-23-2008, 02:55 PM
4-8 years from now people won't be saying "bush who?", he and his administration have royally screwed up this country and it will take years to recover from this.
I see why people are currently angry with him; however, I think history will have the final word. I don't remember all the bad or good of the Clinton era. Does anyone remember in great detail about the Pursian Gulf War? Desert Storm? Those events should have justified Bush's invasion; however, they we so long ago people dismissed them.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:56 PM
yeah, the good old days of trillions of dollars of debt, two wars, an end to government credibility, ostracism from the international community, and no viable environmental policy. you'll forgive me if i disregard your predictions as meaningless.

First I don't care what the international community things at this time. If you think government is corrupt now, wait till the Chicago Mob gets its grips in the White House. You think the debt is bad now, wait for the trillions in new spending and insanely large tax increases get pushed through, you think two wars are bad, wait for the next terrorist attack because Obama pulls out before we finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will become breeding grounds for more terrorists. You think it's bad now, just wait for what could potentially be a second holocaust.

Astor
12-23-2008, 02:59 PM
You think it's bad now, just wait for what could potentially be a second holocaust.

That's a ridiculous exaggeration. Why would Obama being president logically lead to a holocaust?

Q
12-23-2008, 03:01 PM
First I don't care what the international community things at this time. If you think government is corrupt now, wait till the Chicago Mob gets its grips in the White House. You think the debt is bad now, wait for the trillions in new spending and insanely large tax increases get pushed through, you think two wars are bad, wait for the next terrorist attack because Obama pulls out before we finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will become breeding grounds for more terrorists. You think it's bad now, just wait for what could potentially be a second holocaust.
Damn. Overdramatize much? Let's wait until he's been in office a while before we start spouting universal Armageddon, shall we? ;)

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 03:03 PM
That's a ridiculous exaggeration. Why would Obama being president logically lead to a holocaust?

What is the nutcase President of Iran trying to build?

Nuclear Weapons, and the fact Obama doesn't want to provoke the man with sanctions and instead just wants to sit down and have tea with the nutcase.

Damn. Overdramaticize much? Let's wait until he's been in office a while before we start spouting universal Armageddon, shall we? ;)

I'm not a drama critic.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 03:04 PM
I see why people are currently angry with him; however, I think history will have the final word. I don't remember all the bad or good of the Clinton era. Does anyone remember in great detail about the Pursian Gulf War? Desert Storm? Those events should have justified Bush's invasion; however, they we so long ago people dismissed them.history will have the final word? tanking the economy and the u.s' reputation isn't some minor detail, his administration has been a monumental ****-up. you're also wrong on justification for the current war in iraq, but that's for another thread.

First I don't care what the international community things at this time. If you think government is corrupt now, wait till the Chicago Mob gets its grips in the White House. You think the debt is bad now, wait for the trillions in new spending and insanely large tax increases get pushed through, you think two wars are bad, wait for the next terrorist attack because Obama pulls out before we finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will become breeding grounds for more terrorists. You think it's bad now, just wait for what could potentially be a second holocaust. yes, why should we care what those pesky "other countries" think? it's not like we'll need their help to fight international terrorism obama isn't al capone inciting wars and flooding countries with no real form of government with weapons creates breeding grounds for terrorists, at this point, there's no way to fix the situation

Astor
12-23-2008, 03:06 PM
Nuclear Weapons, and the fact Obama doesn't want to provoke the man with sanctions and instead just wants to sit down and have tea with the nutcase.

So, by what you're saying, the US should provoke him, and not try and find a peaceful solution?

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 03:08 PM
So, by what you're saying, the US should provoke him, and not try and find a peaceful solution?

You can't negotiate with a man hellbent on committing genocide.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 03:10 PM
You can't negotiate with a man hellbent on committing genocide.you havent cleared nearly enough brush to use a line like that, grasshopper.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 03:13 PM
you havent cleared nearly enough brush to use a line like that, grasshopper.

Only a mentor may call someone grasshopper, and you certainly aren't my mentor.

Face it the mental case has called Israel, "A stinking corpse." Calls for it to be wiped off the map and is trying to obtain WMDs it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

Q
12-23-2008, 03:13 PM
You can't negotiate with a man hellbent on committing genocide.
And now we've come full circle, because that is pretty much the vast majority's opinion of... :D



Whether it's true or not, of course. ;)

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 03:15 PM
And now we've come full circle, because that is pretty much the vast majority's opinion of...

Thanks for bringing up the next mainstream media propaganda piece about Bush being out to destroy Islam.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 03:16 PM
Only a mentor may call someone grasshopper, and you certainly aren't my mentor.

