<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> private in the oval office no less <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>^ 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. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I can see how not being able to see the horse for all the hair could confuse you on that. Try again and read all the way through before your superior intellect dictates that your emotional instability should write a post.
But what perfect diction you have! Gold star! Good job, you get an a this semester sally.
This is, without a doubt, the most idiotic thing I have ever read. I was midway through quoting and "systematically destroying" the article, when I lost interest. Suffice it to say the writer has bought into every ultra-left idea that there ever was, namely that Bush is dumb, Cheney is a crook, Rumsfeld is a liar, we shouldn't bomb a poor nation, the only good things about America are money and sex and drugs, and most importantly, that we can ignore this horrific attack on America.
My father said it best the other night: "Some people could just go on pretending 9/11 never happened....and their lives would pretty much be the same".
I would like to know what the writer's solution is. He never seemed to state one.
Stimuli, read those 5 pages you've skipped over. They're dramatic, fun to read, and addictive! I thoroughly enjoyed your "whispers in a stadium full of knee-jerks" comment!
[quote] 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? <hr></blockquote>
1) Yes. I do use it as an example of bias by a supposed NEWS REPORTER.
2) I don't hate Europeans.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Are you kidding? The oval office? Please. Should he be accountable for lying?
[quote]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 ".
Still in check. <hr></blockquote>
1) Not wiggling. Not at all. I never said liberals control the media, which I assume means "own" (except Mr, Turner).
2) Missing subtle liberal bias is my whole point. Many don't even know when it is employed.
3) Amount of coverage and type of coverage are two different things.
[quote]Bush arrogance. The reporter was David Gregory of NBC. Bush failed to realize that many foreign reporters speak English at his Press Conferences.....<hr></blockquote>
Right. Bush is arrogant? Please. We all know David Gregory is the king of humility. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]You people disgust me. You are a bunch of poindexter's who need to get off the computer and get a life. Your pointless bickering will change nothing. <hr></blockquote>
ummmm..........
(PS: We like it)
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Good attempt. I'm sure you read all 10 pages of the thread, too. Jack ass.
[quote]Stimuli, read those 5 pages you've skipped over. They're dramatic, fun to read, and addictive! I thoroughly enjoyed your "whispers in a stadium full of knee-jerks" comment! <hr></blockquote>
This has been a fun thread. I never thought it would go this far. :eek:
These far sighted do gooders spend more trying to force companies to spend money than it would take to design and implement pollution reduction devices.
How about this:
Bush presented a voluntary plan on Thursday to slow the growth of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. The plan was in contrast to the mandatory limits sought in the 1997 Kyoto Treaty.
Mandatory limits that were set to hit hardest against the US? Hmm nations that hate us?
or maybe this:
Another (student at the global warming talks) dressed as a cow, referring to scientific reports that methane from flatulent cattle contributes to global warming. "Do you think my gases are causing a climate catastrophe?" the cow's sign read. "That's crap!"
Tax money wasted on finding out if cows are killing the earth. I remember that one, what were you greenpeace lovers going to do kill all the cows to help the world? Another fine example of dollars wasted on stupidity that could have been spent to design and implement pollution filters.
Here's a bit more just for the sake of laughter at the radicals expense:
" 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 ".
My post wasn't directed at you but, Dr. Schmitt. Read a little closer.
Well, that's it. This thread has been officially reduced to linking to stories with people dressed up in costume, discussing cow flatulence as it relates to global warming.
The World Resources Institute has posted a special media alert on its website: "WRI is urging journalists to exercise caution in reporting on or reviewing the new book, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'"
That's not biased at work or any kind of call to limit free speech. Nope.
" 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 ".
My post wasn't directed at you but, Dr. Schmitt. Read a little closer.
But, for what it's worth still in check. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No Jimmac, i know they weren't i was posting my thoughts after a bit of a break and some perspective nothing more.
<strong>Well, that's it. This thread has been officially reduced to linking to stories with people dressed up in costume, discussing cow flatulence as it relates to global warming.
SDW, those links are for the benefit of the greenpeace lover. That particular link is actually for a bit of perspective on what a radical looks like in real life, be it left or right. I couldn't help but question the outcome of methane research done though.
<strong>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 ".
To continue with the dicussion on this one, i made my point and can further by saying who better to see and use the desensitisation issue than those who claim it is the problem? But it wasn't the republicans beating it to death. It was the media machine. If you want to stand firm and say the fact that the media is about money isn't at issue here, i can not make an arguement against that, but i can darn sure show you some profit margins
Comments
What a disgrace to start the 10th page with his rubbish.
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2001/10/19/notes101901.DTL"; target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2001/10/19/notes101901.DTL</a>;
Food for thought.
<strong> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What a disgrace to start the 10th page with his rubbish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the only disgrace is your once again missing a clear point because your head is in your a...
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> private in the oval office no less <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>^ 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. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
What???
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can see how not being able to see the horse for all the hair could confuse you on that. Try again and read all the way through before your superior intellect dictates that your emotional instability should write a post.
But what perfect diction you have! Gold star! Good job, you get an a this semester sally.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I stopped reading this thread about 6 pages ago, but I came across this article which seemed like a good link in light of the original post:
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2001/10/19/notes101901.DTL"; target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2001/10/19/notes101901.DTL</a>;
Food for thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is, without a doubt, the most idiotic thing I have ever read. I was midway through quoting and "systematically destroying" the article, when I lost interest. Suffice it to say the writer has bought into every ultra-left idea that there ever was, namely that Bush is dumb, Cheney is a crook, Rumsfeld is a liar, we shouldn't bomb a poor nation, the only good things about America are money and sex and drugs, and most importantly, that we can ignore this horrific attack on America.
My father said it best the other night: "Some people could just go on pretending 9/11 never happened....and their lives would pretty much be the same".
I would like to know what the writer's solution is. He never seemed to state one.
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? <hr></blockquote>
1) Yes. I do use it as an example of bias by a supposed NEWS REPORTER.
2) I don't hate Europeans.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Are you kidding? The oval office? Please. Should he be accountable for lying?
[quote]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 ".
Still in check. <hr></blockquote>
1) Not wiggling. Not at all. I never said liberals control the media, which I assume means "own" (except Mr, Turner).
2) Missing subtle liberal bias is my whole point. Many don't even know when it is employed.
3) Amount of coverage and type of coverage are two different things.
[quote]Bush arrogance. The reporter was David Gregory of NBC. Bush failed to realize that many foreign reporters speak English at his Press Conferences.....<hr></blockquote>
Right. Bush is arrogant? Please. We all know David Gregory is the king of humility. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]You people disgust me. You are a bunch of poindexter's who need to get off the computer and get a life. Your pointless bickering will change nothing. <hr></blockquote>
ummmm..........
(PS: We like it)
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Good attempt. I'm sure you read all 10 pages of the thread, too. Jack ass.
[quote]Stimuli, read those 5 pages you've skipped over. They're dramatic, fun to read, and addictive! I thoroughly enjoyed your "whispers in a stadium full of knee-jerks" comment! <hr></blockquote>
This has been a fun thread. I never thought it would go this far. :eek:
<a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR50801.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR50801.html</a>;
It has a great link to other reports on kyoto
<a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR50801b.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR50801b.html</a>;
These far sighted do gooders spend more trying to force companies to spend money than it would take to design and implement pollution reduction devices.
How about this:
Bush presented a voluntary plan on Thursday to slow the growth of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. The plan was in contrast to the mandatory limits sought in the 1997 Kyoto Treaty.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/15/japan.climate/?related"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/15/japan.climate/?related</a>;
Mandatory limits that were set to hit hardest against the US? Hmm nations that hate us?
or maybe this:
Another (student at the global warming talks) dressed as a cow, referring to scientific reports that methane from flatulent cattle contributes to global warming. "Do you think my gases are causing a climate catastrophe?" the cow's sign read. "That's crap!"
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/climate/2001-07-18-bonn-protests.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/climate/2001-07-18-bonn-protests.htm</a>;
Tax money wasted on finding out if cows are killing the earth. I remember that one, what were you greenpeace lovers going to do kill all the cows to help the world? Another fine example of dollars wasted on stupidity that could have been spent to design and implement pollution filters.
Here's a bit more just for the sake of laughter at the radicals expense:
<a href="http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2002/enviros_get_defensive.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2002/enviros_get_defensive.htm</a>;
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>Ruhx, how old are you? I would feel terrible about insulting the elderly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This would matter how? I do not like you nor do i want any part of my personal life to involve you. Again and for good measure P*ss off.
" 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 ".
My post wasn't directed at you but, Dr. Schmitt. Read a little closer.
But, for what it's worth still in check.
GAME OVER <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Now careful about the elderly comments. I've got be older than him.
Thanks Canada! We love you too!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The World Resources Institute has posted a special media alert on its website: "WRI is urging journalists to exercise caution in reporting on or reviewing the new book, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'"
That's not biased at work or any kind of call to limit free speech. Nope.
<strong>Ruhx,
" 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 ".
My post wasn't directed at you but, Dr. Schmitt. Read a little closer.
But, for what it's worth still in check.
No Jimmac, i know they weren't
<strong>Well, that's it. This thread has been officially reduced to linking to stories with people dressed up in costume, discussing cow flatulence as it relates to global warming.
GAME OVER
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
SDW, those links are for the benefit of the greenpeace lover. That particular link is actually for a bit of perspective on what a radical looks like in real life, be it left or right. I couldn't help but question the outcome of methane research done though.
<strong>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 ".
Still in check.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
To continue with the dicussion on this one, i made my point and can further by saying who better to see and use the desensitisation issue than those who claim it is the problem? But it wasn't the republicans beating it to death. It was the media machine. If you want to stand firm and say the fact that the media is about money isn't at issue here, i can not make an arguement against that, but i can darn sure show you some profit margins