PDA

View Full Version : Your 'liberal media' at work!



Soflasnapper
05-19-2012, 10:42 AM
Two of the most cited independent political scientists are Norman Ornstein (of AEI, a right-leaning think tank) and Thomas Mann (of Brookings, a centrist-leaning think tank).

They've co-written a book that has been released recently, arguing that the political gridlock and fierce partisanship is due to GOP politicians, to a most lopsided degree. It's an unprecedented situation, and their analysis found it the fault of the GOP.

Even assuming these extremely well-regarded scholars wrote a hit book, and that their thesis in the book is itself partisan hooey, a mainly liberal media would lap it up, want to make this point broadly to the public, and mention the book or have these guys on to make their case.

Guess what? They can't buy a mention or get booked. No Sunday news show appearances, no mainstream newspaper news coverage. The sole mentions have been in op/ed writer mentions.

Details here. (http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180007)

cushioncrawler
05-19-2012, 07:11 PM
Praps colbert and stewart.
mac.

Gridlock only serves one party, the GOP.
Gridlock prevents the prez from doing hiz thing.
mac.

LWW
05-19-2012, 08:15 PM
Gridlock is a beautiful thing.

Gayle in MD
05-20-2012, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two of the most cited independent political scientists are Norman Ornstein (of AEI, a right-leaning think tank) and Thomas Mann (of Brookings, a centrist-leaning think tank).

They've co-written a book that has been released recently, arguing that the political gridlock and fierce partisanship is due to GOP politicians, to a most lopsided degree. It's an unprecedented situation, and their analysis found it the fault of the GOP.

Even assuming these extremely well-regarded scholars wrote a hit book, and that their thesis in the book is itself partisan hooey, a mainly liberal media would lap it up, want to make this point broadly to the public, and mention the book or have these guys on to make their case.

Guess what? They can't buy a mention or get booked. No Sunday news show appearances, no mainstream newspaper news coverage. The sole mentions have been in op/ed writer mentions.

Details here. (http://mediamatters.org/research/201205180007)

</div></div>


You probably missed my thread about this very thing a week or so ago.

It was immediately burried as I recall by one of our usual Tourettes styled profuse spamming pros.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 17997
Loc: Maryland http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum...OcPPU_blog.html


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/disappearing-man-followup



Kevin Drum
Previous
The Disappearing Man, a Follow-Up
—By Kevin Drum

| Mon May. 14, 2012 1:22 PM PDT
33

Greg Sargent digs a little deeper into Bob Somerby's observation that the Sunday chat shows seem to be suddenly shy about booking uber-quotemeister Norm Ornstein now that he's written a book blaming Republicans for our nation's political ills:

I ran this thesis by Ornstein himself, and he confirmed that the book’s publicity people had tried to get the authors booked on the Sunday shows, with no success.

“Not a single one of the Sunday shows has indicated an interest, and I do find it curious,” Ornstein told me, adding that the Op ed had well over 200,000 Facebook recommends and has been viral for weeks. “This is a level of attention for a book that we haven’t received before. You would think it would attract some attention from the Sunday shows.”

Ornstein also noted another interesting point. Their thesis takes on the media for falling into a false equivalence mindset and maintaining the pretense that both sides are equally to blame. Yet despite the frequent self-obsession of the media, even that angle has failed to generate any interest. What’s more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords’ apparent deafness to this idea.
</div></div>


There is no Liberal Media. Just Republican media, that throws in a few Liberal commentators, to make it look like we have a Free Press.

We used to have genuine news sources who reported the news, as one of our etters, Dan Rather referenced on a recent Bill Mahr show interview.

Sadly, now that one person can buy up multiple media venues, there is no longer both sides of the story. Propaganda is bought and paid for by the CEO's of corporate interests.

That's why the country is in the situation it is in right now.

Republicans own the media, and thanks to the Republican Fascist/Corporate activist Supreme Court, they own our elections, as well, and hence, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Libby and more, are not in jail cells.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-20-2012, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What’s more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords’ apparent deafness to this idea. </div></div>

This is the key. It matters little what is the political leaning of the reporters, when there is the choke point control of the editors and publishers and owners of the media.

As when then-GE CEO (then-owner of NBC) Jack Welch himself attended the NBC 2000 election coverage, and blatantly said in the reporting area, 'what do I have to do to have someone call this election for George W. Bush?'

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What’s more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords’ apparent deafness to this idea. </div></div>

This is the key. It matters little what is the political leaning of the reporters, when there is the choke point control of the editors and publishers and owners of the media.

As when then-GE CEO (then-owner of NBC) Jack Welch himself attended the NBC 2000 election coverage, and blatantly said in the reporting area, 'what do I have to do to have someone call this election for George W. Bush?'

</div></div>

Excellent example.

Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documetation.

It was a RW trick, IMO, but nevertheless, the powers that be didn't feel comfortable with the pressure from the Bush Administration, so they fired Dan, and others, in spite of the FACT that the story about Bush's AWOL, and the rest, was absolutely true. We lost a great newsman, all because Republicans own the media. He's still around, thank goodness, and I still follow him, and he's still right on the money, too.

