I do agree that Bush has made some poor choices but dragging him into the Katrina thing is wrong, I'm responsible for disaster plans in our area and the Feds have to be called in by our Governor and not before we ask for assistance…. This is why we have statehood and commonwealth’s people. The people that stayed and the local/state government is responsible for the disaster in LA and the buck stops there, anyone who believes otherwise has been led astray by our “unbiased” media……. To prove this point lets take a look at FL. They are hit by at least one hurricane this strong every year, do the feds show up??? No the local government takes care of it. NC got hit by a hurricane this strong 3 years ago and the only service needed from the National Guard was to put the island back together just above Hatteras and eventually that operation was contracted out to a private company. I have had to work in several of these “storms” and even we have to evac or find safe shelter when things get to bad and resume rescue operations after the worst has passed, with the level of storm that hit LA any civilians that didn’t leave was just natural selection at work.
Your 'points' are all subjective.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
3 points I'd like to bring up.
1. The press is LIBERAL????? Give me a break. The mainstream press is owned, printed, and distributed by a conservative, stictly business-oriented, and (like the current administration) only tells people what they and their advertisers think people want to hear. It's always the old saw: because I don't like what the press is telling me, it must be liberal. The few times it does support the republicans, it's "they're telling me the truth". . . Fox is just the more extreme of the mainstream conservative, me-first, fuck anyone who acts/talks/thinks differently from me CONSERVATIVE press.
2. Bush is a tool. Impeaching him will do no good. Is nobody able to perceive that the guy has NO FUCKING CLUE as to what is going on? His only strength is that he can be easily led by people (like Cheney) who know what power is, and how to use it.
3. Clinton. Monica. WHO REALLY GIVES A DAMN that he got a blowjob? Jesus, anyone in the corporate world is getting this regularly. The guy had a chick go down on him, and somehow that is some huge moral dilemma, we should impeach the lying bastard and all that shit. The only person who should/could be really worried about that is Hillary. NOT US. Personally, I'm much more worried about an idiot in the white house, elected with like 20% of the populations direct assent, running around, attacking everyone in sight, abrogating all international commitments, and making his goddam friends rich. The cynical homeland shit just brings it home for me.
Well that's my rant for now. I'm ready for the personal attacks, unfounded by any logic, that are sure to follow.
Number 1 debunked - http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
My apologies for saying this : 2/3 of Lousiana inhabitants are blacks and Bush doesn't care about them. It's rather stupid, I know, but that's what we think in France about this tragic event. Someone talks about Cheney, the one who accidently shot a politician with his hunt rifle ? the one who used to be corrupt by Kellogs about US Army rations ? LOL this guy is too funny he'll never be president for sure.
The purpose of the press is to attract viewers/readers. Not to inform anyone. That's a fact, not subjective. If people watch your news program or buy your paper, your stockholders are happy. Tell people what they want to hear, and they'll be your customers. That is not subjective. It's a factwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Your 'points' are all subjective.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
3 points I'd like to bring up.
1. The press is LIBERAL????? Give me a break. The mainstream press is owned, printed, and distributed by a conservative, stictly business-oriented, and (like the current administration) only tells people what they and their advertisers think people want to hear. It's always the old saw: because I don't like what the press is telling me, it must be liberal. The few times it does support the republicans, it's "they're telling me the truth". . . Fox is just the more extreme of the mainstream conservative, me-first, fuck anyone who acts/talks/thinks differently from me CONSERVATIVE press.
2. Bush is a tool. Impeaching him will do no good. Is nobody able to perceive that the guy has NO FUCKING CLUE as to what is going on? His only strength is that he can be easily led by people (like Cheney) who know what power is, and how to use it.
3. Clinton. Monica. WHO REALLY GIVES A DAMN that he got a blowjob? Jesus, anyone in the corporate world is getting this regularly. The guy had a chick go down on him, and somehow that is some huge moral dilemma, we should impeach the lying bastard and all that shit. The only person who should/could be really worried about that is Hillary. NOT US. Personally, I'm much more worried about an idiot in the white house, elected with like 20% of the populations direct assent, running around, attacking everyone in sight, abrogating all international commitments, and making his goddam friends rich. The cynical homeland shit just brings it home for me.
