PDA

View Full Version : W...down the drain.


memyselfI
02-22-2005, 02:26 PM
I guess the Belgiuns have an interesting sense of politics and capitalism.* :hmmm: (story from Drudge)


*the stickers are free so I guess this is just a political statement.

The newest Belgian fad--a Bush urinal sticker.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/get_galleryfile.asp?idOLG={CAC7825D-83C7-4B3E-B0D6-4228779768F6}0



Piss Off
A Belgian novelty shows what the good people of Brussels really think about George W. Bush.
by Paul Belien
02/22/2005 8:40:00 AM

Brussels
WHEN JOHAN VANDE LANOTTE, Belgium's Vice Prime Minister, goes to the toilets today, he finds the urinals in the offices of his ministry decorated with stickers. They show an American flag and the head of George W. Bush. "Go ahead. Piss on me," the caption says. Vande Lanotte is one of Bush's hosts in Brussels. Is peeing on your guest's head appropriate? In Belgium it is. After all, Brussels' best known statue is that of "Manneken Pis," a peeing boy.

The piss stickers, specially made to be used in urinals, can be seen these days in the public toilets of Belgian schools, youth clubs, and pubs. They were designed by Laurent Winnock, president of the Young Socialists, the youth branch of Vande Lanotte's Socialist party. Winnock did his creative work during his office hours, which would not be worth mentioning if Winnock did not work in the offices of Vice Prime Minister Vande Lanotte, as one of his press spokesmen.

Last Friday, Belgian television asked Robert "Steve" Stevaert, the Socialist party leader, what he thought of the stickers. It had not been his idea, he stressed, but he refused to distance himself from it. He hardly could, seeing as the stickers can be ordered for free through the party's official website. For Belgian television viewers the message was clear: Bush may be our government's guest, the ministers will greet him, smile and tell him that he is most welcome, but we all know what they think of the bastard.

For those who missed the "subtlety" of the urinal stickers, Laurette Onkelinx, the Belgian minister of Justice and one of the Socialist party's most powerful figures, let go during prime time on Sunday evening, as Air Force One was about to land in Brussels. "I would rather have had John Kerry visiting us," she said on television. When the interviewer asked whether it was not undiplomatic to say so, she answered: "No. That is how I feel about it."

Meanwhile, however, a citizen of Ghent, where the stickers had also been distributed, has filed a complaint with the Belgian judiciary headed by Onkelinx. "This sticker has nothing to do with freedom of speech," he says. "If I go to the gents in the pub nowadays, I am forced to pee on Bush and the American flag because it is impossible to miss this sticker."

I do not know whether the president is aware of the real feelings of his Belgian hosts. Has the American Embassy in Brussels informed him? This question crossed my mind, as he was delivering his speech to a crowd of politicians, journalists, and businessmen in the prestigious halls of Brussels' Concert Noble on Monday afternoon. There, under a huge painting of Leopold II, Belgium's late-19th-century king (and the tyrant of the Congo), Bush addressed a few hundred people invited by the U.S. Embassy. I know some of them. They used to be my colleagues.

Fifteen years ago, I was sacked by a Belgian newspaper because I had written an article in the Wall Street Journal which the Belgian politicians did not like. Being a somewhat conservative and pro-American journalist, I was a regular contributor to the Journal in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These articles were not liked by my liberal colleagues, nor by the Belgian regime. On April 6, 1990, I was fired after writing a Journal op-ed piece about how a major story had been ignored by the Belgian media under political pressure from the top political parties.

That day ended my career as a newspaper journalist. None of the Belgian papers has been willing to employ me since. Fifteen years later I am still known by my former colleagues as "that fascist from the Wall Street Journal." And now I could see those same editors sitting in the audience, listening to a man whom they despise.

Indeed, they think that the world will be saved if America becomes more like Europe, whereas I think that Europe will be saved only if it becomes more like America. But that is an opinion which no one in Europe is allowed to have. Those who do, get peed upon.

Dr. Paul Belien is the author of the forthcoming book A Throne in Brussels on the "Belgianisation" of Europe (Imprint Academic, May 2005).

