" ^ Jimmac, refrain from sparring with this guy. It's like Tyson vs. a toddler. He obviously doesn't respect you enough to proof-read his posts for major spelling, sentence structure, diction, and puncuation errors. Foreign language translations sound better than this ".
As far as I'm concerned I'm not sparring anymore. I've gotten my satisfaction on this point. He can wiggle as much as he wants. It won't do any good.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jimmac i do have some answers, but nothing scientific nor unbiased. So here they are. The truth is, we were all concerned. It is the first case of a modern President doing anything like this and getting caught.
Next it made good TV so it got air time. But, it got air time that concluded that it was a personnal matter not involving the country. I covered these things in my comments on it the first time. The liberal spin was to cover a disaster for them that was already in progress. How did you come out of it feeling? I was amazed as I listened to people come to the idea, seemingly on there own, that he didn't have any obligation because of his office not to do it.
Hmm, well the big news was he did it. The even bigger news was that it wasn't a big deal and we should allow for it because france was laughing about it.
Now refute that, it has no bases in anything but opinion as yours has the same.
Last reread the post, sans the idiot, and you'll see that i asked you to set the field not give the answers. I will provide answers in line with what you feel can be a conclusive setting.
To go further with one of those points, isn't one of the great crusades of liberals the desensitisation of americans to violence due to the sheer amount of it that is fed to them by the media? Hmm if i wanted to desensitise someone to the clinton screw up how would i do it? I'd push it so much that people were sick of it and didn't care.
^ Wrong. Unsubstantial news should remain unsubstantiated. The Clinton Sex Scandal replaced hard news with sensational news. You clearly misunderstand the media among many other things (including spell checkers).
<strong>^ Wrong. Unsubstantial news should remain unsubstantiated. The Clinton Sex Scandal represented replaced hard news with sensational news. You clearly do not understand the media.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok you didn't understand when i said p*ss off so i'll put it this way. If i want your opinions i'll ask your teachers to give them to me the same as they do you, you pathetic empty vessel.
I think a general blanket statement to every nation that "hates us" is foolish. Islamic nations hate us differently than say European nations, or China. I welcome a more regionally directed statement to nations that hate us.
Sorry still side stepping. The contention by SDW is that liberals control the content of the media. This got way more than it's fair share of attention. I had some of my conservative friends saying : " god I'm tired of hearing about this ".
I came out of it feeling that Clinton was a fool ( not realizing that it would effect more than himself ) and had done the democratic party ( and the country ) a huge disservice. But, if liberals did control the media you'd have seen obvious efforts to contain the situation. There was nothing like that. Even early on. The fact that he lied may be the point of the moral implications of this affair but, it has nothing to do with my question. This was a huge media circus before he lied.
Your king is still in check. You'll have to do better than that.
I have an answer, but I also have a job and a wife, so I was away:
First, on the media: I agree that the media went ballistic with coverage. The real liberal bias in the media though is that which is concealed. A blatantly biased source (like the "CLW" that spjsu posted....an action group) is easy to identify. But liberal bias is the mainstream press is more about point of view. The Clinton coverage was often more subtle, in that the networks staged debates over whether or not sex mattered, whether or not the President's life should be questioned, etc. They also often made the republicans into witch hunters at every opportunity.
To suggest that the press would have downplayed the story doesn't hold water. The story was too sensational. And, it got ratings. That's what they are really about. It was the way it was done. It was the pundits and the commentators and there often ingeniously worked in liberal slant.....THAT was the problem.
And, I didn't say all the networks were run by liberals. I am saying that most have a liberal bias, if not in management then in the anchors themselves. Jennings and Rather are horrendus. Brokaw is not as bad, especially after 9/11. I remember watching a report on Bush's first major Europe trip. The reporter used a disappointed tone and talked of how the European leaders didn't respect Bush and how much they disagreed with him. The reporter went on to say that they did not respect his intellect. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. How could this reporter have known that? Did a world leader tell her? Not likely, I think.
This kind of thing happens all the time, and is often hard to document because it is often about tone of voice or inflection. Though, there was a study done a number of years ago proving that the news media edits conservatives' comments three times as much as they do liberals' comments. I don't have the link, but this was a well-known study.
The worst examples come from "semi-news" shows like TODAY. During the election fiasco, Katie Couric asked a democrat all about his voting problems and confusions. Then, she turned to several republican members of the military that had their ballots disqualified, and immediately started with "So, the republican party contacted you and asked to come on this show to share your story"? (this wasn't the case). This is the same show that asked Bill O'Reilly "Bill, isn't it disingenuous that you asked us to mention your book on this show"? (in fact, his publicist had asked that, as she does for all appearances.....Bill was there to discuss the misuse of 9/11 donations).