Rather has a new book out, BTW. It's going to be a blockbuster, IMO.

G.

eg8r
05-21-2012, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documetation.

</div></div>Asking this question as if you and I have never had any history on this board...Who would you blame? If someone knows the truth, has all the evidence in the world about a President but fails to provide it, what do you expect the President and his party to do? Do you blame them for attacking someone who does not provide the info?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 01:24 PM
Consider the very late, actual weekend prior to the election, revelation of W's DUI(s) records.

W could have revealed that early on, and diffused the issue, perhaps. Or at least, make it old news, maybe a year old by then.

Instead, when he was directly asked if there were any skeletons in his closet that hadn't come up yet, he claimed of course there could be none, because of how much scrutiny he'd been under.

Then when this was revealed so late, solely because of the W campaign's refusal to reveal it early, there was a complaint that it was a cheap shot and only politically motivated, as if it wasn't a legitimate thing to talk about at all. The people seemed to disagree, and it probably helped W lose the popular vote. With Cheney's own history of what-- 3?-- DUIs, we were faced for the first time with a POTUS and VPOTUS elected with criminal records. Gosh, what could go wrong with that?

It was also similar to the howling that accompanied the Republican appointed and Republican Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh's indictment of Caspar Weinberger just a bit ahead of the Bush 41 re-election bid. It was called a cheap shot, a horrible abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and overt political meddling in the election. The problem for that was this was not even a new indictment, but a RE-INDICTMENT that had already occurred about 6 months earlier.

So even wholly warranted indictments, and disclosure of criminal records, were attacked as mudslinging slime jobs.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documetation.

</div></div>Asking this question as if you and I have never had any history on this board...Who would you blame? If someone knows the truth, has all the evidence in the world about a President but fails to provide it, what do you expect the President and his party to do? Do you blame them for attacking someone who does not provide the info?

eg8r </div></div>

The info was provided, but among the documents, one did not measure up.

That did not obscure the fact that the story was proven to be true.

There were others who came forward, and there was no doubt that Bush was AWOL, for a very long time, among other things.

He should have been Court Marshalled.

But we know who his Da Da was, don't we? Which is exactly wy he was placed in a unit with no possibiloity of being sent to Vietnam.

Bush, the coward, who sends our troops off to die on lies, but had no problem hiding his own ass as far away from any combat as he could get.

Connections? Ya think? Then he had the colossal nerve to go after Kerry?

Amazing.

Bush is scum, always has been, always will be.

End of story.



G.

eg8r
05-22-2012, 12:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But we know who his Da Da was, don't we? Which is exactly wy he was placed in a unit with no possibiloity of being sent to Vietnam.

</div></div>This stuff only bothers you when it is an (R). Even if there was evidence, and even if there were connections, if the proof is not provided and no one is willing to take it to court then it doesn't matter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush, the coward, who sends our troops off to die on lies</div></div>Again, this only bothers you when it is an (R).

eg8r

eg8r
05-22-2012, 12:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Consider the very late, actual weekend prior to the election, revelation of W's DUI(s) records.

W could have revealed that early on, and diffused the issue, perhaps. Or at least, make it old news, maybe a year old by then.

</div></div>Could you have imagined in Clinton would have done the same thing with Monica?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then when this was revealed so late, solely because of the W campaign's refusal to reveal it early, there was a complaint that it was a cheap shot and only politically motivated, as if it wasn't a legitimate thing to talk about at all.</div></div>Do you not agree that this was a cheap shot and only politically motivated? In anyone else's life, outside of politics, where would this information be scrutinized? Especially considering how long ago it happened? Politics only. The difference between me and most of the lefties on this board is that I can admit both sides do this and I disagree, usually, with the action.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With Cheney's own history of what-- 3?-- DUIs, we were faced for the first time with a POTUS and VPOTUS elected with criminal records. Gosh, what could go wrong with that?

</div></div>What is the difference between a person with a criminal record and a criminal that did not get caught? Besides the fact that one has a record, if the fact that they acted in a criminal manner is what you find fault in then Clinton and Obama are offenders also yet you don't seem to care.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-22-2012, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But we know who his Da Da was, don't we? Which is exactly why he was placed in a unit with no possibility of being sent to Vietnam.

</div></div>This stuff only bothers you when it is an (R).

<span style="color: #CC0000">That is a presumption on your part. And it is false. </span>

Even if there was evidence, and even if there were connections, if the proof is not provided and no one is willing to take it to court then it doesn't matter.

<span style="color: #990000">You don't get to dictate to others, what does or doesn't matter to them. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush, the coward, who sends our troops off to die on lies</div></div>Again, this only bothers you when it is an (R).

<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, you make false statements about me, which you cannot prove. IOW, another irrelevant post, which is nothing more than petty personal attacks. </span>

eg8r </div></div>


There are books written about this subject, with testimony from a number of military people who were there at the time, none of which you have read, I am sure.

