"Criminal Liberal" Pretty much implies evil. Everything you have said up to this point about liberals is negative so what is one to assume?
" If you can't see that the general tone, at least by the end, of the original statement was intentionally "cavalier" (i.e. "How about trying things our way?), then that's too bad. I think I have a valid point when I suggest that failing nations try democracy instead of total oppression. "
Geez lighten up yourself. The " comedy act " reference was a joke! Maybe I should have put a smile face after it but I assumed you were smart enough to catch that since that phrase is always used that way.
About the media being bias, they had a field day with Clinton's sex life for months. He's considered a liberal. So how does that fit into your scheme? As far as I'm conserned it had zero to do with running the country except of course when he lied to the american people.
But that didn't happen until we were way into this. This affair should have been settled after his term in office as this is not a political issue. It's marital. But the press wouldn't let it go. God if we only knew how many were guilty of this ( George Washington, Kennedy ).
Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president.
This thread just keeps going and going and seems to be split along the liberal vs. conservative ideologies.
Editorials can report on simply whether or not President Bush broke a campaign promise. I thought you would have enjoyed Rich Lowry's conservative fare.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
But, let us assume they ARE biased, for a moment. Even if they WERE, how how horrible it would be to have a conservative News Channel in the midst of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather's liberal propoganda!!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
FOX News is absolutely welcome as a conservative news channel- but only if it advertises itself as that. It cannot continue to call itself independent and bias-free when it remains overwhelmingly conservative.
[quote] I believe you spoke out against a general liberal bias in the media. I, through FAIR's findings, refute any possibility of that. <hr></blockquote>
That is an absolute joke. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Now, CNN: There is still no evidence of a direct quote by Bush. The article references a "campaign pledge" but never quotes it it any form. And, need I remind you that CNN was once commonly known as the Clinton News Network?
FoxNews: I still disagree with your comments on this network by the way (concerning bias), and I think that the whole issue of FAIR "denoting" which guests were of Conservative standing and which ones were Liberal is very problematic....BUT:
[quote]He steered clear of regulating power plants' output of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases. Bush had promised during his presidential campaign to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants, but reversed himself last year.
Link to quote(campaign pledge) please. And, has Bush since come out and said he will not support any reduction in CO2? No.
<hr></blockquote>
BBC: There isn't much to say here that I haven't already said, but I will repeat this: WHAT "pledge"? I want the quote. Or, I am I supposed to take the media's word for it?
Jim Leheher: ".....rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, "
1. Again, which "promise"?
2. Rollbacks....how horrible! People like you hear this as reported by the media and actually believe it. What Bush did was have the EPA suspend and review many LAST MINUTE executive orders and iniatives that Clinton signed "on his way out the door". God forbid that a new administration wants to review the policies of the old one without just rubber-stamping them. Did you know, for instance, the restrictions put upon the lumber industry in this nation? Clinton's EPA did very serious damage to the lumber industry as a whole by implementing "feel good" restrictions on a RENEWABLE resource. What you don't hear is that this industry plants more trees than it cuts down each and every year.
[quote]The president has been unequivocal: He does not support the Kyoto treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world and it is not in the United States' economic best interest. The president has directed his cabinet secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address a serious problem, which is global warming. <hr></blockquote>
I see no problem with this statement. Kyoto sucks. It excludes some of the biggest polluters in the world and would harm our own interests. Stop believeing the liberal propoganda. Or, do you have any actual reasons for supporting Kyoto?
Now, Alaska: (from the same source)
I also support this. We must have a short, mid, and long term energy plan. In the short-term and mid-term we must reduce our dependance on foreign oil. And you, like most victims of the liberal bias in the media, have been fooled by that image of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. . I love when networks and news sources show images like that. Most of the area is a barren waste land, with only some wildlife. Very little of it looks like that. I have also seen pictures of what the oil facilties will look like, and they are nothing like the oil geysers out of a [BOLD]Yosemite Sam cartoon[/BOLD] that you are picturing. Though, I do agree that in the long term we need to fund programs which reduce our dependance on oil. We do need to move to cleaner and more renewable fuel, but if you think that will happen in the next 50 years on a large scale you are probably wasted on crack.
