Yet again, jimmac: You have posted no refutation of liberal bias. None.
What you do is ask the same question, over and over and over again just for fun...even though I've answered it a million times over. If you disagree with my answer, that's fine. Do't go running around falsely stating that I have answered the question. That tactic is bullshit. Total bullshit.
Then refute it. Show me the overall media is fair. Show me that ABC and CBS news, the NYT and LAT aren't liberal. Show me, jimmac.
I made a claim which is generally accepted in the real world. Liberal bias has been a major, major problem over the past 40 years. There have been several books written on this topic, the most telling of which is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a self-described liberal. Also of note is Ann Coulter's "Slander". Before you dismiss these as "right wing lunacy", how about you cite some examples of books that charge an overall conservative bias in the media as a whole. You can't. Period.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked keyboard: If you charge that Fox News is conservative, then how can you *not* believe there exists a liberal bias eleswhere? You can't have it both ways. If bias does not exist as you claim, then disqualifies any assertion of Fox News being biased. Pick one. Any one will do.
We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it.
I know the "its just 16 word" meme is virally infecting the repubs. But it really really is more than that. Its about suborning the state of the union for his desire for war. Its about the public opinion polls that started to sway to JUNIORS benefit once the public got hold it.
Poodle led Britain started to swallow war once those words came out. But all The people around him knew it was false. or at the very least not worthy of a state of the union.
Did you know that something like 160 congressmen and women used the "niger uranium" in their 2 minute speeches on the floor where they put in their for or against vote. How many of them would have voted otherwise.
How many joe main streets would have thought differently about his rush to war if they had all the disclaimers that JUNIOR and his people had.
Hint hint. wink wink. We ALL know what that was about.Let's not further insult each other on that topic.
I think that's a little strong. It's not a story unless they decide to make it one, and that's what has happened. We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it. As much as some in the media would like to make this into an explosive issue for the next election...that election is just too far away. Poor Dems...it's just not good timing for them.
That's the essence of jimmac's argument as well. The diference is that the President had "realations" in the oval office on the taxpayer's dime.. Worse, he was accused of subourning perjury and obstructing justice, not to mention the fact that he admitted a DIRECT and UNDENIABLE lie to the American people. That's why it was a "good story". And if you notice, the media absolutely VILLIFIED Ken Starr.
no the story hasn't been resolved, and the white house has made it worse by obfuscation.
ken starr should be villified, he spent an unconscionable amount of money and got no results.
False testimony in your opinion.Are you calling them liars? To the men and women that said it AND HAVE SAND in their boots, its their beliefs.
Now hold on. You're trying it again. With all due respect, you're either incapable of comprehending what I've wrtitten or just using the old straw man again. Man, he's getting a workout!
I'm not calling them liars. They talked about THEIR feelings, not others. What I'm saying is that this was wrong and possibly a punishable offense in the military (I don't know for sure, but I can find out). ABC's statement is the one that's false...or rather their their obvious and thinly veiled implication that morale was low acrosd the board. It's not. That was my point.
Quote:
There is a guy down the street that just sits and chants all day that we are all sinners. Its so obvious to him that we are going to hell.
Pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. Your tactic here is to paint the debator as extreme, thereby discrediting his argument. Nice try. You lose.
Quote:
Your pattern of postings says otherwise. Disagree with me if you like.
No, your idiotic interpretation of my posts and ASSUMPTION of my lack of depth creates a PERCEPTION of which fits your preconceived notions. It's easy to dismiss your opponent as an extremist idiot. Much easier than actually presenting an argument.
Quote:
You know if that were the case i would buy it. But once you posted a laundry list of who were members of the "liberal" and it was a name brand who's who of in the media. Your one example gets added to frequently.
So you keep on saying "its one example" one example. But every "sample" you brought up you have jumped to the c) "liberal" choice.
Wow. this is getting really funny! First, you accuse me of making judgements based on miniscule samples of information and limited examples. Then, you accuse me of....wait for it.... providing more examples. Allllllrrrrightttty then.
Quote:
There were serious doubts as to Niger and it was systemic. Brokaw uttered one sentence.
Not proven. We've already discussed sentence number two ^
Quote:
Great glad to hear it. And i'll go on the record and say to you, your comment;s are possible as well. Probable? That's where we differ.
Fine then. That's all I ask. Next time, please consider starting from that position rather than the SDW is a "wacky one" position.
Quote:
How many times do liberals support the death penalty AND have been endorsed by the NRA? Paint him as a mcgovernite. go ahead. Just be sure to bring Karl some tissues on election night.
There is no way on God's green Earth Howard Dean will win. I'm sorry to break that to you. He is far to Leftist for the natioanl electorate. Please tell me that even if you vote for him, you know he'll lose.
Quote:
In your opinion. Everytime i saw that smug George Will or that tobacco friend cookie roberts are that twit brit hume, I thought ABC was selling out to the right. Funny how people see things huh?
You have got to be kidding. You seriously need to watch World News Tonight once in awhile. Nearly EVERY story about Bush is negative...and it's not just a perception I hold. NBC is not as bad. It's unbelievable, but neither is CBS.
Quote:
Out of sheer ****ing greed.
That doesn't answer anything. Please, are you actually saying that other networks lack bias while Fox News IS biased to the right? So, the rest of the media is fair, but Fox is just a right-wing mouthpiece? Yes. Very plausible.
Quote:
Because there is nothing to celebrate
The liberal media aids your cause. Yet, you deny it exists to present your radical Left-wing, pacifist, neo-socialist views as mainstream. At least I know what Fox News is.
Quote:
) the either it is or isn't argument ranks up there with your supreme court comment.
b) There's bias in everything. That's not what i am arguing. You seem to think that if there is some bias, then the whole damn system is biased. get real.
a) Either the media, in general, is biased or it isn't. Overall, I say it goes Left. Are you saying it's centrist? Or right-wing? Take position, then support it. You say it isn't biased, but then assail Fox News for....bias. Hmmm .
b) If you are going to put words in my mouth, at least give me some ketchup to improve the taste. Bias in everything? I don't think so. I have seen fair reporting on ocassion. The point is the overall trend which goes hard Left.
Quote:
Election night. Bush realtive. Bush relative on phone to other bush realtives
Speaking in complete senetences would be nice. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
Quote:
And they are all (almost) owned by five corprations that dictate the rules to Mikey powell and congress. Are these corporations not for profits?
I don't see how this supports your premise of an unibiased or centrist media.
Quote:
What absolutely amazes me is that there are people who honestly think that in the board rooms of media owning coporations, there are groups of men and women that say things like
"we have embarrass bush on the iraq thing. let's put some disgruntled soldiers on air"
"ok gentlemen. our profits are down, let's hire more reporters."
"we need more liberal stories. bush is still in office!"
or
"hey katie. ask your question this way. It will really piss off the right wing nuts."
It's much easier to argue against something other than what your opponent is saying. This is called Straw Man, and it is apparently one your favorite tactics.