Donger
02-22-2005, 02:32 PM
More brilliant socialists...

BTW, who are "the Belgiums?"

memyselfI
02-22-2005, 02:33 PM
Good question...ask my forefinger.

Donger
02-22-2005, 02:35 PM
Good question...ask my forefinger.

Why? Does it know something your mind doesn't?

Baby Lee
02-22-2005, 02:35 PM
Good question...ask my forefinger.
There's hitting on Donger. Then there's just chatting Donger up. But this display is just plain disgustin' :Lin: ROFL

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 02:41 PM
More brilliant socialists...

BTW, who are "the Belgiums?"

The people that are responsible for the "Belgianisation" of Europe, I guess?

Cochise
02-22-2005, 02:48 PM
This will be great fun for a stand-up-pissing lib like meme :thumb:

Donger
02-22-2005, 02:50 PM
Actually, I view this as just another example of the juvenile behavior of some on the left.

For example, take a look at the avatar of the person who started this thread.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 02:55 PM
Actually, I view this as just another example of the juvenile behavior of some on the left.

For example, take a look at the avatar of the person who started this thread.

You mean like the "purple heart bandages" at the Republican National Convention?

And that was done by official members of your party, at the official converntion.

Spin that.

Donger
02-22-2005, 02:58 PM
You mean like the "purple heart bandages" at the Republican National Convention?

And that was done by official members of your party, at the official converntion.

Spin that.

That was stupid and, unless I'm mistaken, was promptly changed.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 03:05 PM
That was stupid and, unless I'm mistaken, was promptly changed.

WTF?
How exactly did they "change" it?

Did they go back in time and stop it from happening in the first place?

As spin goes, that was barely a twist.

Donger
02-22-2005, 03:10 PM
WTF?
How exactly did they "change" it?

Did they go back in time and stop it from happening in the first place?

As spin goes, that was barely a twist.

The people who were wearing them were asked to stop.

Duck Dog
02-22-2005, 03:27 PM
That was stupid and, unless I'm mistaken, was promptly changed.


It was stupid. It was as retarded as the flip flops.

Though they both pale in comparison to the fraud, sKerry who said;

"reporting for duty."

Now that was idiotic.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 03:47 PM
Oh the hate...

It's a good thing that Kerry wasn't elected, otherwise you would have to show him the same deference that you think we should show Bush.

Of course Kerry actually DID show up for duty when ordered, didn't he...

Iowanian
02-22-2005, 03:59 PM
Oh crap.......without Belgium..........the US would never have?

Those waffles.

Maybe Bush should use the Kerry Method and apply for a purple heart for this indignity?

Donger
02-22-2005, 04:06 PM
Oh the hate...

It's a good thing that Kerry wasn't elected, otherwise you would have to show him the same deference that you think we should show Bush.

Of course Kerry actually DID show up for duty when ordered, didn't he...

Hate? What hate? I don't hate Democrats or liberals. I simply disagree with most of their agenda and philosophy.

If Kerry had been elected, I would have accepted him as the POTUS of my country, though I probably would have disagreed with much of what he would have tried to do. It's not unlike what I thought of Clinton.

You weren't here during our discussions leading up to the elections, but if you had been you'd know that I (for one) gave credit to Kerry for his service in Vietnam, even though he tried to get a deferrment and only joined up after that failed.

Let me guess: you think that Kerry volunteered for and sought after a combat assignment, don't you?

As to your comment about Bush: stop embarrasing yourself. I suppose you, like McAuliffe, believe Bush was AWOL? If so, state your evidence or retract it.

Duck Dog
02-22-2005, 04:16 PM
As to your comment about Bush: stop embarrasing yourself. I suppose you, like McAuliffe, believe Bush was AWOL? If so, state your evidence or retract it.

Speaking of which. Where is that McAuliffe fellow?

What a card.

Donger
02-22-2005, 04:18 PM
Speaking of which. Where is that McAuliffe fellow?

What a card.

Just got replaced by Dean. You know, the guy who "hates" Republicans?

"Oh the hate," indeed.

Brock
02-22-2005, 04:19 PM
People in Belgium still line up to see Manowar, so take it for what it's worth.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 04:19 PM
When Kerry first got to Vietnam he was stationed on a boat off shore.

Did he volunteer for Swift Boat duty?
Or was he forced?

As far as Bush being AWOL, prove to me that he showed up in Alabama as ordered.

Donger
02-22-2005, 04:22 PM
When Kerry first got to Vietnam he was stationed on a boat off shore.

Did he volunteer for Swift Boat duty?
Or was he forced?

As far as Bush being AWOL, prove to me that he showed up in Alabama as ordered.

Kerry requested Swift Boats when they were involved in littoral operations, not riverine. In other words, they were not involved in combat when he requested them. Their mission changed shortly before he arrived for his second tour.

In other words, he did not seek combat. I presume you were a Kerry supporter, so I'm surprised that you weren't aware of this fact.

As to Bush, you made the accusation, so the onus is on you to prove it. So, can you?

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 04:33 PM
Donger wrote: As to Bush, you made the accusation, so the onus is on you to prove it. So, can you?

Bush himself can't prove that he showed up in Alabama, even though he said he did.

Do you hold him to the same standard you are trying to hold me?

Donger
02-22-2005, 04:36 PM
Bush himself can't prove that he showed up in Alabama, even though he said he did.

Do you hold him to the same standard you are trying to hold me?

I'll take that as a "no."

So, you were aware that Kerry never sought combat?

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 04:47 PM
Well, I don't know about "sought".

I don't know if that many people in Vietnam were looking to get into firefights, I thought there were following orders.

I do know that unlike Bush he didn't refuse overseas duty, and he did show up.

Was there a check box for "looking to get shot at"?

Donger
02-22-2005, 04:54 PM
Well, I don't know about "sought".

I don't know if that many people in Vietnam were looking to get into firefights, I thought there were following orders.

I do know that unlike Bush he didn't refuse overseas duty, and he did show up.

Was there a check box for "looking to get shot at"?

Bush refused overseas duty? Do tell.

As I've said, I give (and gave) Kerry full credit for his service. But, the common misconception that Kerry was a full-on, gung-ho combat seeker is a fallacy to which many of your breathren subscribe.

And it's simply wrong.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:10 PM
When did I say that he was gung-ho?

I just said that he did show up for duty.
Bush is the one that can't prove that he reported to Alabama as ordered.

Cochise
02-22-2005, 05:10 PM
I like the typical burning4mansteak shift of burden of proof here.

He makes a claim, that Bush was AWOL, then says that you have to prove he wasn't.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:13 PM
I'm saying that Bush has to prove where he was.

I'm not the one that claimed to show up for duty when I am unable to prove it, George W. Bush is.

And seeing as how I am just a just some guy and he is the POTUS, his credibility on the issue is just slightly more relevant.

Donger
02-22-2005, 05:20 PM
When did I say that he was gung-ho?

I didn't say you did. But, many Kerry supporters believe that he was. Heck, Kerry based his entire campaign on his Vietnam service, and I find it hilarious that he was the exact opposite. He wanted nothing to do with combat.

I just said that he did show up for duty.
Bush is the one that can't prove that he reported to Alabama as ordered.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are some records that do prove that Bush was in Alabama (dental records?), but the bottom line is that Bush was honorably discharged, which in and of itself demonstrates that Bush was never AWOL in the eyes of the military and completed his service.

Again, if you have some proof that he was ever AWOL, present it. I'd like to see it.

Donger
02-22-2005, 05:21 PM
I like the typical burning4mansteak shift of burden of proof here.

He makes a claim, that Bush was AWOL, then says that you have to prove he wasn't.

Too bad LTR wasn't here about eight months ago, eh? Deja vu.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:31 PM
And he wasn't charged with insider trading either, are you saying that when he sold his harken stocks he wasn't aware of the companies problems, and didn't get the letter telling him not to sell?

Bush has gotten away with many things in his life that you or I would not.

That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of doing them in the first place.

His driving record doesn't show any DWI's either, right?
But we all know that he was busted for it.

Donger
02-22-2005, 05:38 PM
And he wasn't charged with insider trading either, are you saying that when he sold his harken stocks he wasn't aware of the companies problems, and didn't get the letter telling him not to sell?

Bush has gotten away with many things in his life that you or I would not.

That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of doing them in the first place.

His driving record doesn't show any DWI's either, right?
But we all know that he was busted for it.

I'm not disputing that Bush has lead a priviledged life. Anyone that says differently is simply wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush used family connections and "the system" to avoid service in Vietnam, just as I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry used his connections to get out of combat after only three months into a year long tour.

They both used the system.

But, again, stating that someone was AWOL without any proof just makes you look like the same kind of idiot as it did McAuliffe. But by all means, continue.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:41 PM
Bush was given an honerable discharge even though he didn't complete his duties and failed to show up for a required physical.

What would happen to you or me if we had done the same?

Donger
02-22-2005, 05:47 PM
Bush was given an honerable discharge even though he didn't complete his duties and failed to show up for a required physical.

What would happen to you or me if we had done the same?

If he hadn't completed his duty, he'd have not been given a honorable discharge.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it or be quiet.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:56 PM
Feel free to explain what would happen to you or I if we had failed to show up for a required physical.

Unless you can prove that he did show up for his physical, he was AWOL by defintion, regardless of what kind of discharge he recieved.

You don't really think that Bush's treatment was common, do you?

Donger
02-22-2005, 05:58 PM
Feel free to explain what would happen to you or I if we had failed to show up for a required physical.

Unless you can prove that he did show up for his physical, he was AWOL by defintion, regardless of what kind of discharge he recieved.

You don't really think that Bush's treatment was common, do you?

Not showing up for a physical does not constitute being AWOL.

Thanks for finally admitting that you have no idea of what you speak.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:00 PM
Not showing up for a required flight physical so you can perform your duties can't be classified as being Absent With Out Leave?

Really, so he had permission?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:03 PM
Not showing up for a required flight physical so you can perform your duties can't be classified as being Absent With Out Leave?

Really, so he had permission?

No, it isn't and wasn't.

penchief
02-22-2005, 06:04 PM
If he hadn't completed his duty, he'd have not been given a honorable discharge.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it or be quiet.

At that period of time the "silver spoon" did make a difference when talking about the National Guard. It is not unreasonable to wonder if was possible that, since he was allowed by the Texas Air National Guard to perform duties in Alabama while he was working on a "political" campaign (as so many guardsmen are allowed to do), that it is also possible that the Texas Air National Guard was responsible for the "evidence of his service" instead of the Alabama Guard.

After all, It was the Texas Air National Guard that ultimately had authority over his service and it was Texas where the Bush family and its "political" influence "lied."

While you cite lack of evidence of Bush shirking of his duties, there has been an obvious lack of evidence supporting his service, which ironically should be very easily presentable.

In this case, the lack of evidence supporting his service is much more damning, IMO.

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:06 PM
At that period of time the "silver spoon" did make a difference when talking about the National Guard. It is not unreasonable to wonder if was possible that, since he was allowed by the Texas Air National Guard to perform duties in Alabama while he was working on a "political" campaign (as so many guardsmen are allowed to do), that it is also possible that the Texas Air National Guard was responsible for the "evidence of his service" instead of the Alabama Guard.

After all, It was the Texas Air National Guard that ultimately had authority over his service and it was Texas where the Bush family and its "political" influence "lied."

While you cite lack of evidence of Bush shirking of his duties, there has been an obvious lack of evidence supporting his service, which ironically should be very easily presentable.

In this case, the lack of evidence supporting his service is much more damning, IMO.

I don't disagree with any of this. Nor does it constitute proof that Bush was ever AWOL.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:11 PM
Are you saying that the physical wasn't REQUIRED, Donger?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:13 PM
Are you saying that the physical wasn't REQUIRED, Donger?

Not at all. The physical was required in order for him to keep his flight status. Since he didn't take it, his flying status was revoked.

You may note that he wasn't charged with being AWOL at this point...

penchief
02-22-2005, 06:13 PM
I don't disagree with any of this. Nor does it constitute proof that Bush was ever AWOL.

I agree. But everyone should be wondering. When considering the microscope that is used on non-republicans, the hypocricy applied in this case and by the the right-wing in general should be questioned by all. Not just those who have felt the sting of that double standard.

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:16 PM
I agree. But everyone should be wondering. When considering the microscope that is used on non-republicans, the hypocricy applied in this case and by the the right-wing in general should by questioned by all. Not just those who have felt the sting of that double standard.

Come on penchief. That microscope is not partisan.

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:18 PM
BTW, LTR, check out this: http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html

I'm sure that you'd agree that it's about as an impartial source as you can hope for.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:19 PM
So if I don't show up for a required physical, am I absent WITH leave?

What would happen to you or I if we didn't show up?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:23 PM
So if I don't show up for a required physical, am I absent WITH leave?

What would happen to you or I if we didn't show up?

Our flying status would be revoked. Just like Bush's was.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:24 PM
And after records were released, The Washington Times reported that a woman who had dated Bush during the summer of 1972, Emily Marks Curtis, says she "distinctly remembers" Bush returning to Montgomery after the election to fulfill his Air National Guard commitment. "I can say categorically he was there, and that's why he came back," the Times quoted her as saying. She added that Bush rented an apartment for a two-week stay and that she met him for dinner several times. While she did not claim to have witnessed him doing Guard duty, according to the Times she said, "He told me that was why he was in Montgomery. There is no other reason why he would come back to Montgomery."

And in fact, Bush was at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery as late as Jan. 6, 1973, according to a document released by the White House Feb. 11. The document is a record of a dental examination of Bush on that date. The payroll records released two days earlier show Bush received pay and credit for service for Jan. 6 and for five other days closely clustered between Jan. 4 and Jan. 10.

On Feb. 13, the White House released hundreds of additional pages from Bush’s military records. Nothing in those files, however, provided any further documentation of Bush’s presence at Donnelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama beyond the single dental examination record.

An additional witness came forward to say that he had seen Bush at the base. John W. “Bill” Calhoun was quoted by the Washington Post and others as saying he saw Bush sign in at the base eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972. However, as previously noted, there is record of Bush being paid for only two days of Guard service during that period, Oct. 28 and 29 1972. A White House spokesman could not offer an explanation for the discrepancy.

I stil don't see anything explaining his absence.
Do you?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:24 PM
I stil don't see anything explaining his abscence.
Do you?

Can I conclude that you missed the dental appointment?

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:26 PM
That doesn't prove that he was there when he was supposed to be.

Wasn't he supposed to be back in Texas on that date?
And hadn't he missed months of duty, WITHOUT permission, at that point?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:27 PM
Anyway LTR, this is becoming boring. You've made it clear that you've no evidence to support your claim that Bush was ever AWOL, as those that have come beofre you have not done either. I'm not being nasty; it's just that we did this about 10 months ago and reachedf the same conclusion. If you want to go ahead and claim that Bush was ever AWOL without proof, go ahead. No skin off my nose.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:27 PM
Besides, how can you justify him not flying more than two years?

Wasn't that a part of his requirment for being accepted into the TANG in the first place?

penchief
02-22-2005, 06:29 PM
Come on penchief. That microscope is not partisan.

It most certainly has been a partisan microscope. We can't even get resolution on Plame, Haliburton, WMD, Abu-Graib, Jeff Gannon, etc. To say anything different is disingenuous, IMO. If a democrat had the record of this president, Armageddon would most certainly be near.

Take your pick of any of the right-wing's attacks on Kerry, Gore, or Clinton and apply this administration's record to them and it would be difficult, IMO, to deny that any of those three wouldn't already have been considered the reincartion of Satan by ardent conservatives or the corporate media.

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:29 PM
That doesn't prove that he was there when he was supposed to be.

Wasn't he supposed to be back in Texas on that date?
And hadn't he missed months of duty, WITHOUT permission, at that point?

Okay, one last time then I'm done.

ANG duty is/was not the same as active military. ANG duty required a certain number of hours service per year. Bush met those obligations. Therefore, he was never AWOL and was honorably discharged.

If you can present ANY evidence that the above is incorrect, then do so. If not...

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:29 PM
Well, I can't prove a negative, can I?

All I can do is show that he got away with behavior that you or I could not.

And it isn't hard to deduce that he probably got an honerable discharge too, when you or I would not.

If the same standards were applied to almost anyone else, you would say they were AWOL.

Woudn't you?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:34 PM
It most certainly has been a partisan microscope. We can't even get resolution on Plame, Haliburton, WMD, Abu-Graib, Jeff Gannon, etc. To say anything different is disingenuous, IMO. If a democrat had the record of this president, Armageddon would most certainly be near.

Take your pick of any of the right-wing's attacks on Kerry, Gore, or Clinton and apply this administration's record to them and it would be difficult, IMO, to deny that any of those three wouldn't already have been considered the reincartion of Satan by ardent conservatives or the corporate media.

Honestly, penchief, I'm not sure how to respond to this. There seems to be this strange belief amongst liberals that blames the loss of the election not on the message and agenda, but on the "corporate media."

Do you really think that if CNN could have found something akin to a bombshell about Bush, they wouldn't have run it?

Donger
02-22-2005, 06:38 PM
Well, I can't prove a negative, can I?

All I can do is show that he got away with behavior that you or I could not.

And it isn't hard to deduce that he probably got an honerable discharge too, when you or I would not.

If the same standards were applied to almost anyone else, you would say they were AWOL.

Woudn't you?

You can't prove a positive either. What does that say about you?

Again, he didn't show up for a requisite flight physical and was grounded. The same would have happened if you or I had done the same.

As to the repeated AWOL claim, no. His flight priviledges were revoked. That's not AWOL.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 06:46 PM
Honestly, penchief, I'm not sure how to respond to this. There seems to be this strange belief amongst liberals that blames the loss of the election not on the message and agenda, but on the "corporate media."

Do you really think that if CNN could have found something akin to a bombshell about Bush, they wouldn't have run it?

For eight years republicans have screamed about the "liberal media" even though they were covering Whitewater EVERY NIGHT, and Monica like it was the ONLY story in the news.

The evidence is on our side that the media is NOT liberal.
And even more that ignores stories that would hurt republicans.

Compare the number of stories about the Swift Boat liars and the TANG docs.

And when I say the TANG docs, I'm NOT reffering to the stories about Dan Rather, but the story that the docs show that Bush did NOT show up in Alabama.

After all, the docs were only one small part of the story, not the focus.

There is plenty of documentation that Bush did NOT show up for his physical, and was NOT punished for it, other than being removed from flight status.

Removing someone that isn't qualified to fly from flight duty isn't punishment, it is SOP.

penchief
02-22-2005, 06:47 PM
Honestly, penchief, I'm not sure how to respond to this. There seems to be this strange belief amongst liberals that blames the loss of the election not on the message and agenda, but on the "corporate media."

Do you really think that if CNN could have found something akin to a bombshell about Bush, they wouldn't have run it?

Not at all. I'm just sick and tired of the right's manipulation of the media and the double standard that is applied by conservatives.

Can you honestly say that if the Clinton administration had taken us to war under false pretense that the right-wing wouldn't have an aneurysm?

Can you honestly say that if the Clinton Administration had outed an undercover CIA agent out of political retribution that the conservatives wouldn't be screaming, "TRAITOR!" ?

Can you honestly sat that if Haliburton were the beneficiary of Clinton's vice president that republican's wouldn't be screaming, "CONFLICT OF INTEREST!" let alone bloody murder?

Can you honestly say that if Jeff Gannon and the gay culture that seems to have pervaded the Bush Administration (and its moral crusade) were equally pervasive in the Clinton's heathen and unpatriotic administration, that conservative's wouldn't be feigning a heart attack, ala Fred Sanford?

C'mon Donger, let's get real.

Donger
02-22-2005, 09:18 PM
For eight years republicans have screamed about the "liberal media" even though they were covering Whitewater EVERY NIGHT, and Monica like it was the ONLY story in the news.

The evidence is on our side that the media is NOT liberal.
And even more that ignores stories that would hurt republicans.

Compare the number of stories about the Swift Boat liars and the TANG docs.

And when I say the TANG docs, I'm NOT reffering to the stories about Dan Rather, but the story that the docs show that Bush did NOT show up in Alabama.

After all, the docs were only one small part of the story, not the focus.

There is plenty of documentation that Bush did NOT show up for his physical, and was NOT punished for it, other than being removed from flight status.

Removing someone that isn't qualified to fly from flight duty isn't punishment, it is SOP.

There is plenty of documentation that Bush did NOT show up for his physical

There is? So, should be rather easy to present, yes? If so, please get on with it.

In and of itself, "the media" isn't conservative or liberal: if a juicy story that will sell arises, either "side" will cover it ad nauseum.

But, IIRC, over 85% of all national news critters define themselves as Democrats. Do you really believe that their personal views don't influence their reporting? Don't get me wrong; I think that Fox News is blantantly right wing, perhaps even more so than CNN is blatantly left wing, but to argue that "the media" has a conservative slant is ludicrous.

penchief
02-23-2005, 01:41 PM
There is? So, should be rather easy to present, yes? If so, please get on with it.

In and of itself, "the media" isn't conservative or liberal: if a juicy story that will sell arises, either "side" will cover it ad nauseum.

But, IIRC, over 85% of all national news critters define themselves as Democrats. Do you really believe that their personal views don't influence their reporting? Don't get me wrong; I think that Fox News is blantantly right wing, perhaps even more so than CNN is blatantly left wing, but to argue that "the media" has a conservative slant is ludicrous.

The personal views of reporters don't dictate programming; ownership does. The media is owned by corporate entities that benefit from and support this administration's policies. For example, General Electric, which owns the "so called" liberal NBC and MSNBC, is the fifth largest military contractor in the world. Certainly, they have a lot to gain from a prolonged conflict in Iraq. Programming is dictated from the top down. How do you explain people like Greta, Geraldo, and Dennis transforming themselves in such a way? A paycheck and some top-down programming, maybe?

If the media is so liberal explain to me how Whitewater and Monicagate are more important to the conduct of government business than the outing of an undercover CIA agent or hyped up justifications for attacking a country that had nothing to do with attacking us.

The degree of scrutiny applied by the media to matters that had nothing to do with the business of governing compared to the total lack of scrutiny applied to issues that are most pertinent to the leadership of our country and its values certainly has to be considered when discussing the political slant of the corporate media.

Brock
02-23-2005, 01:45 PM
How do you explain people like Greta, Geraldo, and Dennis transforming themselves in such a way? A paycheck and some top-down programming, maybe?

Or maybe they just got smarter?

penchief
02-23-2005, 02:21 PM
Or maybe they just got smarter?

Could be......... or maybe they just got richer?

Baby Lee
02-23-2005, 02:56 PM
How do you explain people like Greta, Geraldo, and Dennis transforming themselves in such a way? A paycheck and some top-down programming, maybe?
Are you seriously alleging that these people are going contrary to their own beliefs for their paycheck?
Tells me a lot about your entire outlook.

penchief
02-24-2005, 05:59 PM
Are you seriously alleging that these people are going contrary to their own beliefs for their paycheck?
Tells me a lot about your entire outlook.

Maybe,.........or maybe not.

When one makes a sudden right or left turn it does raise questions, doesn't it?

If we aren't willing to scrutinize the wherefore and the why, what good are we when it IS appropriate to question the obvious?

My outlook is not teathered to rigid ideology. I'm not afraid to question prevailing thought (or even my own beliefs) as too many so called "patriots" are unwilling to do.

The "Liberal Media" myth is due for burial. The evidence provided by the media focus of the last dozen years, or so, is proof enough that the corporate media has a stranglehold on the "Free" press and that it is no longer free or progressive!

It is, however, indicative that the media has become a tool of the status quo and the power elite.

When the media has transformed itself from exposing governmental abuses of power to protecting and justifying those very same abuses, we can no longer call it a "FREE" press, let alone, a liberal press.

Baby Lee
02-24-2005, 06:13 PM
If Dennis Miller has 'turned right' for dough, he's been fricken brilliant at it. He's retained his libertarian and liberal leanings on many issues, and has pretty forthrightly stated that his observation of Bush's reaction to terrorism has changed his thoughts on foreign policy and his estimation of the man. I find it an altogether reasonable reaction to world events.
And, aside from the turnaround on foreign policy, what appears to be changes in his leanings are more personality driven than policy driven.
Basically, he came to the realization in short order that; Hey! Clinton was kinda skeevy after all, and Hey! Bush isn't the reincarnation of Hitler after all.

Baby Lee
02-24-2005, 06:16 PM
And Geraldo clearly defines himself by his environment. Stash him on a soundstage in NYC for a couple of years, and he slowly becomes a ivory tower type. Embed him in the military and he's a true-blue jarhead with weeks. Heck, put him on a talk show and he's shedding marriage and cheating on his wives in short order too.
He's just a guy who is consistently overcome by his surroundings. Stash him in the East Village for a month or two, and I guarant-damn-tee he'll be blowin dudes with the best of them.

Rausch
02-24-2005, 06:41 PM
Could be......... or maybe they just got richer?

Yeah, 'cause everyone knows the entertainment industry is run by those damned right wing christians...

craneref
02-24-2005, 10:10 PM
"They were designed by Laurent Winnock, president of the Young Socialists, the youth branch of Vande Lanotte's Socialist party."

This tells me all I need to know about this. Socialists is the politcally correct word for communist. It was disgraceful and an apology is owed to President Bush and the United States. If you don't agree with it, then just think that the American Flag that is behind the President represents all Americans, and the POS are urinating on all of us. It is amazing that Democracy has kept Europe free so that Socialists can survive. I find this ironic and sickening at the same time. God Bless the USA.

Rausch
02-24-2005, 10:14 PM
"They were designed by Laurent Winnock, president of the Young Socialists, the youth branch of Vande Lanotte's Socialist party."

This tells me all I need to know about this. Socialists is the politcally correct word for communist. It was disgraceful and an apology is owed to President Bush and the United States. If you don't agree with it, then just think that the American Flag that is behind the President represents all Americans, and the POS are urinating on all of us. It is amazing that Democracy has kept Europe free so that Socialists can survive. I find this ironic and sickening at the same time. God Bless the USA.

Germany is quickly becomming the Patty Hurst of the cold war...

Taco John
02-24-2005, 10:34 PM
Speaking of urinals...


Before the 2001 inauguration of George Dubya Bush, he and Laura were invited by the Clintons to a get-acquainted tour of the White House.


After drinking several glasses of iced tea, Dubya asked Bill Clinton if he could use the executive bathroom.

When he entered Clinton's private bathroom, he was astonished to see that President Clinton had a solid gold urinal!

In the afternoon, George whispered to his wife, Laura, about the urinal. "Just think," he said, "when I am president, I could have a gold urinal, too. But I wouldn't do something that self-induligible!"

Later, when Laura had lunch with Hillary , she told Hillary how impressed George had been at his discovery in the bathroom.

That evening, when Bill and Hillary were getting ready for bed, Hillary smiled and said,

"Bill, I think I found out who pissed in your saxophone."

Inspector
02-24-2005, 10:48 PM
"They were designed by Laurent Winnock, president of the Young Socialists, the youth branch of Vande Lanotte's Socialist party."

This tells me all I need to know about this. Socialists is the politcally correct word for communist. It was disgraceful and an apology is owed to President Bush and the United States. If you don't agree with it, then just think that the American Flag that is behind the President represents all Americans, and the POS are urinating on all of us. It is amazing that Democracy has kept Europe free so that Socialists can survive. I find this ironic and sickening at the same time. God Bless the USA.

:clap: :clap: :thumb:

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2005, 01:48 PM
Good question...ask my forefinger.'Index'finger is a better term...