[quote]This is the most alarming rollback in environmental efforts that we have ever seen.
<hr></blockquote>
(Gephardt)
Laughable, politically motivated statment. Gephardt and Daschle are nothing but political whores.
I'm not going to go on and on, but the article is nothing but an verbal asassination attempt on Bush. This is liberal bias at its finest, in that while the article doesn't make any false claims, it is written from the point of view that Bush is wrong, he is detroying the environment and is generally a big business whore. This is the very defintion of the criminal liberal media, one which is SO BIASED against the conservative line of thought that it often doesn't even know it anymore.
Each and every one of these examples is written from the point of view that Bush is an idiot, and/or wrong and as I said, is indebted to big business. What is so completely ridiculous about this line of thought is that the democrats raise just as much money as republicans do. They have really pulled off a piece of ingenius PR over the last 25 years, in that they have convinced you they are out for the common man. Al Gore is millionare. So is Clinton. So is Jesse Jackson. What they ARE interested in doing is taking money out of my middle class pocket and putting it into the pocket of someone who makes $15,000 a year. Maybe they should call themselves "The Robin Hood Party"
jimmac:
"As far as I'm conserned it had zero to do with running the country except of course when he lied to the american people."
That would be the point, now wouldn't it?
"Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president. "
I'm pretty sure Kennedy didn't get sucked off in the Oval Office, then go on national TV and shake his finger to the world, saying he didn't do it.
sjpsu again:
"I agree. "Criminal Liberal" has clearly negative connotations."
Agreed. But when the media behaves like it does, I'll keep on using it. The way they represent themselves IS CRIMINAL.
[quote]I thought you would have enjoyed Rich Lowry's conservative fare. <hr></blockquote>
No, because I try to make my own judgements. This is why I am opinionated, but not biased, unlike you.
[quote]FOX News is absolutely welcome as a conservative news channel- but only if it advertises itself as that. It cannot continue to call itself independent and bias-free when it remains overwhelmingly conservative. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't say it was. You did. And I disagree. You call them conservative based on "FAIR" and the fact they don't buy the liberal line and write stories from the point of view I mentioned.
^ I'm not interested in the content of the articles themselves. I've only considered whether or not they support the fact that Bush broke his campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions. You can chose not to believe these reliable sources of news (who all seem to agree), but you must remember that I haven't even provided links from <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush010313.html"; target="_blank">ABC News</a>, NBC, or CBS yet. You remain ignorant to this truth. It's ridiculous that you would need campaign pledge documentation or transcripts.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
That is an absolute joke. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
BWAHHAHAHA.
Hilarious.
I'm laughing too hard.
I actually laughed out loud when I read some of your "documentation".
<strong>^ I'm not interested in the content of the articles themselves. I've only considered whether or not they support the fact that Bush broke his campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions. You can chose not to believe these reliable sources of news (who all seem to agree), but you must remember that I haven't even provided links from <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush010313.html"; target="_blank">ABC News</a>, NBC, or CBS yet. You remain ignorant to this truth. It's ridiculous that you would need campaign pledge documentation or transcripts.
Why is it unreasonable to ask for the actual "pledge"?
Classless? I truly do find your opinions laughable. I'm being quite sincere. Let me reprise some of them:
[quote] But, I believe you spoke out against a general liberal bias in the media. I, through FAIR's findings, refute any possibility of that. <hr></blockquote>
One.
[quote]I'm not interested in the content of the articles themselves. <hr></blockquote>
Two.
[quote]I will concede the other articles because they are not worth it. <hr></blockquote>
Three.
[quote]The CLW posted facts. <hr></blockquote>
Four.
[quote]Being snobbish yourself to "academic snobbery" is itself- SNOBBISH. Have you not heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right?" Well, probably not considering that you probably are reciting that "Eye for an Eye" part of the Old Testament. <hr></blockquote>
Five. Thanks for clearing that up.
[quote]You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. <hr></blockquote>
Six. Take a pill.