Well that's my rant for now. I'm ready for the personal attacks, unfounded by any logic, that are sure to follow.
Bush managed to run one business after the other into the ground. He has no business sense, no leadership ability, and in fact has not managed to distinguish himself in any way. "Idiot" is a subjective term. Perhaps he his intelligent compared to many of the people who chose to vote for him, but for fuck's sake! He can't even pronounce the word NUCULAR right and he's the guy with the big red button!
Blowjob in white house. Big deal or political dynamite for Ken Starr and Republicans who can now go on and on about "morals". I think the "subjective" there was that everyone got so excited about it.
Last edited by Tak_Bonehead (2006-03-02 12:32:56)
Lil Jon wants to knowsheggalism wrote:
My apologies for saying this : 2/3 of Lousiana inhabitants are blacks and Bush doesn't care about them. It's rather stupid, I know, but that's what we think in France about this tragic event. Someone talks about Cheney, the one who accidently shot a politician with his hunt rifle ? the one who used to be corrupt by Kellogs about US Army rations ? LOL this guy is too funny he'll never be president for sure.
in the hell did you just say?
No, no personal attack from me. Logic retort from me, yes. The "arts" is filled with liberal-minded folks. That is no secret. Although I cannot source a particular article or book, if you checked it out, I would be correct. Almost all people on the local news all the way to the national news circuit are Democrats. The type of person that works in jobs such as that of artist, musician, singer, writer, broadcaster, etc. has some type of draw to the democratic ideals of today's world.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
3 points I'd like to bring up.
1. The press is LIBERAL????? Give me a break. The mainstream press is owned, printed, and distributed by a conservative, stictly business-oriented, and (like the current administration) only tells people what they and their advertisers think people want to hear. It's always the old saw: because I don't like what the press is telling me, it must be liberal. The few times it does support the republicans, it's "they're telling me the truth". . . Fox is just the more extreme of the mainstream conservative, me-first, fuck anyone who acts/talks/thinks differently from me CONSERVATIVE press.
2. Bush is a tool. Impeaching him will do no good. Is nobody able to perceive that the guy has NO FUCKING CLUE as to what is going on? His only strength is that he can be easily led by people (like Cheney) who know what power is, and how to use it.
3. Clinton. Monica. WHO REALLY GIVES A DAMN that he got a blowjob? Jesus, anyone in the corporate world is getting this regularly. The guy had a chick go down on him, and somehow that is some huge moral dilemma, we should impeach the lying bastard and all that shit. The only person who should/could be really worried about that is Hillary. NOT US. Personally, I'm much more worried about an idiot in the white house, elected with like 20% of the populations direct assent, running around, attacking everyone in sight, abrogating all international commitments, and making his goddam friends rich. The cynical homeland shit just brings it home for me.
Well that's my rant for now. I'm ready for the personal attacks, unfounded by any logic, that are sure to follow.
More on the broadcasting---Guess what sells newspapers and gets people to tune into the news? NEGATIVE, HORRIBLE STORIES. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry new service knows this. That is why a headline from Iraq will read: 6 marines dead in overnight gunfight in Kabul. They are putting the spin on this for 2 reasons: 1) they are liberal, and intend to undermine the republican decision to fight this war and 2) that headline grabs the attention of the reader.
If I wrote that news story it would go like this: 80 insurgents killed and captured in Kabul gunfight.
Perhaps 6 marines died, but they killed/captured 80 insurgents. The way I head the story sheds a positive light on events (supports the troops, looks like they are doing a good job, shows the ratios for what they are). The other way the story headline is written is meant for you, as the reader, to be demoralized, and therefore become frustrated with the way the Republicans are handling this.
On this same note, you only see stories come from the media about civilians/insurgents blowing up troops, other civilians, etc. You do not see any stories about how before we came, unemployment was over 40% for the region, and since we've come people are PRAISING the troops for bringing them the much needed opportunity to be free and make a real life for themselves. The only Iraqis unhappy that we are there are the Sunnis, and that is because all of their power was stripped when Saddam went down (he was a Sunni FYI).
That good stories dont sell, and dont get ratings. Additionally, it paints up the current administration as doing a good job, and fighting the good fight, and the people reporting the news don't agree with that. A key piece to how news is reported is based upon the person doing the reporting. It is very hard to not put a personal spin or leave your opinion out of the story.