There is plenty of documentation regardling Bush's AWOL, AND his father's personal campaign to keep little Bushy out of Vietnam.

You are unable to write a single post, without some sort of personal attack.

I would not approve of any President avoiding war, himself, sedning our people to a war on lies, treating our Veterans like S**T, and attacking his opponents who did serve their country.

Bush did that not only to Kerry, but to a man with no legs, McClellen, I believe his name is, he lives his life in a wheel chair, and he had made some very heavy sacrifices for his country. ONLY a POS like Bush would use Swift Boating tactics against a war hero.

Like Mitt Romney, George Bush has NO CHARACTER.

The ony reason why he was ever president is because they threw two elections.

In fact, one Republican went to jail for it, and then wrote a book entitled, "How To Throw An Election," after serving his time in jail.

I would be just grand if you could just learn to discuss and debate, armed with some research about the subjects discussed here, instead of just more personal attacks, and false, unflattering, broad reaching and petty presumptions.



G.

Qtec
05-22-2012, 06:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documetation.

</div></div>Asking this question as if you and I have never had any history on this board...Who would you blame? If someone knows the truth, has all the evidence in the world about a President but fails to provide it, what do you expect the President and his party to do? Do you blame them for attacking someone who does not provide the info?

eg8r </div></div>

What happened was the GW admin secret ops set rather up.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The info was correct</span> but the docs were forged.

This is common knowledge.


Q

Soflasnapper
05-22-2012, 12:42 PM
Do you not agree that this was a cheap shot and only politically motivated? In anyone else's life, outside of politics, where would this information be scrutinized? Especially considering how long ago it happened? Politics only. The difference between me and most of the lefties on this board is that I can admit both sides do this and I disagree, usually, with the action.

This wasn't opposition research. This was the local Fox News affiliate in Maine doing the research. It is called journalism, and as we've seen, when someone is running for president, there is little limit to what is relevant.

Surely a criminal conviction is highly relevant in life, even outside of politics. In the normal course of business, a job applicant who fails to reveal a criminal conviction during the application process, and is found by a background check to have lied on that question, would be disqualified from being hired, or fired despite getting hired. That's true even if it's only resume inflation, as that guy who'd claimed he had a computer science degree was just let go. That wasn't hiding a criminal conviction.

Let's try to think clearly. That is obviously true for a Wal-Mart hire-- how much more true would it be, and should it be, for a presidential aspirant?

Could you have imagined in Clinton would have done the same thing with Monica?

A personal disgrace that wasn't a crime (before the coverup lie)? It wasn't relevant to his re-election reasons, because those were more his record in office and performance in that role. But in fact during the NH primary runup, when he WAS running for the first time, Clinton had been faced with cheating allegations from Gennifer Flowers, and went on 60 Minutes with HRC to directly confront them, by acknowledging he had fooled around. I think your comparison is inapt.

What is the difference between a person with a criminal record and a criminal that did not get caught?

I know of no other crime you say Obama or Clinton did other than youthful drug use, and both revealed it, as many others in political life have. The American people shrug that kind of thing off, and it was not hidden.

That was another Bush crime as well, which he did not actually admit, along with his criminal procuring of an abortion.

Not to mention the DEA sting of a King Air plane at Opa-Locka Airport, which found W flying and Jeb aboard, with a couple of kilos of cocaine on board. Barriman (Barry) Seal, the noted cartel smuggler and later turned DEA operative, had the video tape of this quashed sting, and thought it provided him with an insurance policy against being murdered. Upon the refusal of the judge to grant him the deal promised by the prosecutors, he found out that he was wrong.

Gayle in MD
05-22-2012, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documetation.

</div></div>Asking this question as if you and I have never had any history on this board...Who would you blame? If someone knows the truth, has all the evidence in the world about a President but fails to provide it, what do you expect the President and his party to do? Do you blame them for attacking someone who does not provide the info?

eg8r </div></div>

What happened was the GW admin secret ops set rather up.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The info was correct</span> but the docs were forged.

This is common knowledge.


Q


</div></div>

That is exactly correct.

Typical of the Bush Crooks, annd the Reagan Crooks.

The last decent Republican president was Eisenhower.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-22-2012, 02:28 PM
I think Gerald Ford was an honorable man, in his personal life. That he was so poor after so long in office is a testament to his relative lack of corruption.

Unfortunately, he was involved in among the worst governmental abuses ever-- the Warren Commission-- and personally caused the changing of the back/neck wound to be stated higher up than it was in reality (a requirement for the SBT to work). Then he fairly corruptly did the pardon for Nixon despite assuring the confirming Congress that nothing like that was in prospect.

Gayle in MD
05-22-2012, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Gerald Ford was an honorable man, in his personal life. That he was so poor after so long in office is a testament to his relative lack of corruption.

