PDA

View Full Version : Bush Whitehouse has ties to gay prostitution...


jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:11 AM
http://movies.ziaspace.com/billmaher021805gannon.mov

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:40 AM
Everytime I mention Guckert, the conservatives go silent.

I don't think they have the capacity to deal with it honestly, jAZ.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 01:43 AM
Everytime I mention Guckert, the conservatives go silent.

I don't think they have the capacity to deal with it honestly, jAZ.

Nah, sometimes we just let you embarass yourself.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:43 AM
Everytime I mention Guckert, the conservatives go silent.

I don't think they have the capacity to deal with it honestly, jAZ.

Homophobe.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:58 AM
You're the ones that can't talk about it.

Hypocrites.

DenverChief
02-20-2005, 02:17 AM
I think it is more funny that this guy managed to get pas the Secret Service and FBI background checks with a false name...:shrug: ...should we be looking into security issues in the WH?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:31 AM
There are many angles that stink to high heaven.

Guckert being a gay prostitute is just one of them.

I mean, COME ON! (in my best GOB Bluthe)

He had a website listing his rates!!!!

jAZ
02-20-2005, 03:01 AM
I think it is more funny that this guy managed to get pas the Secret Service and FBI background checks with a false name...:shrug: ...should we be looking into security issues in the WH?
That's the issue that should be raising red flags from both sides. But Bush backers are so blinded by loyalty and addicted to the guy's propaganda, that they can do nothing but drink kool-aid.

BIG_DADDY
02-20-2005, 03:08 AM
That's the issue that should be raising red flags from both sides. But Bush backers are so blinded by loyalty and addicted to the guy's propaganda, that they can do nothing but drink kool-aid.

I hate Bush too but your wacked. I'll never forgive you for bring commy boy here either.

stevieray
02-20-2005, 08:53 AM
That's the issue that should be raising red flags from both sides. But Bush backers are so blinded by loyalty and addicted to the guy's propaganda, that they can do nothing but drink kool-aid.

As opposed to being a crybaby like you?

Seriously Jaz, you're mental.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 09:24 AM
Everytime I mention Guckert, the conservatives go silent.

I don't think they have the capacity to deal with it honestly, jAZ.


It just smacks of their arrogance and hypocritical nature on soooo many levels.

And they were all in a tizzy over a fat intern and the possible security breaches she posed... ROFL ROFL ROFL

stevieray
02-20-2005, 09:30 AM
It just smacks of their arrogance and hypocritical nature on soooo many levels.


Exactly why Kerry couldn't get elected. Projecting your own faults onto others doesn't hide the fact that you wear this jacket everyday, in most of your posts.

Bowser
02-20-2005, 09:42 AM
It does raise concerns on how a person can slip by both the FBI and Secret Service.

Maher is correct in saying that if this happened on Clintons watch, much more hell would be raised than what you are hearing now.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 09:57 AM
That's the issue that should be raising red flags from both sides. But Bush backers are so blinded by loyalty and addicted to the guy's propaganda, that they can do nothing but drink kool-aid.
No, it is probably the fact that the guy writes for a webpage and not serious news at all.

http://www.parlinhome.com/oldsite1/Landscapes/Mountains/Mountain%2010.jpg
out of a
http://www.humeseeds.com/molehill.jpg

I had never heard of his news site or ever read a single word by him in my life. If he is part of a propaganda machine, he is a failure at it.

Of course, those who are decrying the queer prostitute with the website excused watched and believed Dan Rather with baited breathe as he spoke to a national audience instead of 4 people signing up for a website like this guy. Funny how partisanship makes you do that, isn't it?

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 10:10 AM
It does raise concerns on how a person can slip by both the FBI and Secret Service.

Maher is correct in saying that if this happened on Clintons watch, much more hell would be raised than what you are hearing now.

Perhaps Karl Rove would know...

both about how he could get a WH press pass AND be invited to a WH party with his fake name and fake credentials. ROFL They have some curious connections. I think more is coming down the pike...so to speak.

stevieray
02-20-2005, 10:34 AM
It does raise concerns on how a person can slip by both the FBI and Secret Service.

Maher is correct in saying that if this happened on Clintons watch, much more hell would be raised than what you are hearing now.

libs bring him up as much as cons do, because they live by two wrongs make a right mantra. besides, let's not pretend that someone breaching security hasn't happened before.

The world doesn't have problems when dems are in office..

Bowser
02-20-2005, 11:02 AM
libs bring him up as much as cons do, because they live by two wrongs make a right mantra. besides, let's not pretend that someone breaching security hasn't happened before.

The world doesn't have problems when dems are in office..

I guess my point was that this was the first time I have heard this, while Clinton was under the microscope (maybe deservedly so) with people scratching to find anything remotely associated with scandal.

Really, Bush and Clinton aren't, or shouldn't be, the focus. It's how this guy got to be within feet of the president under a false ID.

Cochise
02-20-2005, 11:12 AM
Oh no! Attack of the web bloggers!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:13 AM
I guess my point was that this was the first time I have heard this, while Clinton was under the microscope (maybe deservedly so) with people scratching to find anything remotely associated with scandal.

Really, Bush and Clinton aren't, or shouldn't be, the focus. It's how this guy got to be within feet of the president under a false ID.
That should be the issue, and the POTUS has made a foolish decision not to have him checked first. But instead the central issue seems to be that he is gay and writes for a website read by 4 or 5 people.

whoman69
02-20-2005, 11:20 AM
No, it is probably the fact that the guy writes for a webpage and not serious news at all.

http://www.parlinhome.com/oldsite1/Landscapes/Mountains/Mountain%2010.jpg
out of a
http://www.humeseeds.com/molehill.jpg

I had never heard of his news site or ever read a single word by him in my life. If he is part of a propaganda machine, he is a failure at it.

Of course, those who are decrying the queer prostitute with the website excused watched and believed Dan Rather with baited breathe as he spoke to a national audience instead of 4 people signing up for a website like this guy. Funny how partisanship makes you do that, isn't it?
If what you say is true then he should not have been issued a white house press pass.
Where the propoganda comes in is that he asks slanted questions for the White House to answer and gets those answers in the more conventional news sources.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:34 AM
I think it is hillarious that r-wingers keep bringing up Dan Rather.

First of all, the docs have NOT been proven to be forgeries.
Secondly, they back up the other documents that show that George W. Bush never showed up in Alabama.

In order for their logic to work, they have to pretend that the information on the rather docs were not verified elsewhere.

Unless one of you can come up with documentation showing were Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama, the docs are accurate.


On the other hand, we have absolute proof that Guckert was a prostitute, and that he was working with the Texas republican party.

All things that Guckert has gone on National TV and denied.

The facts are on the left's side of the column.
All the right can do is lie and use propaganda.

But I give them credit.
It does seem to be effective.

Heck, they even got away with exposing a CIA agent whose job was tracking WMD's.
If that isn't f'dup, I don't know what is.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:34 AM
If what you say is true then he should not have been issued a white house press pass.
Where the propoganda comes in is that he asks slanted questions for the White House to answer and gets those answers in the more conventional news sources.
Listen if propaganda is a reason NOT to issue a newspass then CBS and anyone associated can longer visit the White House for the next 3 years, right?

I agree that it is unbecoming, it is just not the national news many of you are painting it to be.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:36 AM
I think it is hillarious that r-wingers keep bringing up Dan Rather.

First of all, the docs have NOT been proven to be forgeries.
Secondly, they back up the other documents that show that George W. Bush never showed up in Alabama.

In order for their logic to work, they have to pretend that the information on the rather docs were not verified elsewhere.

Unless one of you can come up with documentation showing were Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama, the docs are accurate.


On the other hand, we have absolute proof that Guckert was a prostitute, and that he was working with the Texas republican party.

All things that Guckert has gone on National TV and denied.

The facts are on the left's side of the column.
All the right can do is lie and use propaganda.

But I give them credit.
It does seem to be effective.

Heck, they even got away with exposing a CIA agent whose job was tracking WMD's.
If that isn't f'dup, I don't know what is.
Does it matter whether the documents were proven to be false or not? That is a nice paper tiger you have there, but hardly the point, is it?

CBS acted in bad faith, took information from a lame source, and failed to verify the validity of the information after lying to the American public about verification.

Again, CBS had an agenda just as gayboy website author did. The difference is that CBS reaches millions while gayboy website reaches a hundred.

Oh, and the fact that you are willing to make excuses for one and overlook the other is kind of funny too.

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 11:48 AM
But Bush backers are so blinded by loyalty and addicted to the guy's propaganda, that they can do nothing but drink kool-aid.

Pot meet kettle.....

You are so angered and bitter about Bush winning the election that your hatred won't allow you to appear close to reasonable or rational when it comes to politics.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 11:52 AM
I guess my point was that this was the first time I have heard this, while Clinton was under the microscope (maybe deservedly so) with people scratching to find anything remotely associated with scandal..

Kinda what is being done to Bush now.....I find it interesting that many on the Left cried "foul" when people were digging into Clinton to find anything wrong, while having no problem chasing skeleton's in the closet( no pun intended) for Bush.


Really, Bush and Clinton aren't, or shouldn't be, the focus. It's how this guy got to be within feet of the president under a false ID.

On this we both agree.....it still shows a lack of security on the part of our government.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:58 AM
KC Wolf wrote: Does it matter whether the documents were proven to be false or not? That is a nice paper tiger you have there, but hardly the point, is it?

It matters because too many "conservatives" keep saying that they were fakes.

We can debate the point all day if you want, but that is the only reason I brought it up.

When you guys stop being so dishonest about Rather, I'll stop pointing out that they were NOT proven to be forgeries.

Which if you were not so partisan, would make you question WHERE the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama, right?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:00 PM
It matters because too many "conservatives" keep saying that they were fakes.

We can debate the point all day if you want, but that is the only reason I brought it up.

When you guys stop being so dishonest about Rather, I'll stop pointing out that they were NOT proven to be forgeries.

Which if you were not so partisan, would make you question WHERE the Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama, right?
Again, Rather used documents he shouldn't have used. He is being forced to retire for his stupid comments. You and your leftist buddies like jAZ drank it down like "koolaid" (to steal from him). He and CBS did you from behind without the benefit of a dab of KY jelly and you thanked them for it afterward.

Obviously you are a subscriber to talonnews.com and you feel cheated? Otherwise, I believe the issue of a webblogger is a pretty stupid and petty thing for you to attempt to make hay about, isn't it?

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:00 PM
I think it is hillarious that r-wingers keep bringing up Dan Rather.

First of all, the docs have NOT been proven to be forgeries.


The facts are on the left's side of the column.
All the right can do is lie and use propaganda.



Sounds like the defensive strategy for an Attorney who's client he knows is guilty....

Please feel free to continue to make no sense...it makes it easier to ignore your ramblings.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:05 PM
It matters because too many "conservatives" keep saying that they were fakes.

We can debate the point all day if you want, but that is the only reason I brought it up.

When you guys stop being so dishonest about Rather, I'll stop pointing out that they were NOT proven to be forgeries.

Which if you were not so partisan, would make you question WHERE the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama, right?

Now that's hilarious...a Liberal Democrat crying about dishonesty? And someone being so partisan?

mmaddog
*******

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:11 PM
And now you lie and say that Rather is retiring because of the TANG docs?

Is there anything that you won't lie about?

Are you unaware that he had planned to retire before the story was ever written?

When you make such blatently false statements, why should I expect to have any honest discussion with you?

Don't even think about questioning by desire to hear the truth when you are lying while you accuse me of being anything less than honest.

So maddog, where WAS Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:13 PM
And now you lie and say that Rather is retiring because of the TANG docs?

Is there anything that you won't lie about?

Are you unaware that he had planned to retire before the story was ever written?

When you make such blatently false statements, why should I expect to have any honest discussion with you?

Don't even think about questioning by desire to hear the truth when you are lying while you accuse me of being anything less than honest.

So maddog, where WAS Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?
LOL - Yeah and the other CBS members involved were planning to retire as well.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, leftist.

So am I lying or am I unaware. You seem to have issues regarding reality.

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:23 PM
And now you lie and say that Rather is retiring because of the TANG docs?

Is there anything that you won't lie about?

Are you unaware that he had planned to retire before the story was ever written?

When you make such blatently false statements, why should I expect to have any honest discussion with you?

Don't even think about questioning by desire to hear the truth when you are lying while you accuse me of being anything less than honest.

So maddog, where WAS Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?

Lefty:

Rather's retirement has been coming for some time....but it has been moved up due to his loss of what little credibility he had left before the document debacle....CBS sees him as dead weight.....

Hell...even I am planning to retire right now. It's just that lack of money and a desire to not look like a freeloader motivates me otherwise.

As for false statements....

Politics lends itself to half-truths and lies......if you spent less time being fed YOUR dose of Kool-Aid and read for yourself without a slant, you might be able to find the truth with both hands and a room full of mirrors.....

As for Bush and where he was when he was supposed to be in Alabama....I think I will wait for someone to prove the truth to me, not just spoon feed it to me on a BB, blog, or media rag.

mmaddog
*******

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:25 PM
Rathers retierment was NOT moved up due to any scandal.


And you still haven't answered the question.

Where was Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:27 PM
Rathers retierment was NOT moved up due to any scandal....

*cough* Bullshit *cough*


And you still haven't answered the question.

Where was Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?

Yes I did answer it....it just wasn't the answer you wanted to see.

Nice try....NEXT?

mmaddog
*******

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:31 PM
Avoiding the question isn't the same as answering it.

I can see why you think Rather's retirement was "moved up".

Apparently you don't do a lot of thinking for yourself.

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:39 PM
Avoiding the question isn't the same as answering it.

I can see why you think Rather's retirement was "moved up".

Apparently you don't do a lot of thinking for yourself.

I didn't avoid it....I told you that I would wait for someone to come out with the truth.....and thus far neither side has been able to fully prove it's case...if you were really not blinded by bias then you'd see that too.

See...the truth comes when you wait for liars and people with agendas to filter themselves out....

mmaddog
*******

jAZ
02-20-2005, 12:41 PM
Exactly why Kerry couldn't get elected. Projecting your own faults onto others doesn't hide the fact that you wear this jacket everyday, in most of your posts.
You don't even know that this is ironic, do you?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 12:43 PM
No, it is probably the fact that the guy writes for a webpage and not serious news at all.
That's an odd justification for dismissing a massive security breach.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:43 PM
Bush should be able to prove that he showed up for duty, shouldn't he?

Why can't he?

All the records that are available back up what the Rathers documents showed, not the other way around.

There is no proof that Bush ever showed up.
But there is plenty of proof that he was pulled from flying duty, and didn't show up for his scheduled physical.

If you are going to get your panties in a bunch over the TANG docs, at least be consistant.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:46 PM
That's an odd justification for dismissing a massive security breach.
I didn't notice the complaints about the security breach until today.

Are you worried about this man attacking the POTUS?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:47 PM
Rathers retierment was NOT moved up due to any scandal.


And you still haven't answered the question.

Where was Bush when he was supposed to be in Alabama?
Diversion.


When proven wrong you jump to another topic like a crack whore jumping to her next chickenhead.

Why did the other members of CBS go "into retirement". I will patiently await your next diversion from the facts.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:49 PM
Bush should be able to prove that he showed up for duty, shouldn't he?

Why can't he?

All the records that are available back up what the Rathers documents showed, not the other way around.

There is no proof that Bush ever showed up.
But there is plenty of proof that he was pulled from flying duty, and didn't show up for his scheduled physical.

If you are going to get your panties in a bunch over the TANG docs, at least be consistant.
OMG, Get off GWB's balls.

Again, this is about inconsistency regarding the crying over a webpage author and the inability to see a more serious breach of trust on a national news level with Dan Rather and crew. Try and finish one topic before you jump to the next.

Mosbonian
02-20-2005, 12:51 PM
If you are going to get your panties in a bunch over the TANG docs, at least be consistant.

I'm not the one with the panties in a bunch....seems more of a fit for you.

I'm waiting for real truth to come forth.....you are just waiting for your version of the truth to be believed.

mmaddog
*******

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:52 PM
What did Rather say about Bush's service that was untrue?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 12:56 PM
I didn't notice the complaints about the security breach until today.

Are you worried about this man attacking the POTUS?
You didn't watch the linked video in the original post, then. And you didn't read my comments on the ORIGINAL thread (days ago) where I said I don't give a rats ass about the guys' fetishes, but I want to know how he got into the WH under an assumed identity.

Do I think the guy was a terrorist? No. Do I think that he inadvertantly slipped through the security cracks at the WH? No.

I think the guy was just one more attempt by the Bush Administration at deliberate political subversion of the 4th leg of democracy. The security question just shines a spot light on an ugly "either/or" situation.

Either they f-ed up Presidential security on a previously unknown scale (doubtful)... or they knew plenty about this guy that they aren't owning up to today.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:05 PM
You didn't watch the linked video in the original post, then. And you didn't read my comments on the ORIGINAL thread (days ago) where I said I don't give a rats ass about the guys' fetishes, but I want to know how he got into the WH under an assumed identity.

Do I think the guy was a terrorist? No. Do I think that he inadvertantly slipped through the security cracks at the WH? No.

I think the guy was just one more attempt by the Bush Administration at deliberate political subversion of the 4th leg of democracy. The security question just shines a spot light on an ugly "either/or" situation.

Either they f-ed up Presidential security on a previously unknown scale (doubtful)... or they knew plenty about this guy that they aren't owning up to today.
So you are concerned that a webblogger got to toss out softball questions for his lame website and he got to see the POTUS without being checked out even though you don't believe him to be a threat?

Wow, earthshaking stuff there, jAZ. What's next, Alphabits with more "R's" than "X's"?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:05 PM
What did Rather say about Bush's service that was untrue?
Again, no one has brought up that topic, LeftisttheDiversionary

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:06 PM
I think the guy was just one more attempt by the Bush Administration at deliberate political subversion of the 4th leg of democracy.

That was the plan.

Talon News was going to be a state run news agency and every American would be required to read it daily.

The tagline was to be:

The GOP, using Al Gore's Internet against him.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:15 PM
What did Rather say about Bush's service that wasn't true?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:21 PM
So you are concerned that a webblogger got to toss out softball questions for his lame website and he got to see the POTUS without being checked out even though you don't believe him to be a threat?

Wow, earthshaking stuff there, jAZ. What's next, Alphabits with more "R's" than "X's"?
God forbid there be a forrest around the lone tree you hope to get everyone looking at.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:23 PM
God forbid there be a forrest around the lone tree you hope to get everyone looking at.
That doesn't address my issue, does it?

Again, your major concern is that the POTUS received softball questions from a blogger? Or that the POTUS invited someone to the press conferences that you, yourself, admitted probably poses no threat to the POTUS?

Either way, while it is an issue, it is pretty trivial, isn't it?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:24 PM
That was the plan.

Talon News was going to be a state run news agency and every American would be required to read it daily.

The tagline was to be:

The GOP, using Al Gore's Internet against him.
Wow, either you are decades behind the latest and greatest tools for media manipulation or you are doing the same thing Wolfie is doing, and setting bogus criteria that must be in place before objection to behavior is legit.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:29 PM
Wow, either you are decades behind the latest and greatest tools for media manipulation or you are doing the same thing Wolfie is doing, and setting bogus criteria that must be in place before objection to behavior is legit.
Did I state the "behavior is legit"? In fact, I have stated several times, the actions are belittling of the POTUS. However, they are trivial and your attempt to blow them out of proportion only solidifies the triviality of the situation.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 01:29 PM
I didn't notice the complaints about the security breach until today.

Are you worried about this man attacking the POTUS?

BS.

Some of us, like myself, were posting about this when the story broke about how JJGG could get a WH clearance when he had tried multiple times to get one for Capitol Hill and was declined.

Back then (last week) it was a curious element to the story...NOW it appears to be THE element of the story.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:30 PM
That doesn't address my issue, does it?

Again, your major concern is that the POTUS received softball questions from a blogger? Or that the POTUS invited someone to the press conferences that you, yourself, admitted probably poses no threat to the POTUS?

Either way, while it is an issue, it is pretty trivial, isn't it?
Actually it does, because in order for you to understand my concern... you need to find a way to see that the issue isn't limited to the two questions you asked.

So I point out how you are (deliberately?) seeing the tree without seeing the forrest.

My guess is that you are hoping to parse the issue so finely that you can avoid addressing the larger pattern of questionable behavior. A pattern that should raise red flags for ALL CITIZENS (Republicans as much as Democrats).

Because if this crap is allowed to go without public outcry (from both sides), then this new-world-order of deliberate government manipulation of the media will become the status-quo.

If that happens, and we see Democrats pulling these same stunts... I'm sure it will become a much more significant issue for the Republicans. As it stands, Republicans choose to dismiss it and say "nothing to see here!"

Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:34 PM
Wow, either you are decades behind the latest and greatest tools for media manipulation or you are doing the same thing Wolfie is doing, and setting bogus criteria that must be in place before objection to behavior is legit.

Good luck with your fight, but you are going to need some of these folks on board.

Perhaps they are decades behind as well.

"We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters," said Terry Moran of ABC News. "I don't know anything about Gannon's—or Guckert's—private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration.

But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions—from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."


John Roberts of CBS News agreed that "the liberal blogosphere"—not the White House press corps—drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert's "presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me."

"There are other people there with a clear agenda as well," he said



"Gannon—or whatever his name is—certainly isn't the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration," said Judy Keen, White House correspondent for USA Today.

Keep up the moonbat fight, we're all counting on it.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:35 PM
Actually it does, because in order for you to understand my concern... you need to find a way to see that the issue isn't limited to the two questions you asked.

So I point out how you are (deliberately?) seeing the tree without seeing the forrest.

My guess is that you are hoping to parse the issue so finely that you can avoid addressing the larger pattern of questionable behavior. A pattern that should raise red flags for ALL CITIZENS (Republicans as much as Democrats).

Because if this crap is allowed to go without public outcry (from both sides), then this new-world-order of deliberate government manipulation of the media will become the status-quo.

If that happens, and we see Democrats pulling these same stunts... I'm sure it will become a much more significant issue for the Republicans. As it stands, Republicans choose to dismiss it and say "nothing to see here!"

Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If the "manipulation" is that of websites, I have about as much concern for those as I do the 527's. Both are manipulative and neither affect me in the least.

However, again, I didn't see your outcry of CBS manipulation of unproven data that led to the "resignation" of several employees with the Dan Rather piece. Is your indignation of manipulation reserved only for the right side of the aisle? Because regardless of whether the documents are factual or not, the fact is they were not verified and they probably came from an unreasonable source. You shouldn't reserve your indignation for one party, it would be more believable if you didn't.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:55 PM
Did I state the "behavior is legit"?
Lefty is Right. (:D)

You have a total inability to comprehend the written word.

I never said that you said the "behavior is legit" (thanks for making up quotes again, btw).

What I said (don't know why I'm saying it again, because if you can't comprehend reading it the first time, I can't expect you will comprehend it a 2nd time) is that you are setting bogus criteria that must be in place before objection (to behavior) is legit.

I put "(to behavior)" in parenthesis to show you more clearly that I was refering to "objection" needing to be legit.

Hope this helps your comprehension.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 01:57 PM
moonbat
What does your new favorite phrase mean?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 02:05 PM
If the "manipulation" is that of websites, I have about as much concern for those as I do the 527's. Both are manipulative and neither affect me in the least.

However, again, I didn't see your outcry of CBS manipulation of unproven data that led to the "resignation" of several employees with the Dan Rather piece. Is your indignation of manipulation reserved only for the right side of the aisle? Because regardless of whether the documents are factual or not, the fact is they were not verified and they probably came from an unreasonable source. You shouldn't reserve your indignation for one party, it would be more believable if you didn't.
Wait... are you the one chaning the subject to CBS? I'll address it, but I just want to get this one record.

What you missed was my (then and recent) outcry about the failure of CBS to do their job properly. Your flawed characterization of the facts surrounding case aside... I objected then and I do now.

CBS screwed up.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 02:10 PM
Good luck with your fight, but you are going to need some of these folks on board.

Perhaps they are decades behind as well.

"We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters," said Terry Moran of ABC News. "I don't know anything about Gannon's—or Guckert's—private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration.

But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions—from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."


John Roberts of CBS News agreed that "the liberal blogosphere"—not the White House press corps—drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert's "presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me."

"There are other people there with a clear agenda as well," he said



"Gannon—or whatever his name is—certainly isn't the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration," said Judy Keen, White House correspondent for USA Today.

Keep up the moonbat fight, we're all counting on it.
While I wait for your translation of moonbat, I'll point out that none of these quotes are even remotely related to my point. They certainly don't refute my concerns. They don't let this administration off the hook.

They are an interesting side note that you hope to use to dampen any criticism about this guy's bias or agenda.

But they have nothing to do with the systematic, infrastructure of propoaganda that this administration has been caught building.

I could go through the list, but I don't need to, because you know it better than I. You SHOULD be objecting to it as much as me, and if it were Clinton you would be objecting to it MORE than me.

But alas, power corupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:11 PM
Wait... are you the one chaning the subject to CBS? I'll address it, but I just want to get this one record.

What you missed was my (then and recent) outcry about the failure of CBS to do their job properly. Your flawed characterization of the facts surrounding case aside... I objected then and I do now.

CBS screwed up.
You are right, I did miss it. If you did so here, I apologize.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:11 PM
"We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters," said Terry Moran of ABC News. "I don't know anything about Gannon's—or Guckert's—private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration.

But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions—from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."


Friggin' hilarious.

Can anyone provide a quote from Guckert that "challenged" the White House?

Didn't think so.

But of course ABC is a part of the "liberal media" right?

That joke never get's old, does it.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:13 PM
I'm still waiting for KC to "prove" that the Rather docs were fakes.

And where the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:16 PM
I'm still waiting for KC to "prove" that the Rather docs were fakes.

And where the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama.
Hell, I am still waiting for you to say you accept my bet proving or disproving your hypocrisy. I have asked over a couple of threads now and you still dodge it.

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:21 PM
I'm still waiting for KC to "prove" that the Rather docs were fakes.

And where the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama.

There are a couple of things you should consider.

1. Nobody has to "prove" that the documents were fakes, Rather admitted that they were (inside information?)

2. Bush has been elected to a second term regardless of the mindless jabs at trying to locate where he was 30+ years ago. It no longer matters and is of no significance.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 02:21 PM
I'm still waiting for KC to "prove" that the Rather docs were fakes.

And where the hell Bush was when he was supposed to be in Alabama.

Faux News is lying about Hillary Clinton's words and replacing them with their own propaGannon, er, ganda spin...and no outcry from the literalist CONS. :hmmm:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148142,00.html

Sen. Clinton: Iraq Insurgency Failing
Saturday, February 19, 2005


BAGHDAD, Iraq — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (search) said Saturday a string of attacks killing more than 50 Iraqis in two days were failed attempts to sow sectarian strife and destabilized the country.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, and Sen. John McCain (search), R-Ariz., were part of a five-member congressional delegation that meting with U.S. officials and members of Iraq's interim government.

Both Clinton and McCain have been strident critics of the Pentagon's planning and management of the war in Iraq. But Clinton said Saturday that Sunni Muslim insurgents were failing in their efforts to destabilize Iraq through sectarian violence.

Her comments came as eight homicide bombings struck in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, killing at least 23 people and wounding dozens Saturday as Shiites (search) celebrated their holiest day of the year. A U.S. soldier was among those killed, the military said.

On Friday, insurgents staged five attacks killing at least 36 people and Shiites blamed radical Sunni Muslim insurgents for attacking them in a string of bombings, shootings and kidnappings.

Authorities had hoped to prevent a repeat of last year's attacks during the Ashoura festival when insurgent blasts killed at least 181 people in Karbala and Baghdad.


Clinton said insurgents had also failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections, won by the Shiite clergy-backed ticket. The United Iraqi Alliance won 140 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly.

"Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these homicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," she said.

"The results of the election are a strong rebuke to those who did not believe that the Iraqi people would take this opportunity to demonstrate their own commitment to their own future."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (search), a Republican from South Carolina, said he did not believe the U.S. military would leave Iraq anytime soon.

"How long I don't know, but to leave too soon would be devastating to stay too long is unnecessary," Graham said. "I ask the American people to be patient, because what happens here will affect our security back home."

McCain said the U.S. military presence was tied to the numbers of casualties taken by American forces, but he was heartened by the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

"We have a long hard difficult struggle ahead of us and I'm far more optimistic now," McCain said.

In December, McCain said he had "no confidence" in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but he added that keeping Rumsfeld in the position was President Bush's choice, not his.

The delegation also was briefed by U.S. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the effort to create an independent Iraqi security force, McCain said.

The group had not left the Green Zone, home to Iraqi government institutions and the American and British embassies, because of the security situation, McCain said. They were expected to meet with U.S. troops stationed elsewhere in Iraq on Sunday.

At least 1,476 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The five senators that flew into Iraq included Clinton, McCain, Graham, Maine Republican Susan Collins and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold



Original AP report:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=4&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_go_co/iraq_senators

Sen. Clinton Says Iraq Insurgents Failing
Sat Feb 19, 5:39 PM ET Politics - U. S. Congress
By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - As 55 people died in Iraq (news - web sites) on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.
Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.


The five-member U.S. Congressional delegation arrived in Baghdad as a series of suicide bombings and explosions killed 55 people, including an American solder. Much of the violence was aimed at Shiite Muslims, commemorating Ashoura, the festival marking the death of the founder of their sect 14 centuries ago.


"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

The senate delegation included Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold.


All but Feingold are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), which oversees the defense department budget.


Clinton said the last time she visited Iraq in late 2003, she traveled to the Green Zone by road from the international airport.


Today, security is so bad that none of the senators dared drive through Baghdad's streets, even in armored cars. Aside from the Green Zone, their only glimpse of the capital came from the relative safety of U.S. military helicopters that ferried them from the airport.


"It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.


Collins, who last visited Iraq in mid-2003, said the increased violence was "disappointing."


A year and-a-half ago, "we were able to move more freely in Baghdad," she said. "And one impression I have is how much more fortified Baghdad is than it was during that summer."


But Collins said much had been achieved since then, above all, the June handover of sovereignty from U.S. authorities to Iraq's interim government.


On Sunday, the senators will visit U.S. troops in other parts of Iraq.


McCain said his delegation met Saturday with Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, and Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the American push to train Iraqi security forces so U.S. can eventually leave.


Clinton and McCain have often challenged the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s planning and its management of the Iraq war.


"I've said many times that we've made serious mistakes and we've paid a very heavy price for those mistakes," McCain said.


"We have a long, hard, difficult struggle ahead of us, but I'm far more optimistic than I was before the election, because the Iraqi people proved that they would brave the risk of their very lives in order to choose their government," he said. "To me, that's very encouraging."

Graham said the U.S. military was unlikely to withdraw anytime soon.

"The one thing I've learned from this trip is that we're a long way away from being able to leave. That is, if the Iraqi people want us to stay, we're gonna' be here for a while, in large numbers," Graham said. "I ask the American people to be patient, because what happens here will affect our security back home."

McCain said the key issue wasn't how long the U.S. military would stay, but rather, bringing down the number of casualties while they're here.

U.S. troop deaths are reported nearly every day. One soldier died Friday in a suicide bombing.

As of Friday, at least 1,475 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S. invaded in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:24 PM
Faux News is lying about Hillary Clinton's words...and no outcry from the literalist CONS. :hmmm:

Sen. Clinton: Iraq Insurgency Failing
Saturday, February 19, 2005

.

Spell checker broken? Fox and Faux are words that have no resemblence in pronounciation. But then I'm sure you are trying in your own sick mind to justify what you can't believe.

Although I would agree that lying and Hilary Clinton in the same sentence is very appropriate.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:24 PM
.

I agree, they should quote her literally as she obviously does not have a grasp of what a bomber does.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:25 PM
Actually, I have answered it, even though you couldn't actually kink to the right page of the thread you were talking about....

Maybe you could get on with your bad self and get to the point?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:27 PM
Actually, I have answered it, even though you couldn't actually kink to the right page of the thread you were talking about....

Maybe you could get on with your bad self and get to the point?
Yes, you answered you would apologize. You did not state you would accept the bet. I just want to be perfectly clear. Your equivocation in the past has led me to believe you would be less than honest unless I have an exact answer.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:28 PM
WeBToysnStuff: 1. Nobody has to "prove" that the documents were fakes, Rather admitted that they were (inside information?)

Please provide the quote where Rather says they were fakes.

I have been through this many times, so let me save you the trouble.

He didn't, and when you say he did, you are a part of the Gannon propaganda program.

Which leads to my next question.
Are you being paid to lie?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:30 PM
What exactly are you trying to get me to say, KC?

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!

WeBToysnStuff
02-20-2005, 02:35 PM
Please provide the quote where Rather says they were fakes.

I have been through this many times, so let me save you the trouble.

He didn't, and when you say he did, you are a part of the Gannon propaganda program.

Which leads to my next question.
Are you being paid to lie?

Rather admitted that the documents were of dubious nature and that he shouldn't have used them.

If I'm getting paid, I need a raise.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:37 PM
What exactly are you trying to get me to say, KC?

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
Cool, start the thread - Something to the effect of

I was wrong to incorrectly blame KCWolfman for a falsehood. I obviously have posted statements on here that are in direct conflict with one another and I am wrong and have lied about the topic.
The Wager
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
The Proof
Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm Please pardon the spelling, but it is your own, not mine.

Link
Lefty Hypocritical Setup (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001&page=3&pp=20)

In the future, before blaming others for hypocrisy or ignorance, I hope you are smart enough to reflect on this moment.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 02:38 PM
I agree, they should quote her literally as she obviously does not have a grasp of what a bomber does.

So they lied when they misrepresented her words and are wrong to do so?

Just gauging the consistency, here.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:39 PM
So they lied when they misrepresented her words and are wrong to do so?

Just gauging the consistency, here.
Absolutely. They lied and she is stupid to use an incorrect term.

memyselfI
02-20-2005, 02:42 PM
Absolutely. They lied and she is stupid to use an incorrect term.

Well, if the bomber is not committing suicide when performing the bombing then I would agree. But if they are then they are committing BOTH homocide and suicide so technically BOTH are incorrect.

But FAUX News spin is the least technically correct. A homocide bombing could be any bombing that kills people and could be from a remote where no human dies as part of the bomb. Any bombing designed to murder people would be a 'homocide bombing.'

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:44 PM
Well, if the bomber is not committing suicide when performing the bombing then I would agree. But if they are then they are committing BOTH homocide and suicide so technically BOTH are incorrect.

But FAUX News spin is the least technically correct. A homocide bombing could be any bombing that kills people and could be from a remote where no human dies as part of the bomb.
Equivocation again.

Fox lied and Hillary is stupid for using a term that does not describe the situation.


"Mom, I had a car wreck," is disengenious at the very least when you forget to tell mom that you killed 16 pedestrians during your wreck. She is an idiot.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 02:49 PM
"Not one polling place was shut down or overrun and the fact that you have these homicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," she said.
"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.
Are there any conservatives left who deny that Fox is a Republican propaganda tool? Or do some still consider it a "News" network?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:50 PM
Are there any conservatives left who deny that Fox is a Republican propaganda tool? Or do some still consider it a "News" network?
No more than CBS or CNN.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:52 PM
Someone has media envy...

unlurking
02-20-2005, 02:52 PM
Rather admitted that the documents were of dubious nature and that he shouldn't have used them.

If I'm getting paid, I need a raise.
Really don't want to get involved with this, but admitting they were of "dubious nature" and admitting they were "fakes" is two totally different things.

Personally, I don't care if Clinton was getting BJs in the oval office. I also don't care if Bush is getting "discounted" man love in exchange for a few interviews. I don't care that the press on either side goes crazy for scandals.

What does bother me is MY TAX MONEY being spent on stupid crap, like trying to get someone to admit they enjoy sex with other people. I really don't want to see that repeated here. Please tell the liberal Starr wannabes to stay home, I don't want to pay for it.

At worst, IMO, is it turns out that Bush enjoys male love which is rather hypocritical of his administration. While I do find that annoying and frustrating, I'd put it in the same light as the "I didn't inhale" scandal.

WHO CARES?!?!?!

I want to know what the POTUS is doing or not doing as the POTUS (in other words, the office, not the man). If the man wants to pleasure himself with an intern, another man, or a freackin' goat, I really don't care.

To me, this is what is wrong with politics today.

stevieray
02-20-2005, 03:04 PM
You don't even know that this is ironic, do you?

Stop deflecting jaz, your whole existence on this board is ironic.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:11 PM
unlurking...

How do you know what the POTUS is doing when he is spendng your tax dollars on propaganda?

That is the whole point.
Jeff Gannon is just the most egregious example of it.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 03:15 PM
No more than CBS or CNN.
ROFL

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:24 PM
unlurking...

How do you know what the POTUS is doing when he is spendng your tax dollars on propaganda?

That is the whole point.
Jeff Gannon is just the most egregious example of it.
Call it the "NHL Effect".

The players gobble up every cent they can get, and then complain about losing salary when the league has been bleeding revenues for years.

The American public (regardless of left, right, or sky high) gobble up every little bit of scandal they can get their hands on and then complain that media is bias and politicians are propagandists.

Unfortunatley the average person would rather hear about presidential sex lives than anything else.

:shakeshead:

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:28 PM
Your answer has nothing to do with my question.

How do you know what the POTUS is doing when he is spending your tax dollars on propaganda?

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:34 PM
Your answer has nothing to do with my question.

How do you know what the POTUS is doing when he is spending your tax dollars on propaganda?
How's this, we never will as long as people are willing to DEBATE the propaganda and not the issues.
(simplified the answer)

In other words, quit wasting my time and money with this tripe. Have the media start covering the actual daily tasks the pres performs, rather than crap about his personal life.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:40 PM
How can the media perform that task when some of them are on the government payroll?

Are you missing the point intentionally?

unlurking
02-20-2005, 03:51 PM
How can the media perform that task when some of them are on the government payroll?

Are you missing the point intentionally?
HAHAHAHA

I guess YOU are missing the point!!

Propaganda will NEVER change unless our society begins to place more importance on things other than scandal.

You are claiming that the administration influence over the media is hindering information coming to light (or so it seems).

What you FAIL to realize, is that the information IS coming to light, but no one cares (which I think is a sad display of the overall intelligence level in this country)!

The large media outlets are not getting government kickbacks based on stories they run. They are getting advertising dollars based on the ratings they receive. To put it simply, they are simply running what the people want to hear.

Sure, the administration may be paying some hacks to write pro-Bush articles, but who cares? There are people doing that already! All journalist have a biased bent on what they report.

(Just so you know, I don't like Bush. I am however more concerned about his and Dick's business dealings influencing administrative decisions then whether or not he allowed questions from a gay prostitue.)

mlyonsd
02-20-2005, 03:51 PM
No more than CBS or CNN.

Bingo. Anyone that says CBS and CNN isn't biased towards the left and in the same breathe accuses Fox of being biased towards the right loses their credibility card.

That's as partisan as it gets.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:54 PM
Bingo. Anyone that says CBS and CNN isn't biased towards the left and in the same breathe accuses Fox of being biased towards the right loses their credibility card.

That's as partisan as it gets.
All do it, some just aren't honest about it.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:00 PM
All do it, some just aren't honest about it.
Of course they do. They are simply playing to their demographics in order to gain ratings and advertising dollars.

If the country were 100% united behind Bush or Clinton, there would be no claims of bias in media.

People just need to realize and accept that news outlets play to their audiences. If nobody cared about sex scandals or drug scandals, there would be no reports on it.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:02 PM
In other words, quit wasting my time and money with this tripe. Have the media start covering the actual daily tasks the pres performs, rather than crap about his personal life.
Unlurking makes a solid point, but is overly broad in his dismissal of this and other discussions.

The for-profit press does promote scandal coverage because scandal sells. The entire Clinton era is a testemant to that. That was CBS's biggest failure IMO with the Bush memos. They rushed to capitalize on being the first, and didn't cover their ass sufficiently along the way.

Were the docs fake? We don't know, but CBS didn't do enough to be certain one way or the other. They rushed them out in front of the public. That's the very nature of for-profit media. Be the first to break a big new scandal, and ignore the less exciting details going on all around.

But at the same time, just because something is "scandalous" doesn't mean that it should be dismissed as MERELY scandalous. Somethings are media creations because they are scandals. Other things are scandalous because they are a huge problem.

Subversion of public disclosure by this current government is a subversion of democracy as a whole. Are their techniques as crude as the Hitler-era propaganda of Germany? Certainly not.

But at it's core, all of these seemingly isolated events (fake "news", Gov't paid "journalists", fake "reporters", etc) are identical and justifiably scandalous. Because they are all aspects of this administration's attempt to control the public, rather than allowing the public to control this administration.

This shouldn't be dismissed in the same breath as a sex scandal.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:04 PM
Bingo. Anyone that says CBS and CNN isn't biased towards the left and in the same breathe accuses Fox of being biased towards the right loses their credibility card.

That's as partisan as it gets.
Actually CNN is biased to the right. CBS is biased to the left.

Fox News is a calculated, and institutionalized Republican propaganda outlet, no more honest or real than Talon News or GOPUSA.

If Fox News were merely biased to the right, there would be little room for complaint.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:04 PM
If CBS and CNN are so liberal, and are so biased....

Why did they cover Whitewater for ten years?

There was no crime, and everyone knew it.
It was just an excuse to dig into the Clinton's private life.

If it wasn't, what were the charges in the Starr report concerning Whitewater, and how do they justify spending $70 million dollars.

Seeing as how you clowns don't even know how much money the Clinton's made on the deal, I can't imagine that you will be real honest and fothcoming in your answers.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:08 PM
Of course they do. They are simply playing to their demographics in order to gain ratings and advertising dollars.

If the country were 100% united behind Bush or Clinton, there would be no claims of bias in media.

People just need to realize and accept that news outlets play to their audiences. If nobody cared about sex scandals or drug scandals, there would be no reports on it.
Some news outlets do more than just cater to their demographics. Fox News absolutely fakes news in order to smear the Democratic party. That's not bias, that's not news, that's not anything remotely like CNN or CBS or anything else.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:13 PM
Are there any conservatives left who deny that Fox is a Republican propaganda tool? Or do some still consider it a "News" network? If you don't like it...
DON'T ****ING WATCH IT, RETARD! I don't like CNN, therefore, I don't watch it. Just STFU about it!

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:15 PM
I liked that part about 'Mandate" ROFL

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:17 PM
Some news outlets do more than just cater to their demographics. Fox News absolutely fakes news in order to smear the Democratic party. That's not bias, that's not news, that's not anything remotely like CNN or CBS or anything else.
And how does that conflict with what I've said? If someone weren't watching it and giving it credence, they wouldn't be doing it. It may be the sci-fi channel of news outlets, but it pays their bills. Somebody obviously is watching it because they like to see the Democratic party smeared. That's playing to your audience.

If they were as outright slanderous as people state, I'm surprised they haven't been sued.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:19 PM
If you don't like it...
DON'T ****ING WATCH IT, RETARD! I don't like CNN, therefore, I don't watch it. Just STFU about it!
Retard?

But ignoring government corruption of democracy doesn't make democracy more secure. So I won't ignore the facist tendencies of this administration and their propaganda machine at FNC.

Sorry if that causes you to blow a gasket.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:19 PM
So Chief, you are admitting that Fox IS propaganda?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:22 PM
And how does that conflict with what I've said? If someone weren't watching it and giving it credence, they wouldn't be doing it. It may be the sci-fi channel of news outlets, but it pays their bills. Somebody obviously is watching it because they like to see the Democratic party smeared. That's playing to your audience.

If they were as outright slanderous as people state, I'm surprised they haven't been sued.
I'm not saying your wrong... I totally agree with your point. But the "ignore it" mentality only accomplishes so much.

The only way to oust an effective propaganda machine is to expose it.

Something that can't be done by looking the other way.

That's part of the solution, but not the only part.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:22 PM
Fox has been sued in court for falsifying stories.

The judge ruled that the media doesn't have to tell the truth.

QUOTE: ...a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

ABSTRACT: A team of Florida television reporters refused to broadcast a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH) because they felt that their station, owned by Fox News, was pressuring them to report incorrect facts (i.e. presenting the other side of a story even if that other side was factually inaccurate). The reporters were fired (whether for refusing to broadcast the inaccurate story or for threatening to report the station to the FCC) and they then successfully sued the station. A Florida appeals court overturned the award however, ruling that there were no laws against broadcasting inaccurate information and thus the station had lawfully fired them (i.e. no whistleblower protection).

--- Dan Doernberg

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:26 PM
Fox has been sued in court for falsifying stories.

The judge ruled that the media doesn't have to tell the truth.

QUOTE: ...a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

ABSTRACT: A team of Florida television reporters refused to broadcast a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH) because they felt that their station, owned by Fox News, was pressuring them to report incorrect facts (i.e. presenting the other side of a story even if that other side was factually inaccurate). The reporters were fired (whether for refusing to broadcast the inaccurate story or for threatening to report the station to the FCC) and they then successfully sued the station. A Florida appeals court overturned the award however, ruling that there were no laws against broadcasting inaccurate information and thus the station had lawfully fired them (i.e. no whistleblower protection).

--- Dan Doernberg

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
Hmmm, must be the president's fault. No reason to expect the public to make an issue of it with their congressman cause they obviously can't do anything.

unlurking
02-20-2005, 04:28 PM
I'm not saying your wrong... I totally agree with your point. But the "ignore it" mentality only accomplishes so much.

The only way to oust an effective propaganda machine is to expose it.

Something that can't be done by looking the other way.

That's part of the solution, but not the only part.
OK, gotcha now.

Maybe someone should consider pushing legislation to combat this. Sadly, I don't see either party as being willing to lose this "tool". It can only come from the viewers and citizens to push for the change.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:29 PM
So Chief, you are admitting that Fox IS propaganda?Not at all...

Basically, I enjoy FOX because they have some HOT anchors/reporters!

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:32 PM
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
Wow!

"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:34 PM
It can only come from the viewers and citizens to push for the change.
Which is why I always try to point out this kind of thing when it happens. It should be a bi-partisan, citizen driven outrage.

But as I say alot around here now... Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That goes for politicians as much as it does for their appologists around here.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:35 PM
Retard?

But ignoring government corruption of democracy doesn't make democracy more secure. So I won't ignore the facist tendencies of this administration and their propaganda machine at FNC.

Sorry if that causes you to blow a gasket.You were bitching about FOX news 2 years ago. I don't give a **** what you say. They lead all other news networks...

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:37 PM
You were bitching about FOX news 2 years ago. I don't give a **** what you say. They lead all other news networks...
Are you a cartoon?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:37 PM
Retard?

But ignoring government corruption of democracy doesn't make democracy more secure. So I won't ignore the facist tendencies of this administration and their propaganda machine at FNC.

Sorry if that causes you to blow a gasket.Oh, and your a Dick for bringing your buttbuddy, Lefty_the_Right over here...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:38 PM
And McDonalds is the biggest burger company on earth.

Are you saying they make the best hamburgers?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:39 PM
Oh, and your a Dick for bringing your buttbuddy, Lefty_the_Right over here...
Seriously... admit it.

Someone comes over each morning to draw you, so you can get to work. Right?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:39 PM
And McDonalds is the biggest burger company on earth.

Are you saying they make the best hamburgers?Alot of people love them, I certainly don't....

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:40 PM
I think he meant "you're", jAZ.

But with all the homophobia running around in his head, who knows?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:40 PM
Seriously... admit it.

Someone comes over each morning to draw you, so you can get to work. Right?Yep...except, I work nights...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:41 PM
Well gee, then I guess Fox is the best news source in the same way that McD's is the best burger place.

For people without discering taste and intellect, it is as good as it gets.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:43 PM
I think he meant "you're", jAZ.

But with all the homophobia running around in his head, who knows?I'm not a homophobe. I don't care that Gannon was a paid peterpuffer...

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:48 PM
Well gee, then I guess Fox is the best news source in the same way that McD's is the best burger place.

For people without discering taste and intellect, it is as good as it gets.You're comparing a news network to fastfood. Apples and oranges. FOX isn't reporting shit you MUST believe. They report, you decide. Its simple. Don't like it, don't watch. McD's advertises that their food is actually good. I disagree. FOX doesn't claim that everything they report is completely factual. NO network news does that...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:48 PM
I was refering to your comments about me....

jAZ
02-20-2005, 04:55 PM
FOX isn't reporting shit you MUST believe.
That's a frightenly bizarre statement.

You might as well copy the Florida Supreme court and declare that it's ok for Fox News to fabricate the "news". You seem to be Okey-dokey with that.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:52 PM
Well, Bush republicans are "frighteningly bizarre" aren't they, jAZ?

Look at some of the recent examples.
It doesn't get much more so than Jim Guckert, does it?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 06:01 PM
That's a frightenly bizarre statement.

You might as well copy the Florida Supreme court and declare that it's ok for Fox News to fabricate the "news". You seem to be Okey-dokey with that.How is it bizarre? I don't believe everything I hear on TV? Do you?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 06:02 PM
Well, Bush republicans are "frighteningly bizarre" aren't they, jAZ?

Look at some of the recent examples.
It doesn't get much more so than Jim Guckert, does it?Not much is more frightening than the far left.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 06:04 PM
How is it bizarre? I don't believe everything I hear on TV? Do you?
What's frighteningly bizarre is your willingness to accept gov't directed propaganda merely because you agree with it.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 07:05 PM
What's frighteningly bizarre is your willingness to accept gov't directed propaganda merely because you agree with it.So,you either work in the WH, or for FOX. Which is it? It would have to be one or the other if you know this to be true...