A few examples of my points:
98% of CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the Washington Post, NY Times, Toledo Blade, Pittsburgh Gazette, etc. etc.
Your point about the news and newspapers being run by conservatives--no way. Do you think Ted Turner is conservative? NO WAY. He is one of the biggest media moguls in the country. These guys give the green light to all the crappy-headline stuff they print and talk about. It is money in their pocket. It isnt only republicans that are rich, there are plenty of rich democrats, too. Most of them are "old" money and don't know what its like to work hard to get rich (their great great great grandad got their money by stealing all the indian land in the late 1800's, and sold it to people later on). They were born with silver spoons in their mouths (Kennedys, for example) and they think money grows on trees. They think that a hard working man should readily give their hard-earned money to people that expect to be taken care of by the gov't.
Anyway--back to my original point:
Go take a look at the number of Iraqis that are signing up for the Iraq army and the Iraq Police force. There is incredible turnout for it. On top of that, the guys standing in lines outside of recruiters offices know they are going to be targeted, and have a good chance of getting blown up, and they still fill the lines EVERY DAY. These people are ready to taste freedom, and are not afraid of the 10% of evil people causing all the problems. Where are the news stories on that? You dont seem them. Instead, their headline is "60 civilians killed in suicide bombing." My headline would be "Undaunted Iraqis risk their lives to protect their newfound and budding freedom."
I rest my case.
Wanna be tankwhore referenced an article which purports to demonstrate that the mainstream press is actually Liberal. The abstract of the article (from the Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2005 edition) is below:
We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.
There are so many holes in this approach to determine whether the media is Left or Right, that one could begin just about anywhere. For example, citing a report from a think tank in no way proves or demonstrates political affiliation. In contrast, many times a opponent's report will be taken out of context to build a "straw man", an easy target for argument. But to use this article to demonstrate that my points are subjective is the greatest irony! The whole debate of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is subjective!
I personally don't think of myself as liberal or conservative, or rather it depends on the question being asked. Plenty of liberal people no doubt would call me conservative, while conservatives would call me liberal. But shouldn't we all be interested in basic issues like liberty, and honesty, and fairness, and equality of opportunity? Well let me tell you something buddy, our current gang in the white house is more focussed on control of the people, and oil, and preserving the status quo, and making sure my cronies who helped me get elected get some of that back in big fat contracts. That's a fucking long way from the America idealized by the writers of the constitution!
Back to ya.
We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.
There are so many holes in this approach to determine whether the media is Left or Right, that one could begin just about anywhere. For example, citing a report from a think tank in no way proves or demonstrates political affiliation. In contrast, many times a opponent's report will be taken out of context to build a "straw man", an easy target for argument. But to use this article to demonstrate that my points are subjective is the greatest irony! The whole debate of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is subjective!
I personally don't think of myself as liberal or conservative, or rather it depends on the question being asked. Plenty of liberal people no doubt would call me conservative, while conservatives would call me liberal. But shouldn't we all be interested in basic issues like liberty, and honesty, and fairness, and equality of opportunity? Well let me tell you something buddy, our current gang in the white house is more focussed on control of the people, and oil, and preserving the status quo, and making sure my cronies who helped me get elected get some of that back in big fat contracts. That's a fucking long way from the America idealized by the writers of the constitution!
Back to ya.
That's subjective. If not, prove it.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
The purpose of the press is to attract viewers/readers. Not to inform anyone. That's a fact, not subjective.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Your 'points' are all subjective.
Happy is subjective.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
If people watch your news program or buy your paper, your stockholders are happy.
Explain this better. I read the NY Times to find ridiculous articles and compare them to the DNC talking points.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
Tell people what they want to hear, and they'll be your customers. That is not subjective. It's a fact
The most incoherent ramblings since horseman's post.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
Bush managed to run one business after the other into the ground. He has no business sense, no leadership ability, and in fact has not managed to distinguish himself in any way. "Idiot" is a subjective term.
1) The US government is not a business.
2) How is he supposed distinguish himself?
If we followed your points of defining an idiot... you will never be President.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
Perhaps he his intelligent compared to many of the people who chose to vote for him, but for fuck's sake! He can't even pronounce the word NUCULAR right and he's the guy with the big red button!