Unfortunately, he was involved in among the worst governmental abuses ever-- the Warren Commission-- and personally caused the changing of the back/neck wound to be stated higher up than it was in reality (a requirement for the SBT to work). Then he fairly corruptly did the pardon for Nixon despite assuring the confirming Congress that nothing like that was in prospect.
</div></div>

I agree completely. Ford was a pretty decent man, until.....

Reagan was always a liar and a crook, as deceitful as they come, so full of it!


Then Bush Sr. came right behind him, and pardoned all of the Reagan crooks.

It really gags me the way the right has glorified Reagan. He laid a lot of the groundwork, for the problems we face right now.

G.

eg8r
05-23-2012, 03:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely a criminal conviction is highly relevant in life, even outside of politics. In the normal course of business, a job applicant who fails to reveal a criminal conviction during the application process, and is found by a background check to have lied on that question, would be disqualified from being hired, or fired despite getting hired. That's true even if it's only resume inflation, as that guy who'd claimed he had a computer science degree was just let go. That wasn't hiding a criminal conviction.

</div></div>In the grand scheme of things, so what? Tell me, as far as the person doing the actual job, what is the difference between a guy that got busted for DUI and a guy that got away with doing hard drugs? The only difference is that one got caught and the other didn't. It doesn't mean the only person that can do the job is the one that did not get caught. Another example would be hiring a hacker to help bolster a companies sercurity measures. It happens all the time but do you think the only person qualified for the job is the hacker that never got caught? The conviction only matters as a "feel good" for those doing the hiring and a CYA if anything goes south after the hiring.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A personal disgrace that wasn't a crime (before the coverup lie)? It wasn't relevant to his re-election reasons, because those were more his record in office and performance in that role.</div></div>Your desire to miss the common sense answer is funny.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2012, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely a criminal conviction is highly relevant in life, even outside of politics. In the normal course of business, a job applicant who fails to reveal a criminal conviction during the application process, and is found by a background check to have lied on that question, would be disqualified from being hired, or fired despite getting hired. That's true even if it's only resume inflation, as that guy who'd claimed he had a computer science degree was just let go. That wasn't hiding a criminal conviction.

</div></div>In the grand scheme of things, so what? Tell me, as far as the person doing the actual job, what is the difference between a guy that got busted for DUI and a guy that got away with doing hard drugs?


<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The difference is the drug user was only hurting himself, if that.

The guy who drives drunk, like Bush did, and then lied about it, endangers others on the highway, and proves to the nation that he is not trustworth as regards his relationship with VOTERS! He will lie again, regardless of whom he endangers. AND Both Bush's DID!

</span> </span>


The only difference is that one got caught and the other didn't.


<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush got caught. Reagan got caught. Bush one got caught. They all lied about it. No one impeached them though. That's OK with you, because they have your beloved R. in front of their names. </span> </span>


It doesn't mean the only person that can do the job is the one that did not get caught.


<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are loads of people who can do any job. No one is indispensable. The question is what will almost all men lie about? Sex? How many men have never lied about sex? LOL...it's called common sense. </span> </span>


Another example would be hiring a hacker to help bolster a companies sercurity measures. It happens all the time but do you think the only person qualified for the job is the hacker that never got caught? The conviction only matters as a "feel good" for those doing the hiring and a CYA if anything goes south after the hiring.

<span style="color: #CC0000">That's how a person with questionable morals of their own, would look at it. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A personal disgrace that wasn't a crime (before the coverup lie)? It wasn't relevant to his re-election reasons, because those were more his record in office and performance in that role.</div></div>


Your desire to miss the common sense answer is funny.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">More condescending personal insults!

G. </span>

eg8r
05-23-2012, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is the drug user was only hurting himself, if that.

The guy who drives drunk, like Bush did, and then lied about it, endangers others on the highway</div></div>There is no difference. The drug users is breaking the law and if he runs out of money and still needs his fix then he starts stealing the money, etc. A drunk driver is only hurting himself also. The only time he hurts anyone else is if he runs into them much like the drug user only hurts someone else unless he robs from them to pay for the drugs, or during his high he hurts someone unknowingly (same as a drunk). Also, a drug addict smoking week hurts you also if you are forced to breath in the smoke.

Basically what we have is you trying to create separate rules based on whether the person is a (D) or (R).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush got caught. Reagan got caught. Bush one got caught. They all lied about it. No one impeached them though. That's OK with you, because they have your beloved R. in front of their names.

</div></div>As Gayle Lies (sang to the tune of As the World Turns). I have no problem with the (R) getting caught and punished for whatever they were doing wrong. No problem at all. You are however missing the subject which is no surprise. We are not talking about their political party, I even changed the fact that we are talking about politicians on purpose and asked about other areas of life. Sofla caught on but you might just be too far gone to catch on at this point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are loads of people who can do any job. No one is indispensable. The question is what will almost all men lie about? Sex? How many men have never lied about sex? LOL...it's called common sense.