Liberal bias begins at the reporting level. Reportes have influence as to which stories go on the air. It goes up to the editiing level. A study was recently (within five years) done showing conservatives' comments are edited THREE TIMES more than liberals' comments. Then, it exists at the Anchor level, who also influences what is reported, and contributes with tone of voice, syntax selection, etc. It goes up to news director level, who makes decsions on content. Does it go higher? Soemtimes. Take the Communist psycopath (and I'm not exaggerating) Ted Turner. He started CNN and is EXTREMELY liberal.
Quote:
've said this before and i'll say it again.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
I can't completely disagree. But, profit motive and bias go hand-in-hand. I'll say this: My perception is that the media is less biased than it used to be. There is counterbalance provided by Fox News, talk radio, etc. But the major networks? The liberal print-media? Please. It's not even a question. The only time profit is going to play a factor in changing their bias is when the profit drops....like MSNBC's recent slow shift toward center.
If you send me your address I'll get a bumper sticker made for you with that saying on it. Really.
Keyboard again:
Quote:
orry one more thing:
quote:
We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it.
I know the "its just 16 word" meme is virally infecting the repubs. But it really really is more than that. Its about suborning the state of the union for his desire for war. Its about the public opinion polls that started to sway to JUNIORS benefit once the public got hold it.
Woah. It's about the fact that there is ZERO proof of what you just posted. He didn't delibrately deceive anyone. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, it's just suspicion. BTW, the story about the CIA gentleman that said he was there when Bush was told has been.....discredited itself! Ironic, isn't it?
Quote:
Poodle led Britain started to swallow war once those words came out. But all The people around him knew it was false. or at the very least not worthy of a state of the union.
The intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record. Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
Quote:
Did you know that something like 160 congressmen and women used the "niger uranium" in their 2 minute speeches on the floor where they put in their for or against vote. How many of them would have voted otherwise.
No, no, NO!....that is totally wrong and illogical. The State of the Union occurred 2 months AFTER the authorization vote.
Quote:
How many joe main streets would have thought differently about his rush to war if they had all the disclaimers that JUNIOR and his people had.
One, I as an American would be happier if you referred to the President of the United States with some goddamn respect. I HATED Clinton as a person and a President (more than I can really even say) but you know what? If he walked into the room right now, I'd stand up and greet him as "Mr. President." It's about respect for the office and the nation. Liberals usually don't understand these concepts though, as they think it is their "patriotic duty" to hate and/or criticize everything about America that doesn't involve money or sex, including the flag, the President, the military and religion.
Joe Main Street? Are you really telling me that public support for the war would have dropped significantly if those wrods hadn't been inlcuded?
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
Now hold on. You're trying it again. With all due respect, you're either incapable of comprehending what I've wrtitten or just using the old straw man again. Man, he's getting a workout!
I'm not calling them liars. They talked about THEIR feelings, not others. What I'm saying is that this was wrong and possibly a punishable offense in the military (I don't know for sure, but I can find out). ABC's statement is the one that's false...or rather their their obvious and thinly veiled implication that morale was low acrosd the board. It's not. That was my point.
Wow we agree on something. I think it was not their position to speak out. But they did and ABC reported it. Just like the nytimes(?) published the pentagon papers. Your focusing on the messenger. Back then would you be calling the nytimes liberal for publishing the papers or in hind sight just doing their job.
Quote:
Pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. Your tactic here is to paint the debator as extreme, thereby discrediting his argument. Nice try. You lose.
Wait a minute. You claim something is "obvious" which i am sorry is only "obvious" to people with your like views IMO. Then I simply point out that the term "obvious" is an opinion and yet somehow I "lost" the argument?
Nice try.
Quote:
No, your idiotic interpretation of my posts and ASSUMPTION of my lack of depth creates a PERCEPTION of which fits your preconceived notions. It's easy to dismiss your opponent as an extremist idiot. Much easier than actually presenting an argument.
Quote:
Not proven. We've already discussed sentence number two ^
You need to talk to tenent about that one.When sept. rolls around ray charles will begin to see what happened.
Quote:
There is no way on God's green Earth Howard Dean will win. I'm sorry to break that to you. He is far to Leftist for the natioanl electorate. Please tell me that even if you vote for him, you know he'll lose.
Junior's daddy. Over 85% in the polls. There was no way he was going to lose either.
Quote:
You have got to be kidding. You seriously need to watch World News Tonight once in awhile. Nearly EVERY story about Bush is negative...and it's not just a perception I hold. NBC is not as bad. It's unbelievable, but neither is CBS.
Everytime you point out "obviousness" i say the same thing.
Quote:
That doesn't answer anything. Please, are you actually saying that other networks lack bias while Fox News IS biased to the right? So, the rest of the media is fair, but Fox is just a right-wing mouthpiece? Yes. Very plausible.
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
Quote:
Speaking in complete senetences would be nice. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
Not hiring bush realtives to count the votes would be respectful to the viewers.
Quote:
I don't see how this supports your premise of an unibiased or centrist media.
Where did i say unbiased?
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
Quote:
But, profit motive and bias go hand-in-hand.
In your opinion. In my opinion greed trumps doing the right thing most of the time.
Quote:
I'll say this: My perception is that the media is less biased than it used to be.
So you would say things are broadening some more for you. Good.
If you send me your address I'll get a bumper sticker made for you with that saying on it. Really.
Keyboard again:
Woah. It's about the fact that there is ZERO proof of what you just posted. He didn't delibrately deceive anyone. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, it's just suspicion. BTW, the story about the CIA gentleman that said he was there when Bush was told has been.....discredited itself! Ironic, isn't it?
The intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record. Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
No, no, NO!....that is totally wrong and illogical. The State of the Union occurred 2 months AFTER the authorization vote.
One, I as an American would be happier if you referred to the President of the United States with some goddamn respect. I HATED Clinton as a person and a President (more than I can really even say) but you know what? If he walked into the room right now, I'd stand up and greet him as "Mr. President." It's about respect for the office and the nation. Liberals usually don't understand these concepts though, as they think it is their "patriotic duty" to hate and/or criticize everything about America that doesn't involve money or sex, including the flag, the President, the military and religion.
Joe Main Street? Are you really telling me that public support for the war would have dropped significantly if those wrods hadn't been inlcuded?
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
NO YOU HAVEN'T. YOU'VE DANCED AROUND IT. YOU'VE MADE JOKES. A NEWS NETWORK DIDN'T RUN THE STORY FOR A FEW WEEKS? THAT'S YOUR ANSWER WHEN WE ENDURED MONTHS OF BOMBARDMENT ON THIS?
If someone wasn't talking about it I sure didn't notice. It can't have been all that significant. I liked Clinton and I would have noticed. I'm sorry but you'll really have to do better.
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
See scott's thread.
Quote:
he intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record.
Such a short sentence, yet somehow you managed to cram all that falseness into it. First, the niger documents were handed to the US embassay in Rome. Second, no one, British, American or Martian is standing by those documents
Quote:
Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
THat's what a lot of us have been wondering. Also, why did the spanish prime minister support it even though the percentage was 90+ ?
SDW - admit it, you work in the US media yourself don't you ! I can tell by the way you're refusing to acknowledge the Bush lawsuit story !
Actually, it's quite handy as you're a kind of living proof against your own argument.
Maybe that's why right-wingers HAVE to believe and perpetuate the liberal media mythos. Because they absolutely cannot be objective and to admit that they had positions in the media would be tantamount to admitting their bias.