You hold President Bush to the lying standard. Why not Clinton?Tak_Bonehead wrote:
Blowjob in white house. Big deal or political dynamite for Ken Starr and Republicans who can now go on and on about "morals". I think the "subjective" there was that everyone got so excited about it.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-02 13:05:09)
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I read a partial transcript.Marconius wrote:
The AP has released a video showing FEMA director Michael Brown briefing Bush about the dangers rising from Katrina. The briefing happened a day before the hurricane hit, and it occurred as a result of a week-long email exchange between FEMA and the government.
Bush merely says at the end of the video that "We are fully prepared." He wasn't engaged in the conversation, and just sat there with the same docile look on his face that he had when he was informed about the 9/11 attacks.
Four days after Katrina hit, Bush claims to have had no knowledge about the aid shortcomings, nor about how much damage had been done. He's been caught in a lie, and he and Chertoff lose major credibility points while Brown has now proven to have been the least responsible of the Katrina aid blunders.
The story
The story from another source to help balance out any spin
The Video
Yeah. they said they could be " topped ". A BIG difference than breeched.
President Bush's comments 4 days after Katrina, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." You would have to define *is* in this situation... Was there a chance the levees could break... yes. Was the probability of them breaching 1.0 ... no. Just like Clinton got off with the definition of 'is' so will Bush.
I blame Nagan... blaming W for every thing is really gettin old.. and I particularly do not care much for W. It just seems like evvery time somthing bad happens its Ws fault. I agree, it is the liberal media that makes everything seem like it is Ws fault. I think Nagan, the governor, senators, etc should be most directly responsible for what happened. It like, oh, my cat got hit by a car, damn bush... its gettign pretty old, but then again, the liberal/democrats (we can just refer to them as Socialists) are still crying that Gore lost.. and as for the above post, I think that many people do not care about clintons BJ... I think they do care that he lied UNDER OATH.
Yeah. they said they could be " topped ". A BIG difference than breeched. AS the facts go , Clinton is the one who cut the resources for levvees in the 90's. But don,t blame him.....->he was a GREAT President...<-sarcasmwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I read a partial transcript.Marconius wrote:
The AP has released a video showing FEMA director Michael Brown briefing Bush about the dangers rising from Katrina. The briefing happened a day before the hurricane hit, and it occurred as a result of a week-long email exchange between FEMA and the government.
Bush merely says at the end of the video that "We are fully prepared." He wasn't engaged in the conversation, and just sat there with the same docile look on his face that he had when he was informed about the 9/11 attacks.
Four days after Katrina hit, Bush claims to have had no knowledge about the aid shortcomings, nor about how much damage had been done. He's been caught in a lie, and he and Chertoff lose major credibility points while Brown has now proven to have been the least responsible of the Katrina aid blunders.
The story
The story from another source to help balance out any spin
The Video
President Bush's comments 4 days after Katrina, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." You would have to define *is* in this situation... Was there a chance the levees could break... yes. Was the probability of them breaching 1.0 ... no. Just like Clinton got off with the definition of 'is' so will Bush.
Last edited by CC-Marley (2006-03-02 13:09:39)
At just what cost to our marine's lives, and the lives of countless civilians in Iraq, and dollars (think Federal Deficit), and lost respect in the rest of the world, are we removing Saddam Hussein (who, by the way, we helped put there) and his friends, and leaving a country in a situation of civil war? Yeah, Saddam was an Asshole, but we seem to have no problem leaving plenty of other guys and worse running countries all around the world. We're there for oil control plain and simple. And you know what? People don't give a fuck if we get 80 goddam insurgents or 8 million. They don't want their sons and brothers getting killed in a useless, conter-productive goddam war that we went to on 2 false pretenses 1: link with 9/11. 2 WMD. Those are the lies. And we're paying for them with our lives.IA_Ace_oF_H4DES wrote:
Go take a look at the number of Iraqis that are signing up for the Iraq army and the Iraq Police force. There is incredible turnout for it. On top of that, the guys standing in lines outside of recruiters offices know they are going to be targeted, and have a good chance of getting blown up, and they still fill the lines EVERY DAY. These people are ready to taste freedom, and are not afraid of the 10% of evil people causing all the problems. Where are the news stories on that? You dont seem them. Instead, their headline is "60 civilians killed in suicide bombing." My headline would be "Undaunted Iraqis risk their lives to protect their newfound and budding freedom."