On the CO2 point, there are two criteria I would need to concede the point to you (that Bush broke a campaign pledge)
1) A clear campaign statement by Bush to place manadatory limits on CO2. Not a reference, not a question answered with a "all things being equal, I would probably support that". An actual pledge. He doesn't have to use that word, but it must be clear it is a promise.
2) An instance where Bush said he will not seek to limit CO2 emissions anytime during his Presidency, I'm not talking about limiting them "to the levels the environmental lobby wants". Something that says Bush will not seek any CO2 limits on corporations.
Anything short of these two conditions (or perhaps a quote by a Bush administration official saying he reversed his position) is simply not fact.
You made the statement about "breaking promises left and right", now put your money where your mouth is.
I would also like to point out that even if you were to prove this "broken promise", I could argue that Bush was justified in doing so based on very sound reasons at the time, that being the power crisis in CA last year. Your whole argument makes it seem as if you were somehow, by the grace of God, to prove your point the "ball game would be over". But, it wouldn't, because after reading as much of the evidence as I can find on the topic, I support the President's decision, even if it DID break a "promise" (which I still doubt).
This affair should have been settled after his term in office as this is not a political issue. It's marital. But the press wouldn't let it go. God if we only knew how many were guilty of this ( George Washington, Kennedy ).
Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president.
Jimmac, i won't jump all over this but it's something i had a strong reaction to when it happened, so i want to make a comment. It makes all the difference in the world that he is president, it opens up national security issues. It creates all kinds of misgivings, this you can refute. But better he have misgivings than no conscience is my thought.
Lastly he was president for 8 years. He was not an emperor, not a lifelong dictator, he only needed to keep it in his pants for those years.
My thoughts flame if you like.
Though this thread has deteriorated into a liberal vs conservative mud slinger i'd like to put in a thought on the original topic.
To nations that hate us.
Are we the evil republic ready to undermining your values? Of course not.
Are we bent on the subjugating your ways of life, of course not.
Are we set on giving you a freedom we hold dear, you bet your ass.
Yes. yes, yes, But you guys missed the side of that barn again. The original point was that Clinton was a liberal and the press was all over him about this. If the media was controlled by the liberals one would think they would have tried to tone it down or gloss it over.
<strong>Yes. yes, yes, But you guys missed the side of that barn again. The original point was that Clinton was a liberal and the press was all over him about this. If the media was controlled by the liberals one would think they would have tried to tone it down or gloss it over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naww, i didn't miss it just didn't feel like looking at it, the media is about sensationalizing anything that will insite people and get them watching. It's the insipid liberal sutff that is passed when things are calm that is the problem It gets through and grows. Viva la Repubilcan <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>You made the statement about "breaking promises left and right", now put your money where your mouth is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. You responded to that statement with: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As confirmed by your words, your challenge was to find only one broken campaign promise. Now as a concession to time and energy, I have conceded every article except CO2 emissions reduction reversal ones. I have provided a variety of well-known sources including those from network news, cable tv news, european news, and public broadcasting news. Each and every one of them confirm that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions. You, however, will not be able to find one article saying that President Bush did not do so. It is that point and the recognition of your continuing obstinance, that I withdraw from further arguing this point. It happened.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I would also like to point out that even if you were to prove this "broken promise", I could argue that Bush was justified in doing so based on very sound reasons at the time, that being the power crisis in CA last year. Your whole argument makes it seem as if you were somehow, by the grace of God, to prove your point the "ball game would be over". But, it wouldn't, because after reading as much of the evidence as I can find on the topic, I support the President's decision, even if it DID break a "promise" (which I still doubt).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion regarding justification for that broken promise. I do not support any justification for his decision. But, I neither challenge your statement, nor further support mine. The matter simply comes down to one's priorities. I think the environment is paramount while you support business in the same sense. It's a stalemate political issue.
I rather enjoyed reading that. It shows you have a sense of humor separate from that which you've shown in mocking some of my posts. I respect you for that.
