Discussion:
What liberal media?
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2006-05-16 01:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"

CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4

"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.

FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.

The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Daniel Damouth
2006-05-16 02:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the
Oval Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the
White House media advisor for direction.
Why was a showing a rehearsal embarrassing?

-Dan Damouth
curmudgeon
2006-05-16 02:48:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Daniel Damouth" <***@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:***@66.75.164.120...
***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in news:V_-***@comcast.com:

CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the
Oval Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the
White House media advisor for direction.

Why was a showing a rehearsal embarrassing?

-Dan Damouth



Because we have no way of knowing just how many times he had to do it over
before he got it right.
Ubiquitous
2006-05-16 10:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <j5idnWQtrpL3oPTZRVn-***@bresnan.com>, ***@bresnan.net
says...
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the
Oval Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the
White House media advisor for direction.
Why was a showing a rehearsal embarrassing?
Because we have no way of knowing just how many times he had to do it over
before he got it right.
You really need to get over this bitterness about AlGore being unable
to steal the election and Bush doing so well.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Andrew Ryan Chang
2006-05-16 06:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
Why does a simple mistake of airing a rehearsal count as liberal
bias in your crazy eyes? Do you think CNN made it up?
--
"In 1989, AAA called vapor traps on gas tanks a safety hazard. In 1994, it
opposed a move by smogbound eastern states to promote low-polluting cars."

[http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01win/aaa/aaa.asp]
Ubiquitous
2006-05-16 10:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Ryan Chang
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
Why does a simple mistake of airing a rehearsal count as liberal
bias in your crazy eyes?
Ah yes, the obligatory ad hominum attack. Liberal media bias has been
proven long ago, but this is not the first "accident" on CNN with this
administration. It's sad how far CNN has slid over the last six years
or so.
Post by Andrew Ryan Chang
Do you think CNN made it up?
That's ridiculous, even for a strawman.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
b***@gmail.com
2006-05-26 11:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Liberal media bias has been
proven long ago,
No, it hasn't. (Hint: if O'Lielly says it, don't believe it.)

But the bias has been disproven. All you need is a working brain.

In fact, if there is a bias, it's a Repug one. Just look at how Bush
got a free pass in the 2000 election, whereas Gore was smeared with
lies over and over again. Ditto for Kerry. Or how about the repeated
claims that the Abramoff corruption scandal is "bipartisan", whereas
it's clearly not? Etcetera etcetera.

BTW Did ya know the The Voice Of America hasn't had any correspondents
in Baghdad because it's too dangerous? I guess they're also one of
those liberal media that don't report all the good news from Iraq. Oh
wait, no, it's actually a US government propaganda tool -- oops.

Ah, FACTS -- what did Colbert say about them? Oh yeah, "reality has a
liberal slant". ;-)

BTW when are you gonna really "support the troops" by doing something
more than posting Repug nonsense? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!
--
BVH
Newport
2006-05-26 17:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@gmail.com
If O'Lielly says it, don't believe it. Just look at how Bush got a free
pass in the 2000 election. Ah, FACTS -- what did Colbert say about them?
Oh yeah, "reality has a liberal slant". ;-) BTW when are you (Ubi)
gonna really "support the troops" by doing something more than posting
Repug nonsense?
-------------------------------
Good question!