I rest my case.
nuff said
Last edited by Tak_Bonehead (2006-03-02 13:15:49)
When they cite a think tank they list whether it's a liberal or conservative think tank. They do this by looking at the political affiliation of its members.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
Wanna be tankwhore referenced an article which purports to demonstrate that the mainstream press is actually Liberal. The abstract of the article (from the Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2005 edition) is below:
We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.
There are so many holes in this approach to determine whether the media is Left or Right, that one could begin just about anywhere. For example, citing a report from a think tank in no way proves or demonstrates political affiliation. In contrast, many times a opponent's report will be taken out of context to build a "straw man", an easy target for argument. But to use this article to demonstrate that my points are subjective is the greatest irony! The whole debate of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is subjective!
I personally don't think of myself as liberal or conservative, or rather it depends on the question being asked. Plenty of liberal people no doubt would call me conservative, while conservatives would call me liberal. But shouldn't we all be interested in basic issues like liberty, and honesty, and fairness, and equality of opportunity? Well let me tell you something buddy, our current gang in the white house is more focussed on control of the people, and oil, and preserving the status quo, and making sure my cronies who helped me get elected get some of that back in big fat contracts. That's a fucking long way from the America idealized by the writers of the constitution!
Back to ya.
Back to ya.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-02 13:16:54)
I like reading the posts that defend Bush at all costs, and say the media is just trying to attack republicans. It's especially humorous when you have a frickin video of Bush disregarding the warnings about New Orleans. I'm sorry people, but you gotta face the truth and accept it, not place blame elsewhere (like the media). Looks like Bush's tactics rub off on some BF2s'ers.
As for the situation, I just think that after what happened in 9/11 (with Bush looking completelly unprepared for anything), he should've gone all out and protected New Orleans from a possible catastrophe. If nothing happened, then people would've appreciated his effort to protect his country, and if something did happen (as was the reality), then he would be hailed for having appropiate responses this time around. I'm sorry but he f'ed this one up.
As for the situation, I just think that after what happened in 9/11 (with Bush looking completelly unprepared for anything), he should've gone all out and protected New Orleans from a possible catastrophe. If nothing happened, then people would've appreciated his effort to protect his country, and if something did happen (as was the reality), then he would be hailed for having appropiate responses this time around. I'm sorry but he f'ed this one up.
Removing Saddam was a good thing, WMDs or no WMDs. From the many soldiers, marines, etc that i have spoken to, they stated that the humanitarian reason is sufficient enough to be there. (humanitarian, the liberals should love that). Also, when a person signs up for Military service, they know full well that they could go into hostile situations.. thats what there for, even they know/say that. So we really shouldent say that we are sending over people who had absolutly no idea what they were in for. I think it is the marines or possibly the Army that has the saying "Ours is not to question why, but to do or die." And most people would say, well if i knew someone that was over there i would think differenly, not so, I know at least 5 people who have served or are serving in the current war on Terror. on another note.. so what if the war is solely for oil... Imagin what would happen to our society if there was not oil... cars, planes, boats would not be useful, people would not be able to get to work, travel would be greatly hampered, our society would collapse, so oil, as crappy as it may sound, is a valid reason (granted somewhat primative) to go to war. The world is a better place with out Saddam and his sons, the war was/is worth it.
I guess nobody read my post on how US, state & local govt. works....GotMex? wrote:
I like reading the posts that defend Bush at all costs, and say the media is just trying to attack republicans. It's especially humorous when you have a frickin video of Bush disregarding the warnings about New Orleans. I'm sorry people, but you gotta face the truth and accept it, not place blame elsewhere (like the media). Looks like Bush's tactics rub off on some BF2s'ers.
As for the situation, I just think that after what happened in 9/11 (with Bush looking completelly unprepared for anything), he should've gone all out and protected New Orleans from a possible catastrophe. If nothing happened, then people would've appreciated his effort to protect his country, and if something did happen (as was the reality), then he would be hailed for having appropiate responses this time around. I'm sorry but he f'ed this one up.