On Clinton: I am not going to attack you. But, I do wish to state my opinion on the matter:
The thing with Clinton was not just about bad behavior. It was about bad behavior in the oval office "the people's office", so to say. It was about conduct unbecoming the President of the United States while in the oval office and in the whitehouse. We're not talking about him boffing some girl in a hotel with the SS standing guard. We are also talking about an intern. A WHITEHOUSE intern. It is reprehensible.
It was also about lying, directly to the public. Then, admitting lying, and THEN, making excuses all the while, saying "what I said was technically true, I didn't have sexual relations with her as I understand the term to be defined". OR...."that would depend on what the defintion of th word is, is" (that is verbatim).
In any case, I believe Clinton did lie to the grand jury. He later admitted the intent to decieve.
Impeachement, and also removal from office is supposed to happen with 'high crimes and misdemeanors". I firmly believe Clinton obstructed justice and sexually harassed women while serving as President, either one of which should have been enough to remove him.
The misconcepetion that this was just about sex is a common one.
Sorry still side stepping. The contention by SDW is that liberals control the content of the media. This got way more than it's fair share of attention. I had some of my conservative friends saying : " god I'm tired of hearing about this ".
I came out of it feeling that Clinton was a fool ( not realizing that it would effect more than himself ) and had done the democratic party ( and the country ) a huge disservice. But, if liberals did control the media you'd have seen obvious efforts to contain the situation. There was nothing like that. Even early on.
Your king is still in check. You'll have to do better than that.
I believe you just proved his point. Even those that would normally be all about Clinton getting his jimmy run through the ringer were tired of hearing about it and lost interest. His point seems to stand on that one.
BTW, I am not taking sides in this, just thought it was interesting how you use his point to prove yours not seeing how you just validated his point 100%.
The President's sex life should be no business of ours regardless of location. Whether he does it in the White House or Motel 6, it his private affair and responsibility. He should not be made accountable to the American people for his private sex life.
[quote] The reporter went on to say that they did not respect his intellect. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. How could this reporter have known that? Did a world leader tell her? Not likely, I think. <hr></blockquote> You use this as an example of liberal bias
It seems to me that I hear the same thing repeated non-stop from the conservative majority on these boards: namely, they are constantly saying that they hate Europeans because Europeans do not respect Bush's intellect. Does that mean that those people on these boards are exhibiting a liberal bias?!?!??! Or are they merely parrots of that vast media Communist conspiracy?
as for the Europeans; I wonder if it is true . . . if so I wonder if it has anything to do with the incident where a journalist asked a question of Bush, in english, and then a question to a French politician, in French, and Bush responding: "oh look this guy thinks he's so smart . . .I can speak in two languages as well" (I paraphrase... and in doing so am being kinder than the original) Now don't get me wrong ...*heehee* . . . just wondering?!?!?
Both you guys are wiggling now, What you're saying would not be in keeping with your assertion that liberals control the media.
To the other fellow : I didn't prove anyone's point with that other than to illustrate that for even consevatives it got more attention ( with all the ugly things going on in the world ) than it deserved.
I never saw any evidence of it being subtle. As a matter of fact that notion is laughable by your own admission " I agree that the media went ballistic with coverage ".
I believe you just proved his point. Even those that would normally be all about Clinton getting his jimmy run through the ringer were tired of hearing about it and lost interest. His point seems to stand on that one.
BTW, I am not taking sides in this, just thought it was interesting how you use his point to prove yours not seeing how you just validated his point 100%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong. The reason why only some of his republican friends grew tired of the scandal is because it had already run its course in damaging the President's credibility. Any additional coverage only succeeded in confirming those beliefs. How does confirmation after confirmation after confimation affect one's attention? Boredom and subsequent disinterest is the answer.
The argument doesn't hold up. Maximum media coverage of a topic only increases awareness. One may be bored and disinterested by it, but definitely not less aware.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the incident where a journalist asked a question of Bush, in english, and then a question to a French politician, in French, and Bush responding: "oh look this guy thinks he's so smart . . .I can speak in two languages as well" (I paraphrase... and in doing so am being kinder than the original) Now don't get me wrong ...*heehee* . . . just wondering?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush arrogance. The reporter was David Gregory of NBC. Bush failed to realize that many foreign reporters speak English at his Press Conferences.....
So then what the hell are you doing here? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Jimmac, without reading what has been said since i posted (just got home and am eating)and before we continue in the vein of proving opinions (what a ludicruis statement) and before i slander sp .whatever for all i am worth.
What i am doing here is not about converting you to a tie wearing staunch republican. It's about forcing you to question your side of this, and in so doing questioning my own.