</div></div>If you want to discuss the subject then you are welcome to but I am not interested in your rabbit hole.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r's common sense post altogether flying over gayle's head</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another example would be hiring a hacker to help bolster a companies sercurity measures. It happens all the time but do you think the only person qualified for the job is the hacker that never got caught? The conviction only matters as a "feel good" for those doing the hiring and a CYA if anything goes south after the hiring.
</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle again missing the point</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's how a person with questionable morals of their own, would look at it. </div></div>Wow, did you miss that one. This has nothing to do with morals, the subject is who is capable of doing the job. Do you honestly think the guy that got caught could not do the job and the guy that got away can?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2012, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is the drug user was only hurting himself, if that.

The guy who drives drunk, like Bush did, and then lied about it, endangers others on the highway</div></div>There is no difference. The drug users is breaking the law and if he runs out of money and still needs his fix then he starts stealing the money, etc. A drunk driver is only hurting himself also. The only time he hurts anyone else is if he runs into them much like the drug user only hurts someone else unless he robs from them to pay for the drugs, or during his high he hurts someone unknowingly (same as a drunk). Also, a drug addict smoking week hurts you also if you are forced to breath in the smoke.

Basically what we have is you trying to create separate rules based on whether the person is a (D) or (R).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush got caught. Reagan got caught. Bush one got caught. They all lied about it. No one impeached them though. That's OK with you, because they have your beloved R. in front of their names.

</div></div>As Gayle Lies (sang to the tune of As the World Turns). I have no problem with the (R) getting caught and punished for whatever they were doing wrong. No problem at all. You are however missing the subject which is no surprise. We are not talking about their political party, I even changed the fact that we are talking about politicians on purpose and asked about other areas of life. Sofla caught on but you might just be too far gone to catch on at this point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are loads of people who can do any job. No one is indispensable. The question is what will almost all men lie about? Sex? How many men have never lied about sex? LOL...it's called common sense.

</div></div>If you want to discuss the subject then you are welcome to but I am not interested in your rabbit hole.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r's common sense post altogether flying over gayle's head</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another example would be hiring a hacker to help bolster a companies sercurity measures. It happens all the time but do you think the only person qualified for the job is the hacker that never got caught? The conviction only matters as a "feel good" for those doing the hiring and a CYA if anything goes south after the hiring.
</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle again missing the point</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's how a person with questionable morals of their own, would look at it. </div></div>Wow, did you miss that one. This has nothing to do with morals, the subject is who is capable of doing the job. Do you honestly think the guy that got caught could not do the job and the guy that got away can?

eg8r </div></div>

The point is not who can or can't do the job.

The point is what kind of employee do you want.

Having had many employees over the years, I most valued those who owned up to their infractions. Particularly those who admitted what they were not good at performing, and asked for help!

Those who were deceitful enough to look me in the eye and lie to me, always got caught eventually, because I could tell when they were lying.

Anyway, now that you have once again completely diverted yet another thread off the subject...with your usual absurd analogies,


Right about here:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Quote:Another is Dan Rather, who had a proven story, but failed to provide the correct documentation.

G.

Here is where you distorted, missed, skewed the subject off topic:

"Asking this question as if you and I have never had any history on this board...Who would you blame? If someone knows the truth, has all the evidence in the world about a President but fails to provide it, what do you expect the President and his party to do? Do you blame them for attacking someone who does not provide the info?"

eg8r</div></div>

ED misses the point, AGAIN! Rather never intentionally withheld his proof. Ed, obviously knows nothing about the subject, nor does he care enough to read the thread thoroughly enough to write about it with any rational substance.

The horse is dead, you have beaten him to death, let him rest in peace! For Once!

You totally obviously missed the point, which was not an administration attacking Rather, nor was it Rather failing to provide plenty of correct documenntation along with his original story, but an administration, setting Rather up, so that PART of his documenntation of a true story, would take on suspician, when they intentionally saw to it that a fake document was stealthly provided to Rather.

This is known as a dirty trick. Bush and Cheney are known for dirty tricks, as is Karl Rove, and all of the rest of the Republicans.

G.

Qtec
05-23-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, a drug addict smoking week hurts you also if you are forced to breath in the smoke. </div></div>

LMFAO. Where do you get this stuff from? Sunday School?

Q

Soflasnapper
05-23-2012, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely a criminal conviction is highly relevant in life, even outside of politics. In the normal course of business, a job applicant who fails to reveal a criminal conviction during the application process, and is found by a background check to have lied on that question, would be disqualified from being hired, or fired despite getting hired. That's true even if it's only resume inflation, as that guy who'd claimed he had a computer science degree was just let go. That wasn't hiding a criminal conviction.

</div></div>In the grand scheme of things, so what? Tell me, as far as the person doing the actual job, what is the difference between a guy that got busted for DUI and a guy that got away with doing hard drugs? The only difference is that one got caught and the other didn't. It doesn't mean the only person that can do the job is the one that did not get caught. Another example would be hiring a hacker to help bolster a companies sercurity measures. It happens all the time but do you think the only person qualified for the job is the hacker that never got caught? The conviction only matters as a "feel good" for those doing the hiring and a CYA if anything goes south after the hiring. </div></div>

CYA? A little more than that-- preventing civil or even criminal negligence liability.