I have decided to concede the point on CO2 emissions. I still think the media's painting of this issue is skewed on the whole. From what I gathered in reading, Bush made a general statement during the campaign, then cited specific "pollutants", one of which was CO2. Then, he and his admin. realized that CO2 wasn't technically classified a "pollutant" and that it would do serious harm to business as well. So, he didn't include it in his emissions policy. I suppose you are right, this is technically a reversal. But, from what I read I don't think they even realized there was a conflict on that one pollutant (not the others mind you) until someone called them on it.
In any case, I do support the decision. To come out and say your support of the environment is paramount might sound good and make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but I think it is a bit narrow. There is a lot of the environmental agenda that is based on false information and scare tactics. I think global warming may be one of them. Not to condescend, but be careful.
I did challenge you to find one example and it looks like you may have. I would like to point out, though, that you also said "breaking promises left and right". I don't think that is fair in the least. He has stuck to the vast majority of all his promises, including tax reform, helping military personnel, etc.
I also respect you as a worthy opponent. You are quite tenacious.
" Naww, i didn't miss it just didn't feel like looking at it, the media is about sensationalizing anything that will insite people and get them watching. It's the insipid liberal sutff that is passed when things are calm that is the problem It gets through and grows. Viva la Repubilcan "
This is incredibly LAME. It's a prime example of what's wrong here. Just because you don't properly address the question doesn't make it go away. I contend that if the media were controlled by liberals and not their own selfish interests this wouldn't have happened." I just didn't feel like looking at it " indeed. Sounds like a child's answer. I think I just proved my point. I'm sure you'll rationalize it somehow though. But as far as I'm concerned GOTCHA!
There is a lot of the environmental agenda that is based on false information and scare tactics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt it, but that statement applies to everything political. In no way does that make it right though.
What is that 3 letter word? F**? Fear and something else used to describe Dell and Microsoft scare tactics?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I would like to point out, though, that you also said "breaking promises left and right".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I said: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SJPSU:
<strong>
He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So while I may have conveyed the idea of "breaking promises left and right," I only need five more campaign promise reversals to prove that statement correct.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I also respect you as a worthy opponent. You are quite tenacious.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm getting that environmentalist "warm and fuzzy feeling."
<strong>" Naww, i didn't miss it just didn't feel like looking at it, the media is about sensationalizing anything that will insite people and get them watching. It's the insipid liberal sutff that is passed when things are calm that is the problem It gets through and grows. Viva la Repubilcan "
This is incredibly LAME. It's a prime example of what's wrong here. Just because you don't properly address the question doesn't make it go away. I contend that if the media were controlled by liberals and not their own selfish interests this wouldn't have happened." I just didn't feel like looking at it " indeed. Sounds like a child's answer. I think I just proved my point. I'm sure you'll rationalize it somehow though. But as far as I'm concerned GOTCHA!
Jimmac, went i passed it up the first time, i really didn't feel like looking at it. I didn't want to get into the opinion pandering again. However the Clinton statement about being president did bother me. The truth told, i don't watch TV. Not becuase of biased but because it's all bad news.
Then i tried to turn it back to the original topic. That's what you missed.
The next one was a joke poking fun at the whole thread. so nope Gotcha <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's still side stepping the topic like I knew you would because I believe neither you or SDW have a good answer for this one. It's a simple question and I understand your reluctance to address it. It's a big hole in the idea that liberals control the media. By the way I agree most news is bad reporting but, not because they are controlled by anyone. It's their desire for ratings or to sell copy. Sorry checkmate. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>That's still side stepping the topic like I knew you would because I believe neither you or SDW have a good answer for this one. It's a simple question and I understand your reluctance to address it. It's a big hole in the idea that liberals control the media. By the way I agree most news is bad reporting but, not because they are controlled by anyone. It's their desire for ratings or to sell copy. Sorry checkmate. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
First i believe it's check and for the last time i will put the ball back in your court. Give me a line on the proof you'd like that will prove a side. Should it be excerts posted by media sources? If so I can give you some but have to question the idea as it is tantamount to using a word to define itself. What facts would help? Should i find studies showing one side or the other? Give me your angle and i'll do my best.
^ 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]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Give me a line on the proof you'd like that will prove a side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Give me a line" on ****ing comprehensibility.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Should it be excerts posted by media sources?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it should be "excerpts.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
If so I can give you some but have to question the idea as it is tantamount to using a word to define itself.