Now to spwhatever, to you i have to say you missed that point so many times i give up on you. Look my little aspiring prophet the road to enlightenment is not paved with answers where in those around you concede, it's paved with questions that help you grow. From your posts and your rebutle i can only deduce that you have no questions it's black and white and that's that. Well guess what so were the views of jim jones, and many others. Get over yourself and grow, your a pathetic example of the narrowmindedness need to form a nazi party.
and in parting let me say, to you sp, have some punch! I hear it's cherry.
Comments
<strong>Sjpsu,
" ^ Jimmac, refrain from sparring with this guy. It's like Tyson vs. a toddler. He obviously doesn't respect you enough to proof-read his posts for major spelling, sentence structure, diction, and puncuation errors. Foreign language translations sound better than this ".
As far as I'm concerned I'm not sparring anymore. I've gotten my satisfaction on this point. He can wiggle as much as he wants. It won't do any good.
Jimmac i do have some answers, but nothing scientific nor unbiased. So here they are. The truth is, we were all concerned. It is the first case of a modern President doing anything like this and getting caught.
Next it made good TV so it got air time. But, it got air time that concluded that it was a personnal matter not involving the country. I covered these things in my comments on it the first time. The liberal spin was to cover a disaster for them that was already in progress. How did you come out of it feeling? I was amazed as I listened to people come to the idea, seemingly on there own, that he didn't have any obligation because of his office not to do it.
Hmm, well the big news was he did it. The even bigger news was that it wasn't a big deal and we should allow for it because france was laughing about it.
Now refute that, it has no bases in anything but opinion as yours has the same.
Last reread the post, sans the idiot, and you'll see that i asked you to set the field not give the answers. I will provide answers in line with what you feel can be a conclusive setting.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>^ Wrong. Unsubstantial news should remain unsubstantiated. The Clinton Sex Scandal represented replaced hard news with sensational news. You clearly do not understand the media.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok you didn't understand when i said p*ss off so i'll put it this way. If i want your opinions i'll ask your teachers to give them to me the same as they do you, you pathetic empty vessel.
<strong>*yawn*</strong><hr></blockquote>
seconded, go read fair and flame on.
I think a general blanket statement to every nation that "hates us" is foolish. Islamic nations hate us differently than say European nations, or China. I welcome a more regionally directed statement to nations that hate us.
Sorry still side stepping. The contention by SDW is that liberals control the content of the media. This got way more than it's fair share of attention. I had some of my conservative friends saying : " god I'm tired of hearing about this ".
I came out of it feeling that Clinton was a fool ( not realizing that it would effect more than himself ) and had done the democratic party ( and the country ) a huge disservice. But, if liberals did control the media you'd have seen obvious efforts to contain the situation. There was nothing like that. Even early on. The fact that he lied may be the point of the moral implications of this affair but, it has nothing to do with my question. This was a huge media circus before he lied.
Your king is still in check. You'll have to do better than that.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
First, on the media: I agree that the media went ballistic with coverage. The real liberal bias in the media though is that which is concealed. A blatantly biased source (like the "CLW" that spjsu posted....an action group) is easy to identify. But liberal bias is the mainstream press is more about point of view. The Clinton coverage was often more subtle, in that the networks staged debates over whether or not sex mattered, whether or not the President's life should be questioned, etc. They also often made the republicans into witch hunters at every opportunity.
To suggest that the press would have downplayed the story doesn't hold water. The story was too sensational. And, it got ratings. That's what they are really about. It was the way it was done. It was the pundits and the commentators and there often ingeniously worked in liberal slant.....THAT was the problem.
And, I didn't say all the networks were run by liberals. I am saying that most have a liberal bias, if not in management then in the anchors themselves. Jennings and Rather are horrendus. Brokaw is not as bad, especially after 9/11. I remember watching a report on Bush's first major Europe trip. The reporter used a disappointed tone and talked of how the European leaders didn't respect Bush and how much they disagreed with him. The reporter went on to say that they did not respect his intellect. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. How could this reporter have known that? Did a world leader tell her? Not likely, I think.
This kind of thing happens all the time, and is often hard to document because it is often about tone of voice or inflection. Though, there was a study done a number of years ago proving that the news media edits conservatives' comments three times as much as they do liberals' comments. I don't have the link, but this was a well-known study.
The worst examples come from "semi-news" shows like TODAY. During the election fiasco, Katie Couric asked a democrat all about his voting problems and confusions. Then, she turned to several republican members of the military that had their ballots disqualified, and immediately started with "So, the republican party contacted you and asked to come on this show to share your story"? (this wasn't the case). This is the same show that asked Bill O'Reilly "Bill, isn't it disingenuous that you asked us to mention your book on this show"? (in fact, his publicist had asked that, as she does for all appearances.....Bill was there to discuss the misuse of 9/11 donations).
On Clinton: I am not going to attack you. But, I do wish to state my opinion on the matter:
The thing with Clinton was not just about bad behavior. It was about bad behavior in the oval office "the people's office", so to say. It was about conduct unbecoming the President of the United States while in the oval office and in the whitehouse. We're not talking about him boffing some girl in a hotel with the SS standing guard. We are also talking about an intern. A WHITEHOUSE intern. It is reprehensible.