I'm guessing you are not an employer.

No, that a person has or hasn't had a conviction isn't to say they've done or not done something, as not everyone gets caught.

But an employer is well advised to screen applicants for criminal convictions, and could have severe liability if they did not. So it's a typical question, and a typical area that's looked at in a background check. Very standard.

If someone reveals a conviction, that may or may not disqualify them. And not on the merits of their job qualifications. They may very well be great at cable tv installation, but if they also have a conviction for burglary, a company cannot put such a person in homes representing the company without significant risk to the company.

However, if they hide a conviction that is found out, it's a deal breaker, across the board for any responsible company. You talk about using common sense? Nothing is more common sense than that.

eg8r
05-23-2012, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CYA? A little more than that-- preventing civil or even criminal negligence liability.

</div></div>You are in the weeds on this. Back up and think about it. In this discussion I am not worrying about the liability, I am strictly sticking to the fact that either person is qualified to do the job.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you are not an employer.

</div></div>At most I have employed 3 people including myself as one of the developers. This has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with you missing the gist of the discussion. Quit trying to defend a strawman and following along with what I am talking about.

eg8r

eg8r
05-23-2012, 10:36 AM
So of all people you would argue smoking doesn't affect the non-smoker? Are you really going to flip flop on this also?

eg8r

eg8r
05-23-2012, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is not who can or can't do the job.

</div></div>You don't know the point because you have forgotten how we got to this point. Sofla made it seem that Bush and Cheney having a criminal background would somehow make a difference on their ability to do their job and I stated from that point that having a criminal record means nothing as far as the capability to do a job. When will you read before opening your mouth?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-23-2012, 03:06 PM
They are free to argue it wouldn't impact their jobs, now, if they wish.

They are not free to omit the mentioning of that fact, and will suffer consequences if found to be hiding it.

As I said, and as the bleating of the W team suggests they also believe, some of the American people were in fact negative on W when they found out he'd lied by stating directly upon question that there were no skeletons in the closet.

Perhaps the best way to decide whether it pertained to the present time was whether the past pattern continued to this day. If you are so heavy a drinker that you received 3 DUIs, and seemingly couldn't control how deep you got in a bottle, and that was still true now, you'd be asking the American people to trust their fate to a functioning alcoholic, or in W's case, perhaps a dry drunk.

eg8r
05-24-2012, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are free to argue it wouldn't impact their jobs, now, if they wish.

They are not free to omit the mentioning of that fact, and will suffer consequences if found to be hiding it.

</div></div>Time will tell.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said, and as the bleating of the W team suggests they also believe, some of the American people were in fact negative on W when they found out he'd lied by stating directly upon question that there were no skeletons in the closet.

</div></div>What crack are you smoking? If he was convicted of a DUI then that is no way at all a skeleton in his closet. It is a matter of public record.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps the best way to decide whether it pertained to the present time was whether the past pattern continued to this day. If you are so heavy a drinker that you received 3 DUIs, and seemingly couldn't control how deep you got in a bottle, and that was still true now, you'd be asking the American people to trust their fate to a functioning alcoholic, or in W's case, perhaps a dry drunk. </div></div>I don't disagree with this at all. I also do not think the information should be withheld, but if you ask the wrong question and get an honest answer then that was your fault. If someone asked them if they had any skeletons and W said No then he was not lying or withholding any information.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-24-2012, 04:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is not who can or can't do the job.

</div></div>You don't know the point because you have forgotten how we got to this point. Sofla made it seem that Bush and Cheney having a criminal background would somehow make a difference on their ability to do their job and I stated from that point that having a criminal record means nothing as far as the capability to do a job. When will you read before opening your mouth?

eg8r </div></div>

You don't have a clue about running a business. Not a clue!
Your statements are incredibly ignorant, and unrealistic.

Additionally, you don't have a clue about this entire Bush LIE. He was adked. HE LIED about his DWI!

Cheney was caught trying to have all of his former drunk driving convictions buried.

Two irresponsible liars.

Reading doesn't improve your lack of common sense, nor your automatic purging of any information that proves unlawful activities, or poor character, of Republicans.

Sofla's point went right ovver your head.

Cheney and Bush, couldn't have been hired by my company. They both lied about their criminal records.

End of Story.

G.

eg8r
05-24-2012, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't have a clue about running a business. Not a clue!
Your statements are incredibly ignorant, and unrealistic.

</div></div>I must have stumbled across success.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-24-2012, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't have a clue about running a business. Not a clue!
Your statements are incredibly ignorant, and unrealistic.

</div></div>I must have stumbled across success.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL. When it comes to success, you have a very long way to go.

G.

eg8r
05-24-2012, 04:27 AM
LOL, I guess with the narrow view you have that may be correct. As far as I am concerned, which is all that matters, you would be wrong.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 01:42 PM
What crack are you smoking? If he was convicted of a DUI then that is no way at all a skeleton in his closet. It is a matter of public record.