Ergo: as the media IS demonstrably biased and right wingers never are, it must be crawling with reds !
Btw: sorry for straying on-topic but I meant to draw attention to this interesting article which is a fairly amusing account of how the US has been subjecting Iraqi top-brass to lie detector tests and quizzing them about WMD. Unfortunately though, it appears that they keep passing the polygraph tests ! The Army can't find any fault in the machinery so latest theory is 'they've been trained to lie so well they can fool the machine !!
I don't work in the media. As far as being "biased", it's difficult to attribute that term to a private citizen in any negative way.
Quote:
Wow we agree on something. I think it was not their position to speak out. But they did and ABC reported it. Just like the nytimes(?) published the pentagon papers. Your focusing on the messenger. Back then would you be calling the nytimes liberal for publishing the papers or in hind sight just doing their job.
I'm calling the Times liberal because it is unabashedly so. You should really look at its stances throughout history on everything from the Truman administration, to "detente" to Reagan. Look at their hyperventilating and negative coverage of the war. It was shameless.
Quote:
Wait a minute. You claim something is "obvious" which i am sorry is only "obvious" to people with your like views IMO. Then I simply point out that the term "obvious" is an opinion and yet somehow I "lost" the argument?
Nice try.
Well, IMO it was obvious and anyone who can't see it has got to be kidding himself. But, what I'm really saying is painting me as extreme for thinking what I do is extreme in itself.
Quote:
junior's daddy. Over 85% in the polls. There was no way he was going to lose either.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
Quote:
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
Quote:
Not hiring bush realtives to count the votes would be respectful to the viewers.
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
jimmac:
Quote:
NO YOU HAVEN'T. YOU'VE DANCED AROUND IT. YOU'VE MADE JOKES. A NEWS NETWORK DIDN'T RUN THE STORY FOR A FEW WEEKS? THAT'S YOUR ANSWER WHEN WE ENDURED MONTHS OF BOMBARDMENT ON THIS?
If someone wasn't taling about it I sure didn't notice. It can't have been all that significant. I liked Clinton and I would have noticed. I'm sorry but you'll really have to do better.
I've answered with a plethora of reasons why the media jumped on the story. I've mentioned that while reporting the story, they colored it by, for example, villfying a Ken Starr. I've also questioned your "premise of the original question", which implies that if the media covered the story, they wern't liberal. You're liberal, and you admit it happened and don't like it one bit. The media is the same way. I'm not saying the media approved of his behavior, but they did try to color the story. Anyway, I've answered with far more than I posted above. Maybe it's time for another thread in a while.
giant:
Quote:
Yet another simplistically painfull example of how far gone you are. See scott's thread.
YOUR statement is "yet another example" of what a condesending and arrrogant [edited for the sake of civility] you are. They are standing by the claim. True or False?
Quote:
Such a short sentence, yet somehow you managed to cram all that falseness into it. First, the niger documents were handed to the US embassay in Rome. Second, no one, British, American or Martian is standing by those documents
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
Quote:
THat's what a lot of us have been wondering. Also, why did the spanish prime minister support it even though the percentage was 90+ ?
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
I'm glad you caught this little point, not just me. I hope others here caught this clever sleight of hand that giant just tried to pull. For this level of disingenuity, it should cause great caution to anyone to carefully read giant's posts word for word before attempting to assign a useful meaning to it. Better yet, just ignore them altogether and save time from having to pick-out all the intentional potholes present in what is most likely a volumous post.
I'm glad you caught this little point, not just me. I hope others here caught this clever sleight of hand that giant just tried to pull. For this level of disingenuity, it should cause great caution to anyone to carefully read giant's posts word for word before attempting to assign a useful meaning to it. Better yet, just ignore them altogether and save time from having to pick-out all the intentional potholes present in what is most likely a volumous post.
Thanks Randycat. I'm glad you took time to plow through my "giant" post.
He does this frequently. Semantics, straw man, insults and a myriad of links to opinion pieces which are labled as fact. And most importantly, giant knows everything the government knows! Go, Freedom of Information Act!!!! Rock on!
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
Um, the point of a democratic leader is that he supposed to serve the interests of the people. DICTATORS act against the wishes of the people.
Talk about strawman, the second half of this is just you arguing with things I didn't even say.
Quote:
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
Again, you have the facts completely wrong. The British officials who made the claim that there was more evidence specifically stated that it was not Niger they were referring to. It has been clearly demonstrated from many angles that the claim involving Niger is factually impossible, and no one, not even the british official you pretend to cite, argues otherwise (except for the truely clueless like...). And good job at brushing over the fact that you were dead wrong on the source. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't even know the basic facts of the situation, but don't let that stand in the way of your little circle-jerk with randycat99.
As for this British claim, there is nothing to back it up and no one on Earth with half a clue buys it, and that includes any intelligence analyst or nuclear expert you ask, see a few below. Iraq already has low-grade uranium that can be enriched, but the thing it lacked was an enrichment plant. Obtaining uranium ore would have served no purpose whatsoever since Iraq had no use for it at all. The reason the claim was made was to deflect the extremely heavy criticism in Britain against those who presented the Niger docs as fact.
And since you need everything repeated twice.
Quote:
(D) Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c) When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c) Unnamed Western diplomat
(i) ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
I don't work in the media. As far as being "biased", it's difficult to attribute that term to a private citizen in any negative way.
I'm calling the Times liberal because it is unabashedly so. You should really look at its stances throughout history on everything from the Truman administration, to "detente" to Reagan. Look at their hyperventilating and negative coverage of the war. It was shameless.
Well, IMO it was obvious and anyone who can't see it has got to be kidding himself. But, what I'm really saying is painting me as extreme for thinking what I do is extreme in itself.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
jimmac:
I've answered with a plethora of reasons why the media jumped on the story. I've mentioned that while reporting the story, they colored it by, for example, villfying a Ken Starr. I've also questioned your "premise of the original question", which implies that if the media covered the story, they wern't liberal. You're liberal, and you admit it happened and don't like it one bit. The media is the same way. I'm not saying the media approved of his behavior, but they did try to color the story. Anyway, I've answered with far more than I posted above. Maybe it's time for another thread in a while.
giant:
YOUR statement is "yet another example" of what a condesending and arrrogant [edited for the sake of civility] you are. They are standing by the claim. True or False?
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
Actually you miss stated the question. It is : If the media were controlled by liberals and liberal bias why would they have provided the over saturation coverage they did for most of a year? Why would they have done this knowing full well they killing the presidency for a democrat the next time around? And please before you start, given enough bannanas a monkey would have known this.
The plethora of questions you've answered have been why you think the media is controlled by liberals. But they didn't address this question. This is dancing around the question which is what you've always done. You see it doesn't matter how many things you can dig up, it doesn't matter whether Ken Starr was portrayed as a good guy or a bad guy. What matters is the extreme amount of attention they gave it. They must have known what this attention would do. And SDW the focus of attention wasn't on Starr, or Trip, or Lewinsky. It was on Clinton.
Your answers have had zero to do with the question directly. The closest one was the " For weeks they didn't report the story " but that was still very weak and didn't counter the moutain of material on it that followed.