It was also about lying, directly to the public. Then, admitting lying, and THEN, making excuses all the while, saying "what I said was technically true, I didn't have sexual relations with her as I understand the term to be defined". OR...."that would depend on what the defintion of th word is, is" (that is verbatim).
In any case, I believe Clinton did lie to the grand jury. He later admitted the intent to decieve.
Impeachement, and also removal from office is supposed to happen with 'high crimes and misdemeanors". I firmly believe Clinton obstructed justice and sexually harassed women while serving as President, either one of which should have been enough to remove him.
The misconcepetion that this was just about sex is a common one.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>Ruhx,
Sorry still side stepping. The contention by SDW is that liberals control the content of the media. This got way more than it's fair share of attention. I had some of my conservative friends saying : " god I'm tired of hearing about this ".
I came out of it feeling that Clinton was a fool ( not realizing that it would effect more than himself ) and had done the democratic party ( and the country ) a huge disservice. But, if liberals did control the media you'd have seen obvious efforts to contain the situation. There was nothing like that. Even early on.
Your king is still in check. You'll have to do better than that.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe you just proved his point. Even those that would normally be all about Clinton getting his jimmy run through the ringer were tired of hearing about it and lost interest. His point seems to stand on that one.
BTW, I am not taking sides in this, just thought it was interesting how you use his point to prove yours not seeing how you just validated his point 100%.
It seems to me that I hear the same thing repeated non-stop from the conservative majority on these boards: namely, they are constantly saying that they hate Europeans because Europeans do not respect Bush's intellect. Does that mean that those people on these boards are exhibiting a liberal bias?!?!??! Or are they merely parrots of that vast media Communist conspiracy?
as for the Europeans; I wonder if it is true . . . if so I wonder if it has anything to do with the incident where a journalist asked a question of Bush, in english, and then a question to a French politician, in French, and Bush responding: "oh look this guy thinks he's so smart . . .I can speak in two languages as well" (I paraphrase... and in doing so am being kinder than the original) Now don't get me wrong ...*heehee* . . . just wondering?!?!?
To the other fellow : I didn't prove anyone's point with that other than to illustrate that for even consevatives it got more attention ( with all the ugly things going on in the world ) than it deserved.
I never saw any evidence of it being subtle. As a matter of fact that notion is laughable by your own admission " I agree that the media went ballistic with coverage ".
Still in check.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
I believe you just proved his point. Even those that would normally be all about Clinton getting his jimmy run through the ringer were tired of hearing about it and lost interest. His point seems to stand on that one.
BTW, I am not taking sides in this, just thought it was interesting how you use his point to prove yours not seeing how you just validated his point 100%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong. The reason why only some of his republican friends grew tired of the scandal is because it had already run its course in damaging the President's credibility. Any additional coverage only succeeded in confirming those beliefs. How does confirmation after confirmation after confimation affect one's attention? Boredom and subsequent disinterest is the answer.
The argument doesn't hold up. Maximum media coverage of a topic only increases awareness. One may be bored and disinterested by it, but definitely not less aware.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
I wonder if it has anything to do with the incident where a journalist asked a question of Bush, in english, and then a question to a French politician, in French, and Bush responding: "oh look this guy thinks he's so smart . . .I can speak in two languages as well" (I paraphrase... and in doing so am being kinder than the original) Now don't get me wrong ...*heehee* . . . just wondering?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush arrogance. The reporter was David Gregory of NBC. Bush failed to realize that many foreign reporters speak English at his Press Conferences.....
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
So then what the hell are you doing here?
<strong>Dr. Schmitt,
So then what the hell are you doing here?
I'm attempting to be the voice of reason in a group of argumentative, egotistical "geeks". The cro-magnum mentallity in the posts is almost laughable.
<strong>Dr. Schmitt,
So then what the hell are you doing here?
Jimmac, without reading what has been said since i posted (just got home and am eating)and before we continue in the vein of proving opinions (what a ludicruis statement) and before i slander sp .whatever for all i am worth.
What i am doing here is not about converting you to a tie wearing staunch republican. It's about forcing you to question your side of this, and in so doing questioning my own.
Now to spwhatever, to you i have to say you missed that point so many times i give up on you. Look my little aspiring prophet the road to enlightenment is not paved with answers where in those around you concede, it's paved with questions that help you grow. From your posts and your rebutle i can only deduce that you have no questions it's black and white and that's that. Well guess what so were the views of jim jones, and many others. Get over yourself and grow, your a pathetic example of the narrowmindedness need to form a nazi party.
and in parting let me say, to you sp, have some punch! I hear it's cherry.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>