A matter of state record so far back that it predated being in any database, so that could not be found without going into the state and manually going through the records, for which the lack of Bush's admitting it seemed to make it drilling a dry well, and nobody took the time.

That was the way it was thought safe from discovery. And it worked all throughout the campaign until the very last week. Of COURSE IT WAS A SKELETON, and of course it was hidden. In fact, it appears a prior offense was involved as well.

As you may remember (ok, I kid here, for most probably you do not because you never knew of it to remember), Bush suddenly had his driver license number changed as Texas governor, which prevented searches on the DL number. For personal security, it was claimed, although others with substantial security concerns in Texas, such as his father, and to my knowledge, no one else in Texas had this scrubbing change of their DL number.

eg8r
05-27-2012, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A matter of state record so far back that it predated being in any database, so that could not be found without going into the state and manually going through the records,</div></div>All you are doing is running your mouth to hear yourself. It is all public record and it is your fault if you are too lazy to do the legwork KNOWING full well that it might not be as simple as querying a DB. A DUI that is public record can never be considered a skeleton. You are just looking for excuse for being lazy and not doing your due diligence. By stating "you" I am not referring to you specifically but rather those whose job it is to dig up the dirt.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-29-2012, 06:08 PM
That's ridiculous on your part.

All of real estate is part of a public record, but people PAY the title insurance people to do the kinds of onerous database searching and county record manual searching that is required to assure there is no claim or lien hanging out there that would cloud or impair title. And real estate records are far more readily found on electronic databases compared to dusty old 20 year old arrest and fine records that only exist in file drawers, requiring many man hours to track down, considering all the years involved. And you'd have to guess it was in Maine to even be in the ballpark. As for Texas, as I mentioned, the criminal records are attached to the DL#, and Bush unusually changed his, to 000000005, for no clear reason if not to hide (a) TEXAS conviction(s).

If the far simpler title search was simple, easy, no problem, everyone would do that work themselves and never have a doubt they'd been thorough enough to be safe, and not pay the title insurance company to do it. Nobody does that if there's a mortgage involved.

Besides, Bush didn't answer the question of whether he'd had any other arrests other than the 'prank' (hotel theft) arrest with 'check the public records.' He said, flatly, 'no.' Even if a lie is easily found out to be a lie, which this one was not, it is no less a lie. And a crime, if an arrest is not mentioned in an application for a job with the federal government.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He did confess to "mistakes" of his youth, but he would never be specific - hoping the "mistakes" would be thought of as youthful pranks, not serious crime. It is an offence to apply for any federal office without divulging an arrest record. Bush not only went to great lengths to cover up his conviction. He lied about it, too. In a 1998 interview, a Dallas Morning News reporter asked Bush point-blank if he had ever been arrested other than for a 1968 fraternity prank and Bush said flatly: "No." The exchange was not reported at the time; it didn't seem newsworthy. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And when Bush was called to jury service in a drunk-driving trial in Texas, he filled out the jury questionnaire, but left blank the yes-no entry asking if he had ever been accused in a civil or criminal case. Then he hastily got himself excused on the basis that he was the governor of the state. </span> </div></div>

eg8r
05-29-2012, 06:31 PM
What is ridiculous is the fact that you are going to defend the lazy. But then again your support of Obama shows us that is exactly what you do.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-30-2012, 10:40 AM
Either it was very difficult, or else the media was in the bag to not look so much.

Gotta be one or the other. Do you suppose the media was not in opposition to Bush? Could be true, I suppose, which reveals something even more important.

Gayle in MD
05-30-2012, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A matter of state record so far back that it predated being in any database, so that could not be found without going into the state and manually going through the records,</div></div>All you are doing is running your mouth to hear yourself. It is all public record and it is your fault if you are too lazy to do the legwork KNOWING full well that it might not be as simple as querying a DB. A DUI that is public record can never be considered a skeleton. You are just looking for excuse for being lazy and not doing your due diligence. By stating "you" I am not referring to you specifically but rather those whose job it is to dig up the dirt.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush lied abut his DUI.

That's the point. He lied.

He refused to even answer the question when asked about his cocaine use.

His father refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Boehner refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Now, Romney is refusing to answer the specific questions about Bain, and how many jobs were thrown out, to p0ad his own pockets, AND refusing to reveal ten years of his taxes.

Logical minded people with even a modicum of commone sense know that refusing to give an answer, indicates there is a lie involved.


Some people would rather argue, than back away from trying to float a boatload of cherry picking BS, denying what is obvious to all others, just to be irritating.

G.

Sid_Vicious
05-30-2012, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A matter of state record so far back that it predated being in any database, so that could not be found without going into the state and manually going through the records,</div></div>All you are doing is running your mouth to hear yourself. It is all public record and it is your fault if you are too lazy to do the legwork KNOWING full well that it might not be as simple as querying a DB. A DUI that is public record can never be considered a skeleton. You are just looking for excuse for being lazy and not doing your due diligence. By stating "you" I am not referring to you specifically but rather those whose job it is to dig up the dirt.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush lied abut his DUI.