You have not answered the question at all. You have attempted to side step it. As you do most questions. Giant is right about things having to be repeated for you. Except it doesn't do any good. You have this filter that colors everything you see and hear. You only see and hear what you want to. So it's pointless to debate with you. Your mind is closed.
Waves hands in the air, shakes head, and moves on.
First, it is actually you that has the facts wrong. I never said "The Media is controlled by liberals". You did. I said there is overwhelming liberal bias. That's different.
I've answered the saturation question. But, I'll play along anyway.
First, it was not "fact" that the Democrats would lose because of this issue. That's your [i]opinion[/]. Period.
Second, the media DID ignore the story for awhile. CBS even refused to discuss it for WEEKS on the evenning news...even as other major netowrks did.
Third, the story was incredibily huge. It simply could not be ignored forever. The President looked directly at a camera and wagged his finger and said something which was unequivocally false. He then later ADMITTED it was false...and delibrate. We are talking about having sex in the OVAL OFFICE with a 21 year old girl. He later subjorned perjury and attempted decieve the grand jury. The media can't ignore a story like that. It's just too big. What they CAN do is distort the facts, editorialize, analyze and villify. The media couldn;t ignore the story anymore than Fox News can ignore the Niger questions Bush faces. It still has to be reported.
First, it is actually you that has the facts wrong. I never said "The Media is controlled by liberals". You did. I said there is overwhelming liberal bias. That's different.
I've answered the saturation question. But, I'll play along anyway.
First, it was not "fact" that the Democrats would lose because of this issue. That's your [i]opinion[/]. Period.
Second, the media DID ignore the story for awhile. CBS even refused to discuss it for WEEKS on the evenning news...even as other major netowrks did.
Third, the story was incredibily huge. It simply could not be ignored forever. The President looked directly at a camera and wagged his finger and said something which was unequivocally false. He then later ADMITTED it was false...and delibrate. We are talking about having sex in the OVAL OFFICE with a 21 year old girl. He later subjorned perjury and attempted decieve the grand jury. The media can't ignore a story like that. It's just too big. What they CAN do is distort the facts, editorialize, analyze and villify. The media couldn;t ignore the story anymore than Fox News can ignore the Niger questions Bush faces. It still has to be reported.
Oooooo! He had sex with a 21 year old! You say that like she was 16! Last time I checked that makes them consenting adults. The problem with this part of the equation is that Clinton was married and the oval office probably isn't the best place for this. This part still belongs to the Clinton's and their attorney's. Not us.
As to the lying under oath, yes I have a problem with that. That part is our business because it deals directly with his job. Lying is unacceptable.
As far as the rest I have better things to do with my time than deal with someone who's desparately trying to make something out of nothing.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
My point. since obviously fails since you can read the future is that no matter how much a president looks like or has every reason to win. Things pop up, lieing, the economy, falsehoods. the economy. that can change the people's feelings over the next 18 months. Money is good but its tougher to buy yourself votes when everyone on main street is worried about their livelyhood.
no. wait. by then we will have a new boogey man (iran, syria?) to keep our eye off the ball.
Quote:
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
In your opinion. In my opinion greed is currently trumping "do gooder liberalism" Of source any person who flat out said (then later admitted he was wrong) why a news corp. such as ABC would air such a story would be to embarrass the president suffers from terminal knee-jerk-ism, opinions on such matters should be taken with a jovian size grain of salt.
I'd hate to see your Tivo schedule.
Quote:
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
Buzzzz...
One was a "eccentric" councilperson making news. Even if the news was not what you wanted to hear.
The other one was a "news corp." hiring a relaitve of one of the men running for president as a vote counter.
See one news.
Other flat out irresponsible "news" ethics.
I'll just add this one to your "supreme court is run by polls" bin.
Quote:
quote:
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
I'm getting closer? You are the person who's been blanketing 90% of media as liberal. I'd say you are getting closer to realizing that all your broad "liberal media" strokes are not as close tot he truth as you made them out to be.
I had breakfast this morning. My cereal only had 1 1/2 not 2 scoops of raisins.
Some greedy CEO cutting corners? Nope. liberal media. Its so obvious.
Like giant, you can keep thinking and posting that Bush will lose. You can hope. You can pray. You can get all giggly at the thought. thr FACT is that any thnking person knows that unless we go into a depression, find out for damn sure Bush lied directly and intentionally or some other catostraphic unpredictable event occurs, George W. Bush WILL be reelected. You cannot possibly be telling otherwise, regardless of what you'd like to occur.
Let me give you an example. Most people knew Clinton would win in 1996. Did I want him to win? No. Did I think he would lose? No.
Be serious.
Bush has every advantage. His 2000 campaign was very well run, and this one will be better by all accounts. He has Karl Rove on his side, who, I'm sorry to tell you, is a political genius. He's going to have $200M, perhaps five times what any other Dem is going to have. He's running unapposed. There is no strong Democratic candidate as of yet. Worse, the Democratic party ont he whole is in the middle of a centrist vs. liberal war right now. The machine is broken, keybaord. The military also LOVES Bush, despite whatever garbage gets posted here. Americans will see him as the wartime leader who guided the country through 9/11. The economy is already improving (but of course you'll argue that too) and if it gets significantly better, I'm telling you: Bush will destroy his competition. Mark my words.
It's from Fox, but deal with it. Tell me there isn't a Democratic civil war going on right now. Problem for the Democratic Party is, the DLC is losing to the DFL/Leftist types. The DLC is right...their Third Way is the only possibility for the party. Tell that to Dean, though.
BTW, 90% of the media IS liberal. That's a decent number. Congratulations. You can keep insulting me and trying to paint me as wacko-extremist by mocking my premise. Meanwhile, everyone here can see, psot by post, that neither you, jimmac, giant or any other liberal poster has presented ANY evidence to refute my point. Like the Democratic party, what you are best at is crtiticism and attacks. Keep denying bias though. It's what liberals do best.
Meanwhile, everyone here can see, psot by post, that neither you, jimmac, giant or any other liberal poster has presented ANY evidence to refute my point.
According to what passes for your logic, to be part of the set 'everyone' you cannot also be part of the set 'liberal.'
If that is not the case, and everyone means everyone (nb: this is how most people, for example English teachers would use the word 'everyone'), then I can demonstrate that you are talking shit (again).
I am reading these posts, you see, and all I see is someone totally incapable of perspective or comprehension of a different world view (you) and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
If I did just jump into line with your thinking (I am 'everyone' right?) then I would also think that the 'liberals' were in the wrong. I don't. So you're wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yet again, jimmac: You have posted no refutation of liberal bias. None.
What you do is ask the same question, over and over and over again just for fun...even though I've answered it a million times over. If you disagree with my answer, that's fine. Do't go running around falsely stating that I have answered the question. That tactic is bullshit. Total bullshit.
Then refute it. Show me the overall media is fair. Show me that ABC and CBS news, the NYT and LAT aren't liberal. Show me, jimmac.