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
¡x¡x¡x¡x-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¡Y¡Y¡Y¡Y-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¢é
2006-06-25 14:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Liberal media bias has been proven long ago,
No, it hasn't.
But the bias has been disproven. All you need is a working brain.
In fact, if there is a bias, it's a Repug one. Just look at how Bush
got a free pass in the 2000 election, whereas Gore was smeared with
lies over and over again. Ditto for Kerry. Or how about the repeated
claims that the Abramoff corruption scandal is "bipartisan", whereas
it's clearly not? Etcetera etcetera.
How high are you right now? No, seriously, are we talking
methamphetamine violently delusional high, or merely hashish
hallucination-prone high?
Post by b***@gmail.com
BTW when are you gonna really "support the troops" by doing something
more than posting Repug nonsense? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!
I take it you haven't enlisted because you're rooting for the
terrorsists. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a phone call to make to
Homeland Security...
record hunter
2006-06-25 17:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
¡x¡x¡x¡x-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¡Y¡Y¡Y¡Y-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¢é
Post by ¡x¡x¡x¡x-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¡Y¡Y¡Y¡Y-t¶Å1L°ª¡B«H¥I·v²«¡B_}²£¡B±I«æ°e²{ª÷3¤Ñ~6¤Ñ¦¬²{¢a¢O¢U¡G¢_¢,¢°¢'¡D¢,¢°¢²¡D¢¶¢_¢°¢é
Post by b***@gmail.com
Liberal media bias has been proven long ago,
No, it hasn't.
But the bias has been disproven. All you need is a working brain.
In fact, if there is a bias, it's a Repug one. Just look at how Bush
got a free pass in the 2000 election, whereas Gore was smeared with
lies over and over again. Ditto for Kerry. Or how about the repeated
claims that the Abramoff corruption scandal is "bipartisan", whereas
it's clearly not? Etcetera etcetera.
How high are you right now? No, seriously, are we talking
methamphetamine violently delusional high, or merely hashish
hallucination-prone high?
Post by b***@gmail.com
BTW when are you gonna really "support the troops" by doing something
more than posting Repug nonsense? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!
I take it you haven't enlisted because you're rooting for the
terrorsists. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a phone call to make to
Homeland Security...
.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-06-25 23:55:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I take it you haven't enlisted because you're rooting for the terrorsists.
Oooooo.... It's the "With us or with the terrorists" sheep routine. Have you
tried to tie your own shoelaces lately?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a phone call to make to
Homeland Security...
It's no wonder you post with such a fraudulent approach - I can't blame you,
I wouldn't want anyone to know who I was either. You sick freak....
Newport
2006-05-16 12:10:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@sfu.ca (Andrew=A0Ryan=A0Chang)
liberal bias in your (Ubi's) crazy eyes?
---------------------------------
When the opposite is true. The media is owned by conservatives and has
taken far too long to expose BushCo's corruption.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
FDR
2006-05-16 12:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4
"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.
FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.
The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
trotsky
2006-05-16 13:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FDR
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4
"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.
FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.
The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
Ubi doesn't care about people dying. Even the troops.
Newport
2006-05-16 14:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@email.com (trotsky)
Ubi doesn't care about people dying. Even the troops.
------------------------------
Draft the fucker!

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
trotsky
2006-05-16 15:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Newport
Ubi doesn't care about people dying. Even the troops.
------------------------------
Draft the fucker!
He wouldn't make it past the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
cloud dreamer
2006-05-16 15:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by trotsky
the troops.
------------------------------
Draft the fucker!
He wouldn't make it past the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
LOL. <Milk up nose...thanks!>

..
Newport
2006-05-16 19:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@email.com (trotsky)
Ubi doesn't care about people dying. Even the troops.
------------------------------
Newport: Draft the fucker!
------------------------------
He wouldn't make it past the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
------------------------------
Newport: He falls into the "don't wanna know" category.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-05-24 09:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Ubi doesn't care about people dying. Even the troops.
"Trotsky", OTOH, gleefully celebrates their deaths.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ubiquitous
2006-05-24 09:44:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FDR
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
Are you talking about the ones that Democrats were talking about
long before Bush came onto the scene?

Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
FDR
2006-05-24 19:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
Are you talking about the ones that Democrats were talking about
long before Bush came onto the scene?
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Post by Ubiquitous
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Puzzla
2006-05-24 21:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sorry, but the media is not liberal or conservative. They are mirrors.
They report what we want to see. The highly rated local news here in
Houston, leads with blood and guts EVERY DAY! You would think people would
get tired of that, but no. They have been #1 for years. They report on
murders so much, that you would think the number of murders were up. If the
media were liberal, they would have been in Darfur with the first signs of
mass murder. If the media were conservative, they wouldn't have any
negative reports on the current administration. They know what we want and
they give it to us. When American Idol debuted, not many newscasters talked
about it. When it became a phenomenon, it is all we got. They know that a
lot of people actually care who wins and loses. They know that people are
talking about the winner or 1st runner up, like it was Christ's return.

Puzz
ANIM8Rfsk
2006-05-24 22:57:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Puzzla
Sorry, but the media is not liberal or conservative. They are mirrors.
They report what we want to see.
I disagree. They report what they want to be seen.