That's the point. He lied.

He refused to even answer the question when asked about his cocaine use.

His father refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Boehner refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Now, Romney is refusing to answer the specific questions about Bain, and how many jobs were thrown out, to p0ad his own pockets, AND refusing to reveal ten years of his taxes.

Logical minded people with even a modicum of commone sense know that refusing to give an answer, indicates there is a lie involved.


Some people would rather argue, than back away from trying to float a boatload of cherry picking BS, denying what is obvious to all others, just to be irritating.

G.



</div></div>

Sadly Gayle, many in our country have de IQ-d themselves and resemble soap opera freaks, believing BS and avoiding admitting lies when they see them. Seriously, what happened to the basically smart, educated folks in the USA? This country has dumbed down to facts, honesty, proven science and their own Christianity. Bush was a huge lier and we let him off the hook. The country paid for that F-up. It's the voters who were to blame though. Lying was always in George Walfer Bush's DNA. You get what you elect. TG we have Obama. Aside from Carter, Obama is the most admirable, honest and sincere president we've ever had. sid

eg8r
05-30-2012, 01:12 PM
My guess is that it was difficult but then again when are these types of issues ever easy?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-30-2012, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is not who can or can't do the job.

</div></div>You don't know the point because you have forgotten how we got to this point. Sofla made it seem that Bush and Cheney having a criminal background would somehow make a difference on their ability to do their job and I stated from that point that having a criminal record means nothing as far as the capability to do a job. When will you read before opening your mouth?

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, you are totally off the beam, as usual. Sofla didn't make it seem any way, Sofla pointed out a FACT!

Both Cheney AND Bush proved they were LIARS AND CRIMINALS AND PROVED TO BE THE THE BIGGEST LIARS ANND CRIMINALS WHILE IN OFFICE S WELL....AND THE GREATEST DISASTERS TO EVER SERVE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!

Hence, it appears you don't understand anything, ever, about anything.

G.

eg8r
05-30-2012, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla made it seem that Bush and Cheney having a criminal background would somehow make a difference on their ability to do their job</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle in need of a nap</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla didn't make it seem any way, Sofla pointed out a FACT!
</div></div>I would suggest you read it again but why it is not like you intend on trying to comprehend what is there.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-31-2012, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla made it seem that Bush and Cheney having a criminal background would somehow make a difference on their ability to do their job</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle in need of a nap</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla didn't make it seem any way, Sofla pointed out a FACT!
</div></div>I would suggest you read it again but why it is not like you intend on trying to comprehend what is there.

eg8r </div></div>

Now that statement IS absolutely hilarious.

I'm sure there is no one else in this thread who would see it that way.

You refuse to read what is written, and continue to skew the writer's intended meaning of every post.

What a waste!

G.

Gayle in MD
05-31-2012, 07:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A matter of state record so far back that it predated being in any database, so that could not be found without going into the state and manually going through the records,</div></div>All you are doing is running your mouth to hear yourself. It is all public record and it is your fault if you are too lazy to do the legwork KNOWING full well that it might not be as simple as querying a DB. A DUI that is public record can never be considered a skeleton. You are just looking for excuse for being lazy and not doing your due diligence. By stating "you" I am not referring to you specifically but rather those whose job it is to dig up the dirt.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush lied abut his DUI.

That's the point. He lied.

He refused to even answer the question when asked about his cocaine use.

His father refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Boehner refused to answer the question about his mistress.

Now, Romney is refusing to answer the specific questions about Bain, and how many jobs were thrown out, to p0ad his own pockets, AND refusing to reveal ten years of his taxes.

Logical minded people with even a modicum of commone sense know that refusing to give an answer, indicates there is a lie involved.


Some people would rather argue, than back away from trying to float a boatload of cherry picking BS, denying what is obvious to all others, just to be irritating.

G.



</div></div>

Sadly Gayle, many in our country have de IQ-d themselves and resemble soap opera freaks, believing BS and avoiding admitting lies when they see them. Seriously, what happened to the basically smart, educated folks in the USA? This country has dumbed down to facts, honesty, proven science and their own Christianity. Bush was a huge lier and we let him off the hook. The country paid for that F-up. It's the voters who were to blame though. Lying was always in George Walfer Bush's DNA. You get what you elect. TG we have Obama. Aside from Carter, Obama is the most admirable, honest and sincere president we've ever had. sid </div></div>

There is not been an intelligent, honest Republican President since Eisenhower.

As for the termially stupid on the right, there is no hope for them. They will continue to deny reality as long as they have breath in their bodies. The intelligent Republicans, the Republican Statesmen, are long gone.

I predict that if the Repiglicans continue to legislate on the state level, in order to throw this election through their usual fraud and disenfranchisement of voters, we will see a huge exodus of many former leaders in the Repiglican Party.

The Repiglicans are getting more and more criticism from their own. The decent ones, are already gone, or leaving.

G.