I made a claim which is generally accepted in the real world. Liberal bias has been a major, major problem over the past 40 years. There have been several books written on this topic, the most telling of which is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a self-described liberal. Also of note is Ann Coulter's "Slander". Before you dismiss these as "right wing lunacy", how about you cite some examples of books that charge an overall conservative bias in the media as a whole. You can't. Period.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked keyboard: If you charge that Fox News is conservative, then how can you *not* believe there exists a liberal bias eleswhere? You can't have it both ways. If bias does not exist as you claim, then disqualifies any assertion of Fox News being biased. Pick one. Any one will do.
I asked you question. How is it possible?
Answer it.
Or not.
We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it.
I know the "its just 16 word" meme is virally infecting the repubs. But it really really is more than that. Its about suborning the state of the union for his desire for war. Its about the public opinion polls that started to sway to JUNIORS benefit once the public got hold it.
Poodle led Britain started to swallow war once those words came out. But all The people around him knew it was false. or at the very least not worthy of a state of the union.
Did you know that something like 160 congressmen and women used the "niger uranium" in their 2 minute speeches on the floor where they put in their for or against vote. How many of them would have voted otherwise.
How many joe main streets would have thought differently about his rush to war if they had all the disclaimers that JUNIOR and his people had.
Hint hint. wink wink. We ALL know what that was about.Let's not further insult each other on that topic.
Originally posted by SDW2001
ld.
I think that's a little strong. It's not a story unless they decide to make it one, and that's what has happened. We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it. As much as some in the media would like to make this into an explosive issue for the next election...that election is just too far away. Poor Dems...it's just not good timing for them.
That's the essence of jimmac's argument as well. The diference is that the President had "realations" in the oval office on the taxpayer's dime.. Worse, he was accused of subourning perjury and obstructing justice, not to mention the fact that he admitted a DIRECT and UNDENIABLE lie to the American people. That's why it was a "good story". And if you notice, the media absolutely VILLIFIED Ken Starr.
no the story hasn't been resolved, and the white house has made it worse by obfuscation.
ken starr should be villified, he spent an unconscionable amount of money and got no results.
SDW, have you applied yet?
False testimony in your opinion.Are you calling them liars? To the men and women that said it AND HAVE SAND in their boots, its their beliefs.
Now hold on. You're trying it again. With all due respect, you're either incapable of comprehending what I've wrtitten or just using the old straw man again. Man, he's getting a workout!
I'm not calling them liars. They talked about THEIR feelings, not others. What I'm saying is that this was wrong and possibly a punishable offense in the military (I don't know for sure, but I can find out). ABC's statement is the one that's false...or rather their their obvious and thinly veiled implication that morale was low acrosd the board. It's not. That was my point.
There is a guy down the street that just sits and chants all day that we are all sinners. Its so obvious to him that we are going to hell.
Pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. Your tactic here is to paint the debator as extreme, thereby discrediting his argument. Nice try. You lose.
Your pattern of postings says otherwise. Disagree with me if you like.
No, your idiotic interpretation of my posts and ASSUMPTION of my lack of depth creates a PERCEPTION of which fits your preconceived notions. It's easy to dismiss your opponent as an extremist idiot. Much easier than actually presenting an argument.
You know if that were the case i would buy it. But once you posted a laundry list of who were members of the "liberal" and it was a name brand who's who of in the media. Your one example gets added to frequently.
So you keep on saying "its one example" one example. But every "sample" you brought up you have jumped to the c) "liberal" choice.
Wow. this is getting really funny! First, you accuse me of making judgements based on miniscule samples of information and limited examples. Then, you accuse me of....wait for it.... providing more examples. Allllllrrrrightttty then.
There were serious doubts as to Niger and it was systemic. Brokaw uttered one sentence.
Not proven. We've already discussed sentence number two ^
Great glad to hear it. And i'll go on the record and say to you, your comment;s are possible as well. Probable? That's where we differ.
Fine then. That's all I ask. Next time, please consider starting from that position rather than the SDW is a "wacky one" position.
How many times do liberals support the death penalty AND have been endorsed by the NRA? Paint him as a mcgovernite. go ahead. Just be sure to bring Karl some tissues on election night.
There is no way on God's green Earth Howard Dean will win. I'm sorry to break that to you. He is far to Leftist for the natioanl electorate. Please tell me that even if you vote for him, you know he'll lose.
In your opinion. Everytime i saw that smug George Will or that tobacco friend cookie roberts are that twit brit hume, I thought ABC was selling out to the right. Funny how people see things huh?
You have got to be kidding. You seriously need to watch World News Tonight once in awhile. Nearly EVERY story about Bush is negative...and it's not just a perception I hold. NBC is not as bad. It's unbelievable, but neither is CBS.
Out of sheer ****ing greed.
That doesn't answer anything. Please, are you actually saying that other networks lack bias while Fox News IS biased to the right? So, the rest of the media is fair, but Fox is just a right-wing mouthpiece? Yes. Very plausible.
Because there is nothing to celebrate
The liberal media aids your cause. Yet, you deny it exists to present your radical Left-wing, pacifist, neo-socialist views as mainstream. At least I know what Fox News is.
) the either it is or isn't argument ranks up there with your supreme court comment.
b) There's bias in everything. That's not what i am arguing. You seem to think that if there is some bias, then the whole damn system is biased. get real.
a) Either the media, in general, is biased or it isn't. Overall, I say it goes Left. Are you saying it's centrist? Or right-wing? Take position, then support it. You say it isn't biased, but then assail Fox News for....bias. Hmmm .
b) If you are going to put words in my mouth, at least give me some ketchup to improve the taste. Bias in everything? I don't think so. I have seen fair reporting on ocassion. The point is the overall trend which goes hard Left.
Election night. Bush realtive. Bush relative on phone to other bush realtives
Speaking in complete senetences would be nice. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
And they are all (almost) owned by five corprations that dictate the rules to Mikey powell and congress. Are these corporations not for profits?
I don't see how this supports your premise of an unibiased or centrist media.
What absolutely amazes me is that there are people who honestly think that in the board rooms of media owning coporations, there are groups of men and women that say things like
"we have embarrass bush on the iraq thing. let's put some disgruntled soldiers on air"
"ok gentlemen. our profits are down, let's hire more reporters."
"we need more liberal stories. bush is still in office!"
or
"hey katie. ask your question this way. It will really piss off the right wing nuts."
It's much easier to argue against something other than what your opponent is saying. This is called Straw Man, and it is apparently one your favorite tactics.
Liberal bias begins at the reporting level. Reportes have influence as to which stories go on the air. It goes up to the editiing level. A study was recently (within five years) done showing conservatives' comments are edited THREE TIMES more than liberals' comments. Then, it exists at the Anchor level, who also influences what is reported, and contributes with tone of voice, syntax selection, etc. It goes up to news director level, who makes decsions on content. Does it go higher? Soemtimes. Take the Communist psycopath (and I'm not exaggerating) Ted Turner. He started CNN and is EXTREMELY liberal.
've said this before and i'll say it again.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
I can't completely disagree. But, profit motive and bias go hand-in-hand. I'll say this: My perception is that the media is less biased than it used to be. There is counterbalance provided by Fox News, talk radio, etc. But the major networks? The liberal print-media? Please. It's not even a question. The only time profit is going to play a factor in changing their bias is when the profit drops....like MSNBC's recent slow shift toward center.
If you send me your address I'll get a bumper sticker made for you with that saying on it. Really.