Face it the mental case has called Israel, "A stinking corpse." Calls for it to be wiped off the map and is trying to obtain WMDs it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.welp, it's a good thing you dont give a damn about the international community then, so we can just let israel deal with it.

and actually it would take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

Q
12-23-2008, 03:18 PM
welp, it's a good thing you dont give a damn about the international community then, so we can just let israel deal with it.
Not a good idea. Israel will nuke them. Talk about your universal Armageddon.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 03:23 PM
Not a good idea. Israel will nuke them. Talk about your universal Armageddon.yeah but we're using "plug your ears and say 'lalalalala'"-style foreign policy so just ignore that and any other sort of military action in another country.

e: actually now that i think about it killing foreigners is okay but no talking while you do it

Q
12-23-2008, 03:33 PM
Personally, I'd love for us to get off of foreign oil, break our trade agreements with China and revert back to splendid pre-WWII isolationism, but I know that's a pipedream.

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 03:50 PM
You can't negotiate with a man hellbent on committing genocide.

See, this is why you can't reason with Republicans. They automatically decide that negotiation would never work as opposed to trying it, and, once results of said negotiation are finalised, counting national leaders as incapable of rational discussion and international compromise. It kind of goes with the conservative ideology that America is the best nation on earth (not really at all, kthx), and that everyone should listen to us.

I refer to it as "Teddy Roosevelt Syndrome".

So please, save your over-exaggerations and emotionally dramatised threats of war at home and terrorism killing us all. I know Bush has told you that the big bad terrorists are going to come after you if we don't send more troops to Iraq, but clearly, he's not too fond of telling the truth, or making sense, for that matter. We are not planet America, we are earth. Other nations have just as much validity of opinion as we do in these matters, period, and we need to attempt diplomacy and peaceful situations before we go gunning in, assuming that the man is a nutbar, which is exactly what you're suggesting we do.

Thanks for bringing up the next mainstream media propaganda piece about Bush being out to destroy Islam.

I love how everything against Bush is a liberal smear-campaign to make him seem like the destroyer of tolerance, or mainstream media just hating on the poor wittle fellah for no reason.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 04:37 PM
See, this is why you can't reason with Republicans. They automatically decide that negotiation would never work as opposed to trying it, and, once results of said negotiation are finalised, counting national leaders as incapable of rational discussion and international compromise. It kind of goes with the conservative ideology that America is the best nation on earth (not really at all, kthx), and that everyone should listen to us.

If I remember correctly it was a Republican that brought about the end of the cold war. There are some people you can negotiate with and others you can't, a wacko hellbent on committing genocide isn't someone you can negotiate with.


I refer to it as "Teddy Roosevelt Syndrome".


Common sense isn't a disease.


So please, save your over-exaggerations and emotionally dramatised threats of war at home and terrorism killing us all. I know Bush has told you that the big bad terrorists are going to come after you if we don't send more troops to Iraq, but clearly, he's not too fond of telling the truth, or making sense, for that matter.

Bush has a problem speaking, he isn't Bill Clinton that has a tendency to lie about everything.


We are not planet America, we are earth. Other nations have just as much validity of opinion as we do in these matters, period, and we need to attempt diplomacy and peaceful situations before we go gunning in, assuming that the man is a nutbar, which is exactly what you're suggesting we do.


Uh if we wanted to take over the world, why were we trying to get a stable government in Iraq that could vote?


I love how everything against Bush is a liberal smear-campaign to make him seem like the destroyer of tolerance, or mainstream media just hating on the poor wittle fellah for no reason.

I have my own problems with Bush, but he can't be both an incompetitent idiot and an evil genius out to take over the world at the same time.

Yar-El
12-23-2008, 04:45 PM
history will have the final word? tanking the economy and the u.s' reputation isn't some minor detail, his administration has been a monumental ****-up.
Economy remarks - Our economy started to tank during the election of 2000. Bush is guilty of not exercising restraint on tax cuts; nevertheless, he also didn't do anything to stop the downfall.

Reputation remarks - Use the Vietnam War as an example. The United States' reputation tanked then as well; however, we stood strong to admit our failures. We learned valuable lessons from it's duration and aftermath. We will heal from the Bush doctrine. What makes America such a flexible society is how much stronger and aware our mistakes makes us.

We have only a few choices -
a. Allow yesterday's mistakes to pull us down.
b. Allow yesterday's mistakes to spring us up.

Bush has done some very controversial actions. I'm not going to defend all of them; however, I do agree with some of his take on terrorism. History will either change minds or reinforce how people feel about him.

Media groups are out for blood from any candidate; nevertheless, they are more focused on what Republicans do than Democrats. I don't see this changing now or anytime soon. Bush's secrecy put a big bullseye on him, and what he did with it also drew attention.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 05:08 PM
If I remember correctly it was a Republican that brought about the end of the cold war. There are some people you can negotiate with and others you can't, a wacko hellbent on committing genocide isn't someone you can negotiate with.yes that had everything to do with ronald reagan and not the soviet economy failing and civil unrest.

Bush has a problem speaking, he isn't Bill Clinton that has a tendency to lie about everything.thank god he only lies about every other thing?

Economy remarks - Our economy started to tank during the election of 2000. Bush is guilty of not exercising restraint on tax cuts; nevertheless, he also didn't do anything to stop the downfall.

Reputation remarks - Use the Vietnam War as an example. The United States' reputation tanked then as well; however, we stood strong to admit our failures. We learned valuable lessons from it's duration and aftermath. We will heal from the Bush doctrine. What makes America such a flexible society is how much stronger and aware our mistakes makes us.