The highly rated local news here in
Post by Puzzla
Houston, leads with blood and guts EVERY DAY! You would think people would
get tired of that, but no. They have been #1 for years. They report on
murders so much, that you would think the number of murders were up. If the
media were liberal, they would have been in Darfur with the first signs of
mass murder. If the media were conservative, they wouldn't have any
negative reports on the current administration. They know what we want and
they give it to us. When American Idol debuted, not many newscasters talked
about it. When it became a phenomenon, it is all we got. They know that a
lot of people actually care who wins and loses. They know that people are
talking about the winner or 1st runner up, like it was Christ's return.
Puzz
David Johnston
2006-05-24 23:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ANIM8Rfsk
Post by Puzzla
Sorry, but the media is not liberal or conservative. They are mirrors.
They report what we want to see.
I disagree. They report what they want to be seen.
No, they don't. They report what they think will get them good
ratings. It's a business.
Puzzla
2006-05-25 00:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by ANIM8Rfsk
Post by Puzzla
Sorry, but the media is not liberal or conservative. They are mirrors.
They report what we want to see.
I disagree. They report what they want to be seen.
No, they don't. They report what they think will get them good
ratings. It's a business.
True. And they know what we'll watch. When they showed the American people
the starving people in Ethiopia, we were moved. But after about a week, we
didn't want to see more starving people. People didn't stop starving, we
just didn't want to watch. We dictate what they show.

Puzz
z
2006-05-25 14:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ANIM8Rfsk
Post by Puzzla
Sorry, but the media is not liberal or conservative. They are mirrors.
They report what we want to see.
I disagree. They report what they want to be seen.
Hard to make a living telling people what you want them to hear, not
what they want to hear. Ask that guy in the ragged clothing ranting on
the street corner.

The mass media are in business to sell advertising. And they make money
by doing so, they are not being funded by thinktanks like AEI. And they
are not in any form of collusion, they are in competition with each
other. If one outlet figured out that other outlets are feeding people
stuff that they did not want to see, they would immediately switch over
and put everybody else out of business.
Newport
2006-05-25 14:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@puzzla.net (Puzzla)
When American Idol debuted, not many newscasters talked about it. When
it became a phenomenon, it is all we got. They know that a lot of people
actually care who wins and loses. They know that people are talking
about the winner or 1st runner up, like it was Christ's return.
-----------------------------------
Pathetic ain't it? The media did a lousy job of covering this
adminstration's corruption for far too long. Now that a fair number of
the people have caught up, they may be making up for lost time.


O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
b***@gmail.com
2006-05-27 00:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.

Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.

What a great guy, hm?
--
BVH
Newport
2006-05-27 11:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@gmail.com
Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical weapons. And to make sure
that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere, he also GAVE Saddam sat
images that revealed the positions of Iranian troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least because
he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until he was
president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which involved
Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting terrorists
groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
-------------------------------
And idiots want his face on Mt. Rushmore. A not overly critical
mini-series about him could only be shown on cable.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
trotsky
2006-05-27 13:45:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Newport
Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical weapons. And to make sure
that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere, he also GAVE Saddam sat
images that revealed the positions of Iranian troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least because
he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until he was
president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which involved
Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting terrorists
groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
-------------------------------
And idiots want his face on Mt. Rushmore. A not overly critical
mini-series about him could only be shown on cable.
I'd like to see his face on Mr. Rushmore too--on the opposite side of
the real Presidents.
Newport
2006-05-28 17:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@email.com (trotsky)
<<<idiots want Reagan's face on Mt. Rushmore. A not overly critical
mini-series about him could only be shown on cable.>>>
----------------------------------
I'd like to see his face on Mr. Rushmore too--on the opposite side of
the real Presidents.
-----------------------------------
With Nancy included for the second term?

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-06-12 22:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.
Thank you for sharing your amusing kooky conspiracy theory with us.
Will you please get off the grassy gnoll now, and take your tin foil
hat with you?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
s***@winning.com
2006-06-25 20:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
Wel, for starters- it should be "Reagan's people". Ronald Reagan was a
figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more so than Bush
II, believe it or not.

Of course, the corporate media fawned over him- practically making him
a God. And people just buy it.
Newport
2006-06-26 18:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@winning.com
Reagan was a figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more
so than Bush II, believe it or not. Of course, the corporate media
fawned over him- practically making him a God.
---------------------------------------
The "Greed is Good" years. Will they never end?

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
John Agosta
2006-06-26 21:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@winning.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
Wel, for starters- it should be "Reagan's people". Ronald Reagan was a
figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more so than Bush
II, believe it or not.
Of course, the corporate media fawned over him- practically making him
a God. And people just buy it.
And when Saddam launched an exocet missile into one of our cruisers, we said
"that's just an accident,
you're forgiven."