Keyboard again:
orry one more thing:
quote:
We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it.
I know the "its just 16 word" meme is virally infecting the repubs. But it really really is more than that. Its about suborning the state of the union for his desire for war. Its about the public opinion polls that started to sway to JUNIORS benefit once the public got hold it.
Woah. It's about the fact that there is ZERO proof of what you just posted. He didn't delibrately deceive anyone. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, it's just suspicion. BTW, the story about the CIA gentleman that said he was there when Bush was told has been.....discredited itself! Ironic, isn't it?
Poodle led Britain started to swallow war once those words came out. But all The people around him knew it was false. or at the very least not worthy of a state of the union.
The intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record. Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
Did you know that something like 160 congressmen and women used the "niger uranium" in their 2 minute speeches on the floor where they put in their for or against vote. How many of them would have voted otherwise.
No, no, NO!....that is totally wrong and illogical. The State of the Union occurred 2 months AFTER the authorization vote.
How many joe main streets would have thought differently about his rush to war if they had all the disclaimers that JUNIOR and his people had.
One, I as an American would be happier if you referred to the President of the United States with some goddamn respect. I HATED Clinton as a person and a President (more than I can really even say) but you know what? If he walked into the room right now, I'd stand up and greet him as "Mr. President." It's about respect for the office and the nation. Liberals usually don't understand these concepts though, as they think it is their "patriotic duty" to hate and/or criticize everything about America that doesn't involve money or sex, including the flag, the President, the military and religion.
Joe Main Street? Are you really telling me that public support for the war would have dropped significantly if those wrods hadn't been inlcuded?
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
Now hold on. You're trying it again. With all due respect, you're either incapable of comprehending what I've wrtitten or just using the old straw man again. Man, he's getting a workout!
I'm not calling them liars. They talked about THEIR feelings, not others. What I'm saying is that this was wrong and possibly a punishable offense in the military (I don't know for sure, but I can find out). ABC's statement is the one that's false...or rather their their obvious and thinly veiled implication that morale was low acrosd the board. It's not. That was my point.
Wow we agree on something. I think it was not their position to speak out. But they did and ABC reported it. Just like the nytimes(?) published the pentagon papers. Your focusing on the messenger. Back then would you be calling the nytimes liberal for publishing the papers or in hind sight just doing their job.
Pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. Your tactic here is to paint the debator as extreme, thereby discrediting his argument. Nice try. You lose.
Wait a minute. You claim something is "obvious" which i am sorry is only "obvious" to people with your like views IMO. Then I simply point out that the term "obvious" is an opinion and yet somehow I "lost" the argument?
Nice try.
No, your idiotic interpretation of my posts and ASSUMPTION of my lack of depth creates a PERCEPTION of which fits your preconceived notions. It's easy to dismiss your opponent as an extremist idiot. Much easier than actually presenting an argument.
Not proven. We've already discussed sentence number two ^
You need to talk to tenent about that one.When sept. rolls around ray charles will begin to see what happened.
There is no way on God's green Earth Howard Dean will win. I'm sorry to break that to you. He is far to Leftist for the natioanl electorate. Please tell me that even if you vote for him, you know he'll lose.
Junior's daddy. Over 85% in the polls. There was no way he was going to lose either.
You have got to be kidding. You seriously need to watch World News Tonight once in awhile. Nearly EVERY story about Bush is negative...and it's not just a perception I hold. NBC is not as bad. It's unbelievable, but neither is CBS.
Everytime you point out "obviousness" i say the same thing.
That doesn't answer anything. Please, are you actually saying that other networks lack bias while Fox News IS biased to the right? So, the rest of the media is fair, but Fox is just a right-wing mouthpiece? Yes. Very plausible.
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
Speaking in complete senetences would be nice. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
Not hiring bush realtives to count the votes would be respectful to the viewers.
I don't see how this supports your premise of an unibiased or centrist media.
Where did i say unbiased?
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
But, profit motive and bias go hand-in-hand.
In your opinion. In my opinion greed trumps doing the right thing most of the time.
I'll say this: My perception is that the media is less biased than it used to be.
So you would say things are broadening some more for you. Good.
Originally posted by SDW2001
"jimmac, I've already answered your question"
If you send me your address I'll get a bumper sticker made for you with that saying on it. Really.
Keyboard again:
Woah. It's about the fact that there is ZERO proof of what you just posted. He didn't delibrately deceive anyone. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, it's just suspicion. BTW, the story about the CIA gentleman that said he was there when Bush was told has been.....discredited itself! Ironic, isn't it?
The intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record. Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
No, no, NO!....that is totally wrong and illogical. The State of the Union occurred 2 months AFTER the authorization vote.
One, I as an American would be happier if you referred to the President of the United States with some goddamn respect. I HATED Clinton as a person and a President (more than I can really even say) but you know what? If he walked into the room right now, I'd stand up and greet him as "Mr. President." It's about respect for the office and the nation. Liberals usually don't understand these concepts though, as they think it is their "patriotic duty" to hate and/or criticize everything about America that doesn't involve money or sex, including the flag, the President, the military and religion.
Joe Main Street? Are you really telling me that public support for the war would have dropped significantly if those wrods hadn't been inlcuded?
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
NO YOU HAVEN'T. YOU'VE DANCED AROUND IT. YOU'VE MADE JOKES. A NEWS NETWORK DIDN'T RUN THE STORY FOR A FEW WEEKS? THAT'S YOUR ANSWER WHEN WE ENDURED MONTHS OF BOMBARDMENT ON THIS?
If someone wasn't talking about it I sure didn't notice. It can't have been all that significant. I liked Clinton and I would have noticed. I'm sorry but you'll really have to do better.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As I said: Though the documents proved false, Britain is standing by the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium.
See scott's thread.
he intel came from Britain, who stands by it....just for the record.
Such a short sentence, yet somehow you managed to cram all that falseness into it. First, the niger documents were handed to the US embassay in Rome. Second, no one, British, American or Martian is standing by those documents
Why would Blair support a war that 80% of his population opposed?
THat's what a lot of us have been wondering. Also, why did the spanish prime minister support it even though the percentage was 90+ ?
Originally posted by segovius
SDW - admit it, you work in the US media yourself don't you ! I can tell by the way you're refusing to acknowledge the Bush lawsuit story !
Actually, it's quite handy as you're a kind of living proof against your own argument.
Maybe that's why right-wingers HAVE to believe and perpetuate the liberal media mythos. Because they absolutely cannot be objective and to admit that they had positions in the media would be tantamount to admitting their bias.
Ergo: as the media IS demonstrably biased and right wingers never are, it must be crawling with reds !
Btw: sorry for straying on-topic but I meant to draw attention to this interesting article which is a fairly amusing account of how the US has been subjecting Iraqi top-brass to lie detector tests and quizzing them about WMD. Unfortunately though, it appears that they keep passing the polygraph tests ! The Army can't find any fault in the machinery so latest theory is 'they've been trained to lie so well they can fool the machine !!
I don't work in the media. As far as being "biased", it's difficult to attribute that term to a private citizen in any negative way.
Wow we agree on something. I think it was not their position to speak out. But they did and ABC reported it. Just like the nytimes(?) published the pentagon papers. Your focusing on the messenger. Back then would you be calling the nytimes liberal for publishing the papers or in hind sight just doing their job.
I'm calling the Times liberal because it is unabashedly so. You should really look at its stances throughout history on everything from the Truman administration, to "detente" to Reagan. Look at their hyperventilating and negative coverage of the war. It was shameless.
Wait a minute. You claim something is "obvious" which i am sorry is only "obvious" to people with your like views IMO. Then I simply point out that the term "obvious" is an opinion and yet somehow I "lost" the argument?
Nice try.
Well, IMO it was obvious and anyone who can't see it has got to be kidding himself. But, what I'm really saying is painting me as extreme for thinking what I do is extreme in itself.
junior's daddy. Over 85% in the polls. There was no way he was going to lose either.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
Not hiring bush realtives to count the votes would be respectful to the viewers.
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
jimmac:
NO YOU HAVEN'T. YOU'VE DANCED AROUND IT. YOU'VE MADE JOKES. A NEWS NETWORK DIDN'T RUN THE STORY FOR A FEW WEEKS? THAT'S YOUR ANSWER WHEN WE ENDURED MONTHS OF BOMBARDMENT ON THIS?
If someone wasn't taling about it I sure didn't notice. It can't have been all that significant. I liked Clinton and I would have noticed. I'm sorry but you'll really have to do better.
I've answered with a plethora of reasons why the media jumped on the story. I've mentioned that while reporting the story, they colored it by, for example, villfying a Ken Starr. I've also questioned your "premise of the original question", which implies that if the media covered the story, they wern't liberal. You're liberal, and you admit it happened and don't like it one bit. The media is the same way. I'm not saying the media approved of his behavior, but they did try to color the story. Anyway, I've answered with far more than I posted above. Maybe it's time for another thread in a while.
giant:
Yet another simplistically painfull example of how far gone you are. See scott's thread.
YOUR statement is "yet another example" of what a condesending and arrrogant [edited for the sake of civility] you are. They are standing by the claim. True or False?
Such a short sentence, yet somehow you managed to cram all that falseness into it. First, the niger documents were handed to the US embassay in Rome. Second, no one, British, American or Martian is standing by those documents
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
THat's what a lot of us have been wondering. Also, why did the spanish prime minister support it even though the percentage was 90+ ?
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
Originally posted by SDW2001
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
I'm glad you caught this little point, not just me. I hope others here caught this clever sleight of hand that giant just tried to pull. For this level of disingenuity, it should cause great caution to anyone to carefully read giant's posts word for word before attempting to assign a useful meaning to it. Better yet, just ignore them altogether and save time from having to pick-out all the intentional potholes present in what is most likely a volumous post.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I'm glad you caught this little point, not just me. I hope others here caught this clever sleight of hand that giant just tried to pull. For this level of disingenuity, it should cause great caution to anyone to carefully read giant's posts word for word before attempting to assign a useful meaning to it. Better yet, just ignore them altogether and save time from having to pick-out all the intentional potholes present in what is most likely a volumous post.
Thanks Randycat. I'm glad you took time to plow through my "giant" post.
He does this frequently. Semantics, straw man, insults and a myriad of links to opinion pieces which are labled as fact. And most importantly, giant knows everything the government knows! Go, Freedom of Information Act!!!! Rock on!
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
Um, the point of a democratic leader is that he supposed to serve the interests of the people. DICTATORS act against the wishes of the people.
Talk about strawman, the second half of this is just you arguing with things I didn't even say.
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
Again, you have the facts completely wrong. The British officials who made the claim that there was more evidence specifically stated that it was not Niger they were referring to. It has been clearly demonstrated from many angles that the claim involving Niger is factually impossible, and no one, not even the british official you pretend to cite, argues otherwise (except for the truely clueless like...). And good job at brushing over the fact that you were dead wrong on the source. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't even know the basic facts of the situation, but don't let that stand in the way of your little circle-jerk with randycat99.
As for this British claim, there is nothing to back it up and no one on Earth with half a clue buys it, and that includes any intelligence analyst or nuclear expert you ask, see a few below. Iraq already has low-grade uranium that can be enriched, but the thing it lacked was an enrichment plant. Obtaining uranium ore would have served no purpose whatsoever since Iraq had no use for it at all. The reason the claim was made was to deflect the extremely heavy criticism in Britain against those who presented the Niger docs as fact.
And since you need everything repeated twice.
(D) Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c) When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c) Unnamed Western diplomat
(i) ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
from CCR
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't work in the media. As far as being "biased", it's difficult to attribute that term to a private citizen in any negative way.
I'm calling the Times liberal because it is unabashedly so. You should really look at its stances throughout history on everything from the Truman administration, to "detente" to Reagan. Look at their hyperventilating and negative coverage of the war. It was shameless.
Well, IMO it was obvious and anyone who can't see it has got to be kidding himself. But, what I'm really saying is painting me as extreme for thinking what I do is extreme in itself.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
jimmac:
I've answered with a plethora of reasons why the media jumped on the story. I've mentioned that while reporting the story, they colored it by, for example, villfying a Ken Starr. I've also questioned your "premise of the original question", which implies that if the media covered the story, they wern't liberal. You're liberal, and you admit it happened and don't like it one bit. The media is the same way. I'm not saying the media approved of his behavior, but they did try to color the story. Anyway, I've answered with far more than I posted above. Maybe it's time for another thread in a while.
giant:
YOUR statement is "yet another example" of what a condesending and arrrogant [edited for the sake of civility] you are. They are standing by the claim. True or False?
NOT THE DOCUMENTS, Mr. Ima Strawman. Britain is standing by the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Jesus. [another insult was here, but I thought better than to respond in kind]
I don't know either, but it would seem to support my side of the argument. There had to be a damn good reason for Blair to support this. You can't really be thinking that Bush "threatened" him into it, can you? Seems to me that Blair really believed what he was doing. Please give me another explanation if you can think of one that hasn't already been printed in the New Yorker.
Actually you miss stated the question. It is : If the media were controlled by liberals and liberal bias why would they have provided the over saturation coverage they did for most of a year? Why would they have done this knowing full well they killing the presidency for a democrat the next time around? And please before you start, given enough bannanas a monkey would have known this.
The plethora of questions you've answered have been why you think the media is controlled by liberals. But they didn't address this question. This is dancing around the question which is what you've always done. You see it doesn't matter how many things you can dig up, it doesn't matter whether Ken Starr was portrayed as a good guy or a bad guy. What matters is the extreme amount of attention they gave it. They must have known what this attention would do. And SDW the focus of attention wasn't on Starr, or Trip, or Lewinsky. It was on Clinton.
Your answers have had zero to do with the question directly. The closest one was the " For weeks they didn't report the story " but that was still very weak and didn't counter the moutain of material on it that followed.
You have not answered the question at all. You have attempted to side step it. As you do most questions. Giant is right about things having to be repeated for you. Except it doesn't do any good. You have this filter that colors everything you see and hear. You only see and hear what you want to. So it's pointless to debate with you. Your mind is closed.
Waves hands in the air, shakes head, and moves on.
First, it is actually you that has the facts wrong. I never said "The Media is controlled by liberals". You did. I said there is overwhelming liberal bias. That's different.