We have only a few choices -
a. Allow yesterday's mistakes to pull us down.
b. Allow yesterday's mistakes to spring us up.

Bush has done some very controversial actions. I'm not going to defend all of them; however, I do agree with some of his take on terrorism. History will either change minds or reinforce how people feel about him.

Media groups are out for blood from any candidate; nevertheless, they are more focused on what Republicans do than Democrats. I don't see this changing now or anytime soon. Bush's secrecy put a big bullseye on him, and what he did with it also drew attention.yeah, i didn't say the u.s. wouldn't recover, so your post is pretty pointless.

Yar-El
12-23-2008, 05:26 PM
yeah, i didn't say the u.s. wouldn't recover, so your post is pretty pointless.
Your posts made it seem dire; thus, I responded the way I did. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything.

mur'phon
12-23-2008, 06:38 PM
Garfield: Iran is a lot like Russia, it's leaders threaten anything and everything for political gain, but act like any other country when it comes to how it deals with the world, i.e it act in its own best interests. Sure, it usually isn't a nice country to deal with, but their main goal in getting the bomb is not to use it, but to use all the benefits just having the bomb brings.

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 07:40 PM
I suppose giving press passes to CODE PINK in order to disrupt the Republican convention is just reporting too...


Allegedly, of course.


Okay I'm going to be blunt and tell you to source what you're saying, even Jae has pointed out that Fox News is on the up and up when they report the news.

No offense to Jae, but she's not God. Just because Jae says something doesn't mean you should immediately accept it (although I do agree with many things she says, because she's rational and makes her points through logical discourse instead of flaming and libel.)



Source please... Also an interesting side note CBS has a practice of only airing parts of interviews, we still have yet to see the full interview between Palin and Couric. We only saw the parts that CBS wanted the public to see.


Every station edits for time. Every station.


Furthermore, anyone else remember Rathergate?
NO MORE ****ING -GATE WORDS! IT'S WATERGATE OR NOTHING!

I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

:lol:

Four to eight years from now people will be saying Bush Who?.

False.

Publicly admitting the use of torture is political suicide; thus, I understand why he came out with the statement.
Statement? I believe the word is lie.

yeah, the good old days of trillions of dollars of debt, two wars, an end to government credibility, ostracism from the international community, and no viable environmental policy. you'll forgive me if i disregard your predictions as meaningless.
QFEEEEE.
First I don't care what the international community things at this time.
Of course you don't. :(
Only a mentor may call someone grasshopper, and you certainly aren't my mentor.

As you are so apt to point out, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, *****ES!

Economy remarks - Our economy started to tank during the election of 2000. Bush is guilty of not exercising restraint on tax cuts; nevertheless, he also didn't do anything to stop the downfall.

Key phrase being "started to tank." A good president would have stopped it in the eight years it's been brewing.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 08:31 PM
Garfield: Iran is a lot like Russia, it's leaders threaten anything and everything for political gain, but act like any other country when it comes to how it deals with the world, i.e it act in its own best interests. Sure, it usually isn't a nice country to deal with, but their main goal in getting the bomb is not to use it, but to use all the benefits just having the bomb brings.

Russian leaders didn't believe, they go to heaven and get 50 beautiful virgins for killing infidels in a jihad.

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 08:50 PM
Russian leaders didn't believe, they go to heaven and get 50 beautiful virgins for killing infidels in a jihad.Of course, since most of the population of Russia belongs to the Russian Orthodoxy, that makes perfect sense.

Oh yes, and 47 virgins are allotted to each man. o_Q

As long as I get 52 Orlando Bloom and/or Shia LeBoeuf-types, I consider that fair. :xp: --Jae

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 08:53 PM
actually the virgins have been nationalized so that they may be distributed to the proletariat

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 08:56 PM
actually the virgins have been nationalized so that they may be distributed to the proletariatIt's about time something was done with the bourgeoisie. Comrade Jesus probably had something done with God's overall virgin deregulation.

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 12:10 AM
It's about time something was done with the bourgeoisie. Comrade Jesus probably had something done with God's overall virgin deregulation.

You may think it's funny but I have friends that live in Israel, so in all honesty it's not a laughing matter.

Adavardes
12-24-2008, 01:48 AM
@jmac and Pastrami (I love pastrami!):

:lol:

You may think it's funny but I have friends that live in Israel, so in all honesty it's not a laughing matter.

Sure it is. This whole thread is laughable, trying to paint a media source as evil and Bush as some innocent victim to the crazy liberals' smear attacks against him. I mean, the man only destroyed two countries, Iraq and America, infrastructurally and economically respectively. He only managed to lessen our personal freedoms and rights to privacy using more unfounded and empty scare tactics, and hollow accusations of imminent terrorism on the homefront.

Nevermind his total idiocy. And his vice president, who is evil and darkness incarnate. No, this is all an attack on Bush to get to conservatives, and it's all lies. That, for me, constitutes a little chuckle at the expense of these matters. So!

:rofl: