PDA

View Full Version : Whatever happened to....



eg8r
03-03-2004, 02:19 PM
nhp's threat? Here it is again.

[ QUOTE ]
lol....

First, lets see the sources please.
Second, I hear positive things about Iraq in the news on a day to day basis. Fox news, NBC news, ABC, you name it....

Lets make a deal, you list all your sources where you obtained this information, and I'll post something that's gonna ruin your day.

It's amazing how misinformed you are.
<hr /></blockquote> I am not sure the original poster ever gave his source, however nhp never disputed a single bullet (this is from the thread..News you will never see published on Iraq).

Besides all that, I was wondering when we would be privy to this shocking/informing news.

eg8r

eg8r
03-04-2004, 12:19 PM
Here is a link (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/2/181514.shtml) to an article quoting Lou Dobbs (who by the way is not one of Bush's biggest supporters but does support the Bush economy). Seems to be an interesting read.

[ QUOTE ]
Lou Dobbs Jabs 'Chronically Liberal Media' for Attacking 'Bush Bonanza'

Lou Dobbs, who has "reviled" the Bush administration's economic policies on CNN and has become an outspoken protectionist on the airwaves, sings a far different tune in his popular newsletter, Economic Times reported today.

Those willing to pay $100 to $200 a year for Lou Dobbs Money Letter got to read this: "Investors, often misled by the chronically liberal media, are making a huge mistake right now. They are underestimating the good that George Bush is doing for the economy. ..."


Economic Times reported, "Here he is all praise for George Bush for ushering in the greatest economic boom since Ronald Reagan in 1982. ...

"Dobbs named the impending boom 'the Bush Bonanza.' And it is happening, says Dobbs, because of the Bush policy of 'Let Business Do Business!'"

<hr /></blockquote>
eg8r

nhp
03-05-2004, 09:46 AM
Hmm, a 'threat'...
I suppose you can call it that since what I've shared are threats to your beliefs and moral values.

I asked for sources in that thread "News you will never see published on Iraq", he didn't give them, so I didn't bother giving mine. Why would I? It's a waste of time to gather information when the person I am arguing with doesn't provide any sources for his.

I don't understand why you are still arguing that the media is liberal when Mr. Conservative himself Pat Buchanan stated that the media is conservative. I gave you a quote of him saying that in a different thread. Do you know who Pat Buchanan is?

Let me explain something to you. Lou Dobbs = Joe Schmoe = Nobody Credible. I'll tell you what, when you find a famous liberal to admit that the media is liberal, just like how I found a super-conservative to admit that the media is conservative, then you might have something. Right now, you've got nothing. Zero. You're not even in the same ballpark for a decent argument.

Why you still believe the media is liberal is beyond logic to explain. MTV of all stations, just showed an hour-long documentary about how peachy things over in Iraq are. 90% of the entire documentary showed the same happy Iraqi civilians interacting with American GIs over and over again. At the end, the last 5%, they used quite a clever touch. Just to seemingly erase the obviously conservative image of the show, for the last 3-4 minutes there were some quick segments about how bad it really is in Iraq. This was an attempt to give the show a clean slate from being conservative.

That's the trick that you are missing. Conservative stories topped off with a slight hint of liberalism, in an attempt to mask the conservative motives. Pretty clever, huh? Clever enough to fool you apparently.

eg8r
03-05-2004, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I asked for sources in that thread "News you will never see published on Iraq", he didn't give them, so I didn't bother giving mine. Why would I? <hr /></blockquote> You also did not give any examples to refute what he said either. Are you saying none of them are true? You are so adamant none of us are as informed as you are, I thought this would be a good time to enlighten us.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you are still arguing that the media is liberal when Mr. Conservative himself Pat Buchanan stated that the media is conservative. I gave you a quote of him saying that in a different thread. Do you know who Pat Buchanan is?

Let me explain something to you. Lou Dobbs = Joe Schmoe = Nobody Credible. I'll tell you what, when you find a famous liberal to admit that the media is liberal, just like how I found a super-conservative to admit that the media is conservative, then you might have something. Right now, you've got nothing. Zero. You're not even in the same ballpark for a decent argument.
<hr /></blockquote> Absolutely not... No one knows who Pat Buchanan is except you. However, if you have the time to do a little searching (I don't right now), go ahead and search through Rolling Stone Magazine...Here is a quote from Bill Clinton whining to Rolling Stone that he did not get... [ QUOTE ]
one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal press. <hr /></blockquote> To your credit he is not as near far to the left as Buchanan is to the right, however that was not the criteria. Even Bill knew the truth (Clinton News Network, CNN).

Oh yeah, and Lou Dobbs is no one credible. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif That is exactly how I feel about the rest of the liberals.

eg8r

eg8r
03-05-2004, 11:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why you still believe the media is liberal is beyond logic to explain. MTV of all stations, just showed an hour-long documentary about how peachy things over in Iraq are. <hr /></blockquote> While amusing myself with your rant, I came upon this quote...Tell me (so as not to assume) are you somehow suggesting MTV is conservative?

[ QUOTE ]
That's the trick that you are missing. Conservative stories topped off with a slight hint of liberalism, in an attempt to mask the conservative motives. <hr /></blockquote> Let me know if what I am about to say is taking this out of context...Given the quote above, it sounds as though you are saying the Consevatives look for the good in something, and the liberals look for the absolute bad. Thank you to MTV for trying to be a bit unbiased in portraying the good AND bad of what has/is happening in Iraq. It appears our little liberal friend here would rather only the bad be shown. He is a bit to narrow-sighted to believe that something good might possibly be happening over there.

eg8r

nhp
03-07-2004, 11:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You also did not give any examples to refute what he said either. Are you saying none of them are true? You are so adamant none of us are as informed as you are, I thought this would be a good time to enlighten us.
<hr /></blockquote>

What does it matter to you anyways? Even when I give factual sources, you still flatly deny everything. You are extremely hard-headed.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not... No one knows who Pat Buchanan is except you. However, if you have the time to do a little searching (I don't right now), go ahead and search through Rolling Stone Magazine...Here is a quote from Bill Clinton whining to Rolling Stone that he did not get...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal press.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To your credit he is not as near far to the left as Buchanan is to the right, however that was not the criteria. Even Bill knew the truth (Clinton News Network, CNN).

Oh yeah, and Lou Dobbs is no one credible. Oh yeah, and Lou Dobbs is no one credible. That is exactly how I feel about the rest of the liberals.
<hr /></blockquote>

Then you shouldn't be using a quote from Clinton to prove something now, should you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ah yes, time for a little game called COMMON SENSE. You may use one lifeline, someone who has a brain.

Clinon was impeached. Do you remember what was on every news channel during the Lewinsky scandal? In order to remember this, please remove your head from your anus. Now that you remember, did you happen to notice all the negative things floating around about Clinton in the media? If you are able to do this, lets think for a second. Hmm, negativity about Clinton circulating through the media, Clinton gets impeached because of the sex scandal. Now before you say something Homer Simpson-ish, let me go right ahead and say that common sense tells you that if the media were liberal, it would not have contributed so greatly to the impeachment of a liberal president.

Did you fall off the same stupid-tree as Dubya?

eg8r
03-08-2004, 07:54 AM
I guess you are still unable to reply without direct attack. It is alright, you skin is still a little thin to be free on the internet.

Anyways, you called me hard-headed, but I have not ever seen one time in which you changed your stance or even thought maybe you were wrong. I guess if you are the accusor, it somehow deviates you from the same problem. Doubtful, but it appears that is the way your mind is working.

As far as I not giving you a link to the Rolling Stones quote, I just did not want to search for it. It was in 1993. You seemed so excited with your little Patty Buchanan find that you did not think it was at all possible there could be a liberal touting the liberal media. I personally think Clinton is a much juicier (is juicier a word?) find. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far as Clinton getting bad press over the Lewinsky issue, WHAT THE HECK KIND OF PRESS DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD GET WHEN YOU ARE CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE, LYING TO YOUR CONSTIUENTS, LYING TO A JUDGE, AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!!!!!! As you suggest, the liberal media was not real nice to him, kind of surprised me. However, a very large portion of the media where I live was attacking the Republicans for requesting impeachment, and an all out brawl was happening in the media over the investigations. I would not consider a Conservative media being so vehemently opposed to the inquiries of the Clintons. But, you remembered all of that, I am sure.

Also, Clinton was impeached due to perjury and obstuction of justice, NOT because of his actions occuring with Monica (absolutely stemming from, but not because of). You try so hard to be factual, and then this very simple little detail continues to get screwed up. There were many Presidents prior and in the future that fool around in the White House. If caught and they don't lie and obstruct justice, their career will not be threatened (their marriage is another story).

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-08-2004, 08:15 AM
Actually Ken Starr was demonized to a much greater degree then Clinton. I suppose nhp will ask for "sources". Well the "source" is me. I watched it.

eg8r
03-08-2004, 08:42 AM
Here is a very recent example of lib media...You only hear about the families who are against the Bush ads about 9/11. However, is it true that the only sentiment to the ads are negative, as far as the victims families are concerned? The media sure makes it look that way. Here is a link (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/7/94604.shtml) showing quite the opposite. The first 22 to speak up and defend Bush.

One quote I found amazingly interesting especially considering the current news is this.... [ QUOTE ]
The group, many of whom are families of firefighters who died in the attacks, came forward in response to attacks on the Bush ad by other 9/11 victim families, some of who are members of the left wing group "9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," which is bankrolled by a charitable trust chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't find it too odd that Mrs. Kerry is bankrolling the one group that is quite outspoken against Bush. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is a little gem that sure does not make it to the national media for everyone to see. Why not? It seems the media is so intent to mention Conservative CEO's and leaders who back programs (any programs that have negative impact to the liberal agenda) but always fail to mention the liberal ones (even if they in support of the liberal agenda, as is this case).

Sure I did find this article in the news, however I had to go to a predominantly Conservative site to find it. If the mainstream media was so conservative why wouldn't they jump on this story?

eg8r

Qtec
03-08-2004, 08:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
However, a very large portion of the media where I live was attacking the Republicans for requesting impeachment, and an all out brawl was happening in the media over the investigations <hr /></blockquote>

Quite rightly too.
What does the President's private sex escapades got to do with the his ability to run the country ?

If you want to talk about LIARS, lets talk about Reagan, Nixon etc ,etc.

I do agree tho that when confronted[ snitched apon]Clinton should have come clean, but then again, Ronnie didnt either.
All Clinton did was get a BJ.Big deal.

Ronnie tried to bribe the Iranians [ axis of Evil country]with weapons, used the procedes to fund a TERRORIST army[ the contras] and let Oliver North take the fall for it.

See the difference?

Q

eg8r
03-08-2004, 09:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree tho that when confronted[ snitched apon]Clinton should have come clean, but then again, Ronnie didnt either.
All Clinton did was get a BJ.Big deal.
<hr /></blockquote> That is all it was, up to that point. Had Clinton just came out with the truth, he might have been able to continue and possibly someone would just refer to him as "just another Kennedy /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ".

[ QUOTE ]
See the difference? <hr /></blockquote> As far as seeing the difference, I am not even acknowledging the rest of your post. This is a continuation of Qtec not being able to logically follow the flow of the thread. I will help you once again to try and steer your meandering ship-of-thoughts back to the point of the thread, this is about biased media (not lying politicians).

eg8r

SpiderMan
03-08-2004, 12:40 PM
Ed, I think you'll have to give the guy credit for out-maneuvering you on this debate. I hate to see it, because I'm usually in your camp (philosophically).

SpiderMan

eg8r
03-08-2004, 02:45 PM
LOL, no way. I just want to see what he has that proves we are all soooo mis-informed.

eg8r

nhp
03-11-2004, 10:52 PM
Sorry for the late reply, I just finished with midterm exams.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you are still unable to reply without direct attack. It is alright, you skin is still a little thin to be free on the internet.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sheesh I'm just tryin to have fun with you, take it easy man /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, you called me hard-headed, but I have not ever seen one time in which you changed your stance or even thought maybe you were wrong. I guess if you are the accusor, it somehow deviates you from the same problem. Doubtful, but it appears that is the way your mind is working.
<hr /></blockquote>

You are forgetting what I mentioned a while back in another thread- I used to have the same opinions as you. I thought Bush was a great man. After a while I noticed some things Bush said didn't seem to add up about the war. I was getting the same thing from the media over and over, so I decided to do some research on my own. I looked through old newspapers, old Time and Newsweek magazines, I looked through the internet, and found some information that convinced me Bush wasn't the great man the media was portraying him to be at the time. After a few heated debates with some conservative friends of mine, my views became liberal. I felt that all along I had been supporting a man who has no regard for human life, a man who doesn't give a [censored] about the values of the working class. I wasn't brainwashed, I found that on my own.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I not giving you a link to the Rolling Stones quote, I just did not want to search for it. It was in 1993. You seemed so excited with your little Patty Buchanan find that you did not think it was at all possible there could be a liberal touting the liberal media. I personally think Clinton is a much juicier (is juicier a word?) find.
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm sorry but I just can't give you any credit for that if it is something you just happened to remember from 1993. Giving you the benefit of the doubt- What you gave me was a one-liner of an upset man lashing out in anger. I gave you nearly a whole page of a very famous right-winger admitting that the media is conservative, and the obvious reasons why it is conservative.

The media is owned by large, conservative, corporate organizations. Bush cuts their taxes. It's a no-brainer.

I have an old stash of Time magazines. One of them is dated at the time before Clinton was elected president. The cover page of the magazine showed a marijuana joint, and in large bold letters, it said "Did he inhale?"

That was pot. There was never a Time magazine entitled "Did he snort?" when Bush was running for president.

A big deal made over Clinton taking a puff of a joint, but nothing big about a man who snorted coke and was caught driving under the influence.

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT THE HECK KIND OF PRESS DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD GET WHEN YOU ARE CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE, LYING TO YOUR CONSTIUENTS, LYING TO A JUDGE, AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote>

(calm down please)The same kind of press someone SHOULD get when they lie to their country about weapons of mass destruction.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Clinton was impeached due to perjury and obstuction of justice, NOT because of his actions occuring with Monica <hr /></blockquote>

Read above. Bush hasn't been impeached because the media is doctoring the facts about most of the mistakes Bush has made. The longer Bush is in office, the richer the corporations owning the media get. Clinton lied about a BJ, Bush lied about WMD's, as an excuse to invade another country for oil. What Clinton lied about didn't cost any lives. What Bush lied about costed many lives. Which one is worse? Which president got punished for it?

eg8r
03-12-2004, 07:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The media is owned by large, conservative, corporate organizations. Bush cuts their taxes. It's a no-brainer. <hr /></blockquote> Bush cut everyone's taxes, so that means every single tax payer in America should feel the same way you say the corporations feel. If that does not work, then probably your original logic has some flaws (you can start with Warren Buffett. Sure he is not a media monger, however he is the second richest man on the planet and he hates Bush).

[ QUOTE ]
I have an old stash of Time magazines. One of them is dated at the time before Clinton was elected president. The cover page of the magazine showed a marijuana joint, and in large bold letters, it said "Did he inhale?"

That was pot. There was never a Time magazine entitled "Did he snort?" when Bush was running for president.
<hr /></blockquote> I remember vaguely some news about the drinking, I don't remember any about the coke, so you may be right here. However, there was an absolute ton of negative media as far as the intelligence of Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
A big deal made over Clinton taking a puff of a joint, <hr /></blockquote> I think this is the point, no one believed it was "A" joint, and there was even less doubt it was just a puff and no inhalation. The man was a chronic liar.

[ QUOTE ]
(calm down please)The same kind of press someone SHOULD get when they lie to their country about weapons of mass destruction.
<hr /></blockquote> I have said it before, I don't get emotional. The caps were used to show emphasis. You are completely correct here, the media was very fair...I think Bush has received at least as much bad press about the WMDs as Clinton did over the issues for the impeachment. I however fundamentally do not believe it was a lie, since when he first said it, he felt sure the information given to him was true. If someone honestly feels they are telling you the truth and have no intention to deceive, then I don't feel that is a lie. I don't think his intention was to deceive the American public, since only a few years earlier Saddam agreed to having the weapons and also agreed that he never destroyed them. The same intelligence Bush was using was the same intelligence Clinton used. This was a no-brainer when Clinton was in the White House but now that something was actually done about Saddam (and the Dems cannot take credit for it), and the person with the guts to do it was a Republican, the Democrats have flared up. This is another instance in which the Dems had the chance to take care of business and they dragged their feet, only to find a Republican come in and do something. Bush Sr. screwed up not finishing this off in the early 90's, then Clinton let the opportunity pass, W did not.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush hasn't been impeached because the media is doctoring the facts about most of the mistakes Bush has made. The longer Bush is in office, the richer the corporations owning the media get. <hr /></blockquote> The quote above seems a bit ambiguous...Are you implying that the media is responsible for impeachment?

[ QUOTE ]
What Bush lied about costed many lives. Which one is worse? Which president got punished for it?
<hr /></blockquote> Using your words...What Bush "lied" about (back to my words) saved an entire country from a murderous dictator. Tell us, would you rather Saddam still be in control right now as we speak, and Bush not tell the American people about the information obtain for National Intelligence? On the whole, would the Iraqi people be better off?

I will give you my position...I would be better off, if Clinton never lied about Monica and my tax dollars would not have been wasted on him trying to prove he lied and obstructed justice. I am also quite happy Bush relied on the Intelligence and went to war with Iraq. This should have been taken care of back in the early 90's and time does not heal what Saddam has done.

eg8r

nhp
03-13-2004, 04:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush cut everyone's taxes, so that means every single tax payer in America should feel the same way you say the corporations feel. If that does not work, then probably your original logic has some flaws (you can start with Warren Buffett. Sure he is not a media monger, however he is the second richest man on the planet and he hates Bush).
<hr /></blockquote>

Compare a few dollars cut for the average american in taxes to tens of millions of dollars for the large corporations. In comparison, it's not the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
and the person with the guts to do it was a Republican <hr /></blockquote>

I will admit it did take guts.

[ QUOTE ]
Using your words...What Bush "lied" about (back to my words) saved an entire country from a murderous dictator. Tell us, would you rather Saddam still be in control right now as we speak, and Bush not tell the American people about the information obtain for National Intelligence? On the whole, would the Iraqi people be better off?
<hr /></blockquote>

Our whole disagreement basically all boils down to this. You see it this way, I see it another way. For us, it's a catch-22.