I've already supplied the proof on my side. The media went on for most of the year about this. Literally bathing in it. If what SDW contends was true they would have done something to gloss over it. Divert attention from it. Everybody knew it would have an effect on the next election. For liberals not a good one.
But, if you don't watch TV I can understand you not being aware of it. But, it was in the newspapers also.
I don't really think given the scope of this item I really need to look up links. The idea that the media is controlled by any one group besides themselves is ludicrious. But, if they were controlled by the liberal side they would have been sympathetic. It just doesn't make sense. I saw nothing but " more news about the Clinton sex scandal ". You would have thought there was nothing else going on in the world.
I still believe " mate " but, you can keep trying if you want.
" ^ 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.
Comments
"Criminal Liberal" Pretty much implies evil. Everything you have said up to this point about liberals is negative so what is one to assume?
" If you can't see that the general tone, at least by the end, of the original statement was intentionally "cavalier" (i.e. "How about trying things our way?), then that's too bad. I think I have a valid point when I suggest that failing nations try democracy instead of total oppression. "
Geez lighten up yourself. The " comedy act " reference was a joke! Maybe I should have put a smile face after it but I assumed you were smart enough to catch that since that phrase is always used that way.
About the media being bias, they had a field day with Clinton's sex life for months. He's considered a liberal. So how does that fit into your scheme? As far as I'm conserned it had zero to do with running the country except of course when he lied to the american people.
But that didn't happen until we were way into this. This affair should have been settled after his term in office as this is not a political issue. It's marital. But the press wouldn't let it go. God if we only knew how many were guilty of this ( George Washington, Kennedy ).
Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president.
This thread just keeps going and going and seems to be split along the liberal vs. conservative ideologies.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>SDW2001
"Criminal Liberal" Pretty much implies evil. Everything you have said up to this point about liberals is negative so what is one to assume?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. "Criminal Liberal" has clearly negative connotations. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
THEY ARE EDITORIALS!!!!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Editorials can report on simply whether or not President Bush broke a campaign promise. I thought you would have enjoyed Rich Lowry's conservative fare.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
But, let us assume they ARE biased, for a moment. Even if they WERE, how how horrible it would be to have a conservative News Channel in the midst of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather's liberal propoganda!!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
FOX News is absolutely welcome as a conservative news channel- but only if it advertises itself as that. It cannot continue to call itself independent and bias-free when it remains overwhelmingly conservative.
That is an absolute joke. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Now, CNN: There is still no evidence of a direct quote by Bush. The article references a "campaign pledge" but never quotes it it any form. And, need I remind you that CNN was once commonly known as the Clinton News Network?
FoxNews: I still disagree with your comments on this network by the way (concerning bias), and I think that the whole issue of FAIR "denoting" which guests were of Conservative standing and which ones were Liberal is very problematic....BUT:
[quote]He steered clear of regulating power plants' output of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases. Bush had promised during his presidential campaign to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants, but reversed himself last year.
Link to quote(campaign pledge) please. And, has Bush since come out and said he will not support any reduction in CO2? No.
<hr></blockquote>
BBC: There isn't much to say here that I haven't already said, but I will repeat this: WHAT "pledge"? I want the quote. Or, I am I supposed to take the media's word for it?
Jim Leheher: ".....rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, "
1. Again, which "promise"?
2. Rollbacks....how horrible! People like you hear this as reported by the media and actually believe it. What Bush did was have the EPA suspend and review many LAST MINUTE executive orders and iniatives that Clinton signed "on his way out the door". God forbid that a new administration wants to review the policies of the old one without just rubber-stamping them. Did you know, for instance, the restrictions put upon the lumber industry in this nation? Clinton's EPA did very serious damage to the lumber industry as a whole by implementing "feel good" restrictions on a RENEWABLE resource. What you don't hear is that this industry plants more trees than it cuts down each and every year.
[quote]The president has been unequivocal: He does not support the Kyoto treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world and it is not in the United States' economic best interest. The president has directed his cabinet secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address a serious problem, which is global warming. <hr></blockquote>
I see no problem with this statement. Kyoto sucks. It excludes some of the biggest polluters in the world and would harm our own interests. Stop believeing the liberal propoganda. Or, do you have any actual reasons for supporting Kyoto?
Now, Alaska: (from the same source)
I also support this. We must have a short, mid, and long term energy plan. In the short-term and mid-term we must reduce our dependance on foreign oil. And you, like most victims of the liberal bias in the media, have been fooled by that image of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. . I love when networks and news sources show images like that. Most of the area is a barren waste land, with only some wildlife. Very little of it looks like that. I have also seen pictures of what the oil facilties will look like, and they are nothing like the oil geysers out of a [BOLD]Yosemite Sam cartoon[/BOLD] that you are picturing. Though, I do agree that in the long term we need to fund programs which reduce our dependance on oil. We do need to move to cleaner and more renewable fuel, but if you think that will happen in the next 50 years on a large scale you are probably wasted on crack.
[quote]This is the most alarming rollback in environmental efforts that we have ever seen.
<hr></blockquote>
(Gephardt)
Laughable, politically motivated statment. Gephardt and Daschle are nothing but political whores.
I'm not going to go on and on, but the article is nothing but an verbal asassination attempt on Bush. This is liberal bias at its finest, in that while the article doesn't make any false claims, it is written from the point of view that Bush is wrong, he is detroying the environment and is generally a big business whore. This is the very defintion of the criminal liberal media, one which is SO BIASED against the conservative line of thought that it often doesn't even know it anymore.
Each and every one of these examples is written from the point of view that Bush is an idiot, and/or wrong and as I said, is indebted to big business. What is so completely ridiculous about this line of thought is that the democrats raise just as much money as republicans do. They have really pulled off a piece of ingenius PR over the last 25 years, in that they have convinced you they are out for the common man. Al Gore is millionare. So is Clinton. So is Jesse Jackson. What they ARE interested in doing is taking money out of my middle class pocket and putting it into the pocket of someone who makes $15,000 a year. Maybe they should call themselves "The Robin Hood Party"
jimmac:
"As far as I'm conserned it had zero to do with running the country except of course when he lied to the american people."
That would be the point, now wouldn't it?
"Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president. "
I'm pretty sure Kennedy didn't get sucked off in the Oval Office, then go on national TV and shake his finger to the world, saying he didn't do it.
sjpsu again:
"I agree. "Criminal Liberal" has clearly negative connotations."
Agreed. But when the media behaves like it does, I'll keep on using it. The way they represent themselves IS CRIMINAL.
[quote]I thought you would have enjoyed Rich Lowry's conservative fare. <hr></blockquote>
No, because I try to make my own judgements. This is why I am opinionated, but not biased, unlike you.
[quote]FOX News is absolutely welcome as a conservative news channel- but only if it advertises itself as that. It cannot continue to call itself independent and bias-free when it remains overwhelmingly conservative. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't say it was. You did. And I disagree. You call them conservative based on "FAIR" and the fact they don't buy the liberal line and write stories from the point of view I mentioned.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
That is an absolute joke. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
BWAHHAHAHA.
Hilarious.
I'm laughing too hard.
I actually laughed out loud when I read some of your "documentation".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Classless. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>^ I'm not interested in the content of the articles themselves. I've only considered whether or not they support the fact that Bush broke his campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions. You can chose not to believe these reliable sources of news (who all seem to agree), but you must remember that I haven't even provided links from <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush010313.html"; target="_blank">ABC News</a>, NBC, or CBS yet. You remain ignorant to this truth. It's ridiculous that you would need campaign pledge documentation or transcripts.
Classless. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it unreasonable to ask for the actual "pledge"?
Classless? I truly do find your opinions laughable. I'm being quite sincere. Let me reprise some of them:
[quote] But, I believe you spoke out against a general liberal bias in the media. I, through FAIR's findings, refute any possibility of that. <hr></blockquote>
One.
[quote]I'm not interested in the content of the articles themselves. <hr></blockquote>
Two.
[quote]I will concede the other articles because they are not worth it. <hr></blockquote>
Three.
[quote]The CLW posted facts. <hr></blockquote>
Four.
[quote]Being snobbish yourself to "academic snobbery" is itself- SNOBBISH. Have you not heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right?" Well, probably not considering that you probably are reciting that "Eye for an Eye" part of the Old Testament. <hr></blockquote>
Five. Thanks for clearing that up.
[quote]You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. <hr></blockquote>
Six. Take a pill.
On the CO2 point, there are two criteria I would need to concede the point to you (that Bush broke a campaign pledge)
1) A clear campaign statement by Bush to place manadatory limits on CO2. Not a reference, not a question answered with a "all things being equal, I would probably support that". An actual pledge. He doesn't have to use that word, but it must be clear it is a promise.
2) An instance where Bush said he will not seek to limit CO2 emissions anytime during his Presidency, I'm not talking about limiting them "to the levels the environmental lobby wants". Something that says Bush will not seek any CO2 limits on corporations.
Anything short of these two conditions (or perhaps a quote by a Bush administration official saying he reversed his position) is simply not fact.
You made the statement about "breaking promises left and right", now put your money where your mouth is.
I would also like to point out that even if you were to prove this "broken promise", I could argue that Bush was justified in doing so based on very sound reasons at the time, that being the power crisis in CA last year. Your whole argument makes it seem as if you were somehow, by the grace of God, to prove your point the "ball game would be over". But, it wouldn't, because after reading as much of the evidence as I can find on the topic, I support the President's decision, even if it DID break a "promise" (which I still doubt).
But, I await your next posting.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>SDW2001
This affair should have been settled after his term in office as this is not a political issue. It's marital. But the press wouldn't let it go. God if we only knew how many were guilty of this ( George Washington, Kennedy ).
Before you jump all over me about this, no I don't think this good behavior but, it doesn't have anything to do with being president.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jimmac, i won't jump all over this but it's something i had a strong reaction to when it happened, so i want to make a comment. It makes all the difference in the world that he is president, it opens up national security issues. It creates all kinds of misgivings, this you can refute. But better he have misgivings than no conscience is my thought.
Lastly he was president for 8 years. He was not an emperor, not a lifelong dictator, he only needed to keep it in his pants for those years.
My thoughts flame if you like.
Though this thread has deteriorated into a liberal vs conservative mud slinger i'd like to put in a thought on the original topic.
To nations that hate us.
Are we the evil republic ready to undermining your values? Of course not.
Are we bent on the subjugating your ways of life, of course not.
Are we set on giving you a freedom we hold dear, you bet your ass.
<strong>Yes. yes, yes, But you guys missed the side of that barn again. The original point was that Clinton was a liberal and the press was all over him about this. If the media was controlled by the liberals one would think they would have tried to tone it down or gloss it over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naww, i didn't miss it just didn't feel like looking at it, the media is about sensationalizing anything that will insite people and get them watching. It's the insipid liberal sutff that is passed when things are calm that is the problem
<strong>You made the statement about "breaking promises left and right", now put your money where your mouth is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. You responded to that statement with: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As confirmed by your words, your challenge was to find only one broken campaign promise. Now as a concession to time and energy, I have conceded every article except CO2 emissions reduction reversal ones. I have provided a variety of well-known sources including those from network news, cable tv news, european news, and public broadcasting news. Each and every one of them confirm that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions. You, however, will not be able to find one article saying that President Bush did not do so. It is that point and the recognition of your continuing obstinance, that I withdraw from further arguing this point. It happened.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I would also like to point out that even if you were to prove this "broken promise", I could argue that Bush was justified in doing so based on very sound reasons at the time, that being the power crisis in CA last year. Your whole argument makes it seem as if you were somehow, by the grace of God, to prove your point the "ball game would be over". But, it wouldn't, because after reading as much of the evidence as I can find on the topic, I support the President's decision, even if it DID break a "promise" (which I still doubt).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion regarding justification for that broken promise. I do not support any justification for his decision. But, I neither challenge your statement, nor further support mine. The matter simply comes down to one's priorities. I think the environment is paramount while you support business in the same sense. It's a stalemate political issue.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
But, I await your next posting.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I rather enjoyed reading that. It shows you have a sense of humor separate from that which you've shown in mocking some of my posts. I respect you for that.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
I have decided to concede the point on CO2 emissions. I still think the media's painting of this issue is skewed on the whole. From what I gathered in reading, Bush made a general statement during the campaign, then cited specific "pollutants", one of which was CO2. Then, he and his admin. realized that CO2 wasn't technically classified a "pollutant" and that it would do serious harm to business as well. So, he didn't include it in his emissions policy. I suppose you are right, this is technically a reversal. But, from what I read I don't think they even realized there was a conflict on that one pollutant (not the others mind you) until someone called them on it.