What it doesn't list is whether their bias is in favor or against the think tank they list.
What it doesn't report is whether the members of congress is "conservative" or "liberal" -- if you read the article, what they've done is "cooked the book", that is they self-referenced the congress to get a "middle ground" -- as if congress actually represented the people who voted for them! and then they compared congressional speeches to newspaper articles, and found to their amazement that newspaper articles were more likely than congressional speeches to contain references to "left-leaning" think tank reports. This does not prove that the press is liberal or conservative. The question to ask, in my opinion, is where the editorial bias is, and which direction gets more "airplay" the "conservative"-- eg, pro-tax cut, pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, pro-drug war, pro war in general, anti-social services, anti-education, anti-affirmative action; or the "liberal" pretty much the opposite of above. My reading/viewing of mainstream press leaves little question here. Sure, there are examples to the contrary, Ted Turner makes no secret about his liberal leanings. But even he is subject to the actual "owners" of Time-Warner -- that is the stockholders. And what was the question of "define happy" -- "happy" for a stockholder = "rich" WTF?
What it doesn't report is whether the members of congress is "conservative" or "liberal" -- if you read the article, what they've done is "cooked the book", that is they self-referenced the congress to get a "middle ground" -- as if congress actually represented the people who voted for them! and then they compared congressional speeches to newspaper articles, and found to their amazement that newspaper articles were more likely than congressional speeches to contain references to "left-leaning" think tank reports. This does not prove that the press is liberal or conservative. The question to ask, in my opinion, is where the editorial bias is, and which direction gets more "airplay" the "conservative"-- eg, pro-tax cut, pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, pro-drug war, pro war in general, anti-social services, anti-education, anti-affirmative action; or the "liberal" pretty much the opposite of above. My reading/viewing of mainstream press leaves little question here. Sure, there are examples to the contrary, Ted Turner makes no secret about his liberal leanings. But even he is subject to the actual "owners" of Time-Warner -- that is the stockholders. And what was the question of "define happy" -- "happy" for a stockholder = "rich" WTF?
Well he did ask the Gov to ask him declare a state of emergency days before Kat hit. She dropped the ball as well as many others. Everyone involved has some fault. We are supposed to learn from shit like this, but as usual the Libs just cry and complain while having no agenda for anything. If they do have an agenda for terror, war, N. Korea, SS, ect., lets hear it!!!!!!!! I'm always up for listening. Stop complianing and have some balls to bring your own ideas to the table. Stop BITCHIN!
I wonder if the same people who blame Bush for everything are the ones who complained about bunny hoppers, GLs, AA, etc??CC-Marley wrote:
Well he did ask the Gov to ask him declare a state of emergency days before Kat hit. She dropped the ball as well as many others. Everyone involved has some fault. We are supposed to learn from shit like this, but as usual the Libs just cry and complain while having no agenda for anything. If they do have an agenda for terror, war, N. Korea, SS, ect., lets hear it!!!!!!!! I'm always up for listening. Stop complianing and have some balls to bring your own ideas to the table. Stop BITCHIN!
Has anyone noticed that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Exactly....Aren't you Bush haters forgetting the culpability of the local officials in this ardent quest to pin anything you can on George Bush. Where is your sense of outrage at the lack of action taken by the governor of Louisiana and the 'chocolate'-loving mayor of New Orleans?? Of course, since they are poor helpless democrats who are powerless to act because Bush is in office, they avoid your close scrutiny and litanous diatribes. The primary responsibility for disaster preparedness lies with the STATE administration, not the Federal government. They were also given a week to prepare. We all sense for unreasonable hatred for all things "Bush", but your constant attacks are completely one-sided. If you would take the time to apply your brush of blame to ALL involved, you might come off as being somewhat credible.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Does 36 hours apply to the National Guard? They are the ones the Governor calls in... not the active military.
Order of government:
City, state, then federal.
Fault lies to Nagin and Blanco first. Then FEMA and probably Bush for appointing Brown.
Bonehead, the fact that you purport point #3 was about the blowjob debunks point #1. Thescandal was that Clinton committed perjury about the blowjob in a court of law defending himself from charges of sexual misconduct. The left...and the press shifted the focus off of that point and turned it into "It was just about sex". The fact that you believe that the mainstream press is 'conservative' is frightening in and of itself.Tak_Bonehead wrote:
3 points I'd like to bring up.