But now, we launch a war and invade the country when they haven't done a
thing against us,
and was impotent to do anything.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-06-26 22:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Agosta
Post by s***@winning.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
Wel, for starters- it should be "Reagan's people". Ronald Reagan was a
figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more so than Bush
II, believe it or not.
Of course, the corporate media fawned over him- practically making him
a God. And people just buy it.
And when Saddam launched an exocet missile into one of our cruisers, we said
"that's just an accident,
you're forgiven."
But now, we launch a war and invade the country when they haven't done a
thing against us,
and was impotent to do anything.
THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES
Part One - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8217638438978899371>

Part Two - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2839463332690200955>

Part Three - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240>
z
2006-06-27 14:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Agosta
Post by s***@winning.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
Reagan did far more. Reagan GAVE Saddam biological and chemical
weapons. And to make sure that he wasn't just gonna drop them anywhere,
he also GAVE Saddam sat images that revealed the positions of Iranian
troops.
Of course, Reagan also helped out the Iranians, not in the least
because he made a deal with them to prolong the hostage situation until
he was president. And that's how Iran-Contra-gate started, which
involved Reagan dealing with both an enemy of the US and supporting
terrorists groups in Latin-America.
What a great guy, hm?
Wel, for starters- it should be "Reagan's people". Ronald Reagan was a
figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more so than Bush
II, believe it or not.
Of course, the corporate media fawned over him- practically making him
a God. And people just buy it.
And when Saddam launched an exocet missile into one of our cruisers, we said
"that's just an accident,
you're forgiven."
But now, we launch a war and invade the country when they haven't done a
thing against us,
and was impotent to do anything.
Well, it was important to demonstrate to the North Koreans and Iranians
that we really can't do much if they do manage to get nuclear weapons.
I don't understand why, it's one of those brilliant things that
conservatives always say liberals are too dumb too understand.
Newport
2006-06-27 16:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@snail-mail.net (z)
it was important to demonstrate to the North Koreans and Iranians that
we really can't do much if they do manage to get nuclear weapons. I
don't understand why, it's one of those brilliant things that
conservatives always say liberals are too dumb too understand.
----------------------------------
LOL.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
z
2006-06-27 14:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@winning.com
Wel, for starters- it should be "Reagan's people". Ronald Reagan was a
figurehead-- almost completely out of the loop-- even more so than Bush
II, believe it or not.
Oddly enough, many of whom are now "Bush's people".
Ubiquitous
2006-06-12 22:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FDR
Post by Ubiquitous
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Iraq wasb gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
cloud dreamer
2006-06-12 22:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
Post by Ubiquitous
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Sorry. Loser. Reagan was in power in 88. You can't blame Clinton for
everything.

..
Post by Ubiquitous
Iraq wasb gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
Newport
2006-06-13 09:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@lnvalid.com (cloud=A0dreamer)
Reagan was in power
--------------------------------------
But later said he didn't remember it.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
cloud dreamer
2006-06-13 13:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Reagan was in power
--------------------------------------
But later said he didn't remember it.
He didn't remember his wife either.

..
Newport
2006-06-13 18:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@lnvalid.com (cloud=A0dreamer)
Reagan was in power
--------------------------------------
Newport: But later said he didn't remember it.
---------------------------------------
He didn't remember his wife either.
---------------------------------------
Newport: Can you blame him? I thought Judy Davis and James Brolin (first
time I'd liked him) were great in the mini-series the major networks
wouldn't show.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-06-30 19:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
Post by Ubiquitous
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Sorry. Loser. Reagan was in power in 88.
Reagan wasn't president in the 1990's.
Post by cloud dreamer
You can't blame Clinton for everything.
I do love when the Angry Left try to accuse people of the very thing they
do on a routine basis. Think about that next time you try to blame Bush
for Clinton's screwups, mmkay?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
z
2006-06-30 19:40:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Sorry. Loser. Reagan was in power in 88.
Reagan wasn't president in the 1990's.
Halabja
March 1988
Post by Ubiquitous
I do love when the Angry Left try to accuse people of the very thing they
do on a routine basis. Think about that next time you try to blame Bush
for Clinton's screwups, mmkay?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ubiquitous
2006-07-22 00:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what
Reagan did about it, other than look the other way because we were
"friends with Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Sorry. Loser. Reagan was in power in 88.
Reagan wasn't president in the 1990's.
Halabja
March 1988
That's nice, but try reading for meaning next time, or even better, quit
trying to blame