I've answered the saturation question. But, I'll play along anyway.
First, it was not "fact" that the Democrats would lose because of this issue. That's your [i]opinion[/]. Period.
Second, the media DID ignore the story for awhile. CBS even refused to discuss it for WEEKS on the evenning news...even as other major netowrks did.
Third, the story was incredibily huge. It simply could not be ignored forever. The President looked directly at a camera and wagged his finger and said something which was unequivocally false. He then later ADMITTED it was false...and delibrate. We are talking about having sex in the OVAL OFFICE with a 21 year old girl. He later subjorned perjury and attempted decieve the grand jury. The media can't ignore a story like that. It's just too big. What they CAN do is distort the facts, editorialize, analyze and villify. The media couldn;t ignore the story anymore than Fox News can ignore the Niger questions Bush faces. It still has to be reported.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
First, it is actually you that has the facts wrong. I never said "The Media is controlled by liberals". You did. I said there is overwhelming liberal bias. That's different.
I've answered the saturation question. But, I'll play along anyway.
First, it was not "fact" that the Democrats would lose because of this issue. That's your [i]opinion[/]. Period.
Second, the media DID ignore the story for awhile. CBS even refused to discuss it for WEEKS on the evenning news...even as other major netowrks did.
Third, the story was incredibily huge. It simply could not be ignored forever. The President looked directly at a camera and wagged his finger and said something which was unequivocally false. He then later ADMITTED it was false...and delibrate. We are talking about having sex in the OVAL OFFICE with a 21 year old girl. He later subjorned perjury and attempted decieve the grand jury. The media can't ignore a story like that. It's just too big. What they CAN do is distort the facts, editorialize, analyze and villify. The media couldn;t ignore the story anymore than Fox News can ignore the Niger questions Bush faces. It still has to be reported.
Oooooo! He had sex with a 21 year old! You say that like she was 16! Last time I checked that makes them consenting adults. The problem with this part of the equation is that Clinton was married and the oval office probably isn't the best place for this. This part still belongs to the Clinton's and their attorney's. Not us.
As to the lying under oath, yes I have a problem with that. That part is our business because it deals directly with his job. Lying is unacceptable.
As far as the rest I have better things to do with my time than deal with someone who's desparately trying to make something out of nothing.
Just when I begin to have some respect for you, you come out and say this. It's a tired, nearly irrellevant point. If you can't come up with a better reason Bush wil lose, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape.l There are so many different factors than in 1992. One, the economy has already started to turn. July 2003 compares best with July 1992...except that there's no election this year ( in other words, we're at a different point in the recovery cycle). Two, Bush 41 broke his promise not to raise taxes...which was a nightmare. Three, he ran a truly lousy campaign. He only raised about $28 M for the primary campaign. Bush 43 will raise almost ten times that figure. Bush 43 has a much better political team that knows how to portray him. Most importantly, he's not as dumb as he is constantly made out to be. He'll take advantage of that.....like he always does. This isn;t 1992 and Bush 43 is not Bush 41
And please, some respect.
My point. since obviously fails since you can read the future is that no matter how much a president looks like or has every reason to win. Things pop up, lieing, the economy, falsehoods. the economy. that can change the people's feelings over the next 18 months. Money is good but its tougher to buy yourself votes when everyone on main street is worried about their livelyhood.
no. wait. by then we will have a new boogey man (iran, syria?) to keep our eye off the ball.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
In your opinion. In my opinion greed is currently trumping "do gooder liberalism" Of source any person who flat out said (then later admitted he was wrong) why a news corp. such as ABC would air such a story would be to embarrass the president suffers from terminal knee-jerk-ism, opinions on such matters should be taken with a jovian size grain of salt.
I'd hate to see your Tivo schedule.
Not having county councilmen (women) that say on Live TV "I'm willing to go to jail for this recount" would have been nice, too.
Buzzzz...
One was a "eccentric" councilperson making news. Even if the news was not what you wanted to hear.
The other one was a "news corp." hiring a relaitve of one of the men running for president as a vote counter.
See one news.
Other flat out irresponsible "news" ethics.
I'll just add this one to your "supreme court is run by polls" bin.
quote:
Here's the most plausible explanation:
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
Ahhh..you're getting closer I suppose. The point is, does more of it lean Left....or Right. I say Left...by an overwhelming margin.
I'm getting closer? You are the person who's been blanketing 90% of media as liberal. I'd say you are getting closer to realizing that all your broad "liberal media" strokes are not as close tot he truth as you made them out to be.
I had breakfast this morning. My cereal only had 1 1/2 not 2 scoops of raisins.
Some greedy CEO cutting corners? Nope. liberal media. Its so obvious.
Like giant, you can keep thinking and posting that Bush will lose. You can hope. You can pray. You can get all giggly at the thought. thr FACT is that any thnking person knows that unless we go into a depression, find out for damn sure Bush lied directly and intentionally or some other catostraphic unpredictable event occurs, George W. Bush WILL be reelected. You cannot possibly be telling otherwise, regardless of what you'd like to occur.
Let me give you an example. Most people knew Clinton would win in 1996. Did I want him to win? No. Did I think he would lose? No.
Be serious.
Bush has every advantage. His 2000 campaign was very well run, and this one will be better by all accounts. He has Karl Rove on his side, who, I'm sorry to tell you, is a political genius. He's going to have $200M, perhaps five times what any other Dem is going to have. He's running unapposed. There is no strong Democratic candidate as of yet. Worse, the Democratic party ont he whole is in the middle of a centrist vs. liberal war right now. The machine is broken, keybaord. The military also LOVES Bush, despite whatever garbage gets posted here. Americans will see him as the wartime leader who guided the country through 9/11. The economy is already improving (but of course you'll argue that too) and if it gets significantly better, I'm telling you: Bush will destroy his competition. Mark my words.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92978,00.html
It's from Fox, but deal with it. Tell me there isn't a Democratic civil war going on right now. Problem for the Democratic Party is, the DLC is losing to the DFL/Leftist types. The DLC is right...their Third Way is the only possibility for the party. Tell that to Dean, though.
BTW, 90% of the media IS liberal. That's a decent number. Congratulations. You can keep insulting me and trying to paint me as wacko-extremist by mocking my premise. Meanwhile, everyone here can see, psot by post, that neither you, jimmac, giant or any other liberal poster has presented ANY evidence to refute my point. Like the Democratic party, what you are best at is crtiticism and attacks. Keep denying bias though. It's what liberals do best.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Meanwhile, everyone here can see, psot by post, that neither you, jimmac, giant or any other liberal poster has presented ANY evidence to refute my point.
According to what passes for your logic, to be part of the set 'everyone' you cannot also be part of the set 'liberal.'
If that is not the case, and everyone means everyone (nb: this is how most people, for example English teachers would use the word 'everyone'), then I can demonstrate that you are talking shit (again).
I am reading these posts, you see, and all I see is someone totally incapable of perspective or comprehension of a different world view (you) and a lot of people smarter then you (all the people you diss above) in a hopeless task of getting through your thick skull.
If I did just jump into line with your thinking (I am 'everyone' right?) then I would also think that the 'liberals' were in the wrong. I don't. So you're wrong.
Again.