1. The press is LIBERAL????? Give me a break. The mainstream press is owned, printed, and distributed by a conservative, stictly business-oriented, and (like the current administration) only tells people what they and their advertisers think people want to hear. It's always the old saw: because I don't like what the press is telling me, it must be liberal. The few times it does support the republicans, it's "they're telling me the truth". . . Fox is just the more extreme of the mainstream conservative, me-first, fuck anyone who acts/talks/thinks differently from me CONSERVATIVE press.
2. Bush is a tool. Impeaching him will do no good. Is nobody able to perceive that the guy has NO FUCKING CLUE as to what is going on? His only strength is that he can be easily led by people (like Cheney) who know what power is, and how to use it.
3. Clinton. Monica. WHO REALLY GIVES A DAMN that he got a blowjob? Jesus, anyone in the corporate world is getting this regularly. The guy had a chick go down on him, and somehow that is some huge moral dilemma, we should impeach the lying bastard and all that shit. The only person who should/could be really worried about that is Hillary. NOT US. Personally, I'm much more worried about an idiot in the white house, elected with like 20% of the populations direct assent, running around, attacking everyone in sight, abrogating all international commitments, and making his goddam friends rich. The cynical homeland shit just brings it home for me.
Well that's my rant for now. I'm ready for the personal attacks, unfounded by any logic, that are sure to follow.
Sheggalism, if that is what you are truly thinking over there in France, then our low opinion of your citizens is justified. It's amazing that so much focus has been put on New Orlean's hurricane damage that everyone has completely forgotten the damage that both Mississippi and Alabama sustained. Where is the reporting on this, Bonehead? This line of race-baiting is meant for the uneducated and gullible. Never mind the facts people.....just keep spouting what you hear in the news.sheggalism wrote:
My apologies for saying this : 2/3 of Lousiana inhabitants are blacks and Bush doesn't care about them. It's rather stupid, I know, but that's what we think in France about this tragic event. Someone talks about Cheney, the one who accidently shot a politician with his hunt rifle ? the one who used to be corrupt by Kellogs about US Army rations ? LOL this guy is too funny he'll never be president for sure.
You are wrong... I was the only one that didn't read your post. I am just interested in spreading anti bush propaganda!!!![FHB]Unit44 wrote:
I guess nobody read my post on how US, state & local govt. works....
Ok no, but seriously, I read all the posts in a hurry so I skimmed through your's as well. I did get the gist of it, so it seems my post goes against yours, but what I meant to put across was that Bush could've (read: should've) taken initiative with Katrina. If nothing happened, I don't think it would've affected him, but showing some sort of preparedness would've looked great. Considering the impression people got after 9/11, this was a good time to take a stand.
And yes, I know Florida does get hit by hurricanes a lot... but goddamn I have never seen it take a beating like New Orleans did. It just sucks for all the people there.
THANK YOU! finally. i'm sick of hearing everyone spout off about how they think the soldiers feel. I would go as far as to say 97% of those in the Army/Marines WANT to be over there kicking ass. And when Iraq is done with, we'll knock on Iran's door or some other hellhole where people are getting fucked. Don't speak on behalf of a soldier if you haven't even spoken to one.Phantasm wrote:
Removing Saddam was a good thing, WMDs or no WMDs. From the many soldiers, marines, etc that i have spoken to, they stated that the humanitarian reason is sufficient enough to be there. (humanitarian, the liberals should love that). Also, when a person signs up for Military service, they know full well that they could go into hostile situations.. thats what there for, even they know/say that. So we really shouldent say that we are sending over people who had absolutly no idea what they were in for. I think it is the marines or possibly the Army that has the saying "Ours is not to question why, but to do or die." And most people would say, well if i knew someone that was over there i would think differenly, not so, I know at least 5 people who have served or are serving in the current war on Terror. on another note.. so what if the war is solely for oil... Imagin what would happen to our society if there was not oil... cars, planes, boats would not be useful, people would not be able to get to work, travel would be greatly hampered, our society would collapse, so oil, as crappy as it may sound, is a valid reason (granted somewhat primative) to go to war. The world is a better place with out Saddam and his sons, the war was/is worth it.