In any case, I do support the decision. To come out and say your support of the environment is paramount might sound good and make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but I think it is a bit narrow. There is a lot of the environmental agenda that is based on false information and scare tactics. I think global warming may be one of them. Not to condescend, but be careful.
I did challenge you to find one example and it looks like you may have. I would like to point out, though, that you also said "breaking promises left and right". I don't think that is fair in the least. He has stuck to the vast majority of all his promises, including tax reform, helping military personnel, etc.
I also respect you as a worthy opponent. You are quite tenacious.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is incredibly LAME. It's a prime example of what's wrong here. Just because you don't properly address the question doesn't make it go away. I contend that if the media were controlled by liberals and not their own selfish interests this wouldn't have happened." I just didn't feel like looking at it " indeed. Sounds like a child's answer. I think I just proved my point. I'm sure you'll rationalize it somehow though. But as far as I'm concerned GOTCHA!
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
There is a lot of the environmental agenda that is based on false information and scare tactics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt it, but that statement applies to everything political. In no way does that make it right though.
What is that 3 letter word? F**? Fear and something else used to describe Dell and Microsoft scare tactics?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I would like to point out, though, that you also said "breaking promises left and right".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I said: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SJPSU:
<strong>
He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So while I may have conveyed the idea of "breaking promises left and right," I only need five more campaign promise reversals to prove that statement correct.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I also respect you as a worthy opponent. You are quite tenacious.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>" Naww, i didn't miss it just didn't feel like looking at it, the media is about sensationalizing anything that will insite people and get them watching. It's the insipid liberal sutff that is passed when things are calm that is the problem It gets through and grows. Viva la Repubilcan "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is incredibly LAME. It's a prime example of what's wrong here. Just because you don't properly address the question doesn't make it go away. I contend that if the media were controlled by liberals and not their own selfish interests this wouldn't have happened." I just didn't feel like looking at it " indeed. Sounds like a child's answer. I think I just proved my point. I'm sure you'll rationalize it somehow though. But as far as I'm concerned GOTCHA!
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jimmac, went i passed it up the first time, i really didn't feel like looking at it. I didn't want to get into the opinion pandering again. However the Clinton statement about being president did bother me. The truth told, i don't watch TV. Not becuase of biased but because it's all bad news.
Then i tried to turn it back to the original topic. That's what you missed.
The next one was a joke poking fun at the whole thread.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>That's still side stepping the topic like I knew you would because I believe neither you or SDW have a good answer for this one. It's a simple question and I understand your reluctance to address it. It's a big hole in the idea that liberals control the media. By the way I agree most news is bad reporting but, not because they are controlled by anyone. It's their desire for ratings or to sell copy. Sorry checkmate. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
First i believe it's check
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Give me a line on the proof you'd like that will prove a side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Give me a line" on ****ing comprehensibility.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Should it be excerts posted by media sources?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it should be "excerpts.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
If so I can give you some but have to question the idea as it is tantamount to using a word to define itself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What???
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
But, if you don't watch TV I can understand you not being aware of it. But, it was in the newspapers also.
I don't really think given the scope of this item I really need to look up links. The idea that the media is controlled by any one group besides themselves is ludicrious. But, if they were controlled by the liberal side they would have been sympathetic. It just doesn't make sense. I saw nothing but " more news about the Clinton sex scandal ". You would have thought there was nothing else going on in the world.
I still believe " mate " but, you can keep trying if you want.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
" ^ 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.