you're an idiot.batman_psu wrote:
yeah, THE DAY BEFORE. you can only do so much when you have a day's notice. mobilizing the military to help out takes lots of time.
with regard to Bush not reacting to the 9-11 news, what was he supposed to do? stand up and scream about it in front of all those little kids, when no one really new for sure what was going on? my reaction would have been the same too. he got notified as each plane hit so when the first one hit it wasnt a terrorist attack yet. and what was he supposed to do anyway? change into his costume and fly to NY and catch the planes in mid-air? come on folks.
if you don't see the footage of bush's dumbfounded look and catatonic reaction as a direct indication of a person in over their head and unprepared to act then your idea of good leadership probably is based on your McDonald's shift manager.
In a crisis a leader stands up, realizes a priority, and acts. a real leader might have gotten up immediately and gone to one (preferrably many) of the nearly endless sources of information at his disposal and figured out what the fuck he just could be doing. and that wasn't something that takes 9 minutes of thought to realize is a top priority. if you think that his CLEAR and DEFINITIE state of catatonia (which is term for paralysis from fear) was just his genius, totally rational reaction to a immediate calculation that "well I can't do anything anyways why don't I just sit" then you must have a lot at stake emotionally in believing in President Bush because you operate at a level of fantasy deserving of small child. when a president, even a simply mediocre one, hears the country is under attack it shouldn't take more than 2 seconds to realize that A. reading to school children is not important at all. And B. He is the Chief Executive. And because I anticipate stupidity on a massive scale from you let me first say that if you respond by saying "what's he supposed to do, scare the children?" then i wish I could slap you. And to answer that unavoidable question: YES, you fool. what would almost any other president have done? "i'm sorry children but I have to go, I have important president work to do but I'll be back." *walk out of room to chief aid* "is the vice president ok? what has been hit, who has hit it, and what do we have in place to protect other potential targets? are there any phone calls i should be making?"
Last edited by ComradeWho (2006-03-02 22:10:00)
yeah let the baby killers speak for themselves. they want to go and "kick ass" knockin down doors of sovereign nations because they don't snap in-line hard enough. then when they get done straightenin out the brown-skins with "freedom" they can be employed to supress dissidents in this country who just don't appreciate the freedom provided to them won by a bunch of jingoistic 22 year old kids who live in a system inherently and offensively undemocratic yet are the tool we use to try and bring democracy to other nations.batman_psu wrote:
THANK YOU! finally. i'm sick of hearing everyone spout off about how they think the soldiers feel. I would go as far as to say 97% of those in the Army/Marines WANT to be over there kicking ass. And when Iraq is done with, we'll knock on Iran's door or some other hellhole where people are getting fucked. Don't speak on behalf of a soldier if you haven't even spoken to one.Phantasm wrote:
Removing Saddam was a good thing, WMDs or no WMDs. From the many soldiers, marines, etc that i have spoken to, they stated that the humanitarian reason is sufficient enough to be there. (humanitarian, the liberals should love that). Also, when a person signs up for Military service, they know full well that they could go into hostile situations.. thats what there for, even they know/say that. So we really shouldent say that we are sending over people who had absolutly no idea what they were in for. I think it is the marines or possibly the Army that has the saying "Ours is not to question why, but to do or die." And most people would say, well if i knew someone that was over there i would think differenly, not so, I know at least 5 people who have served or are serving in the current war on Terror. on another note.. so what if the war is solely for oil... Imagin what would happen to our society if there was not oil... cars, planes, boats would not be useful, people would not be able to get to work, travel would be greatly hampered, our society would collapse, so oil, as crappy as it may sound, is a valid reason (granted somewhat primative) to go to war. The world is a better place with out Saddam and his sons, the war was/is worth it.
PS on the issue of bias on press. you're all fools, the breakdown of the press is that the majority of media outlets are owned by four main groups - all of which are staunchly conservative. the whole debate is framed by these people. the very definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are formed by the media. people don't realize how extremely conservative this country truly is. if you think the media is liberal you are a fool who doesn't know how the media works, who owns it, and who's opinions come directly from pundits who get paid obscene amounts of money to make you think the little thoughts you have.
Last edited by ComradeWho (2006-03-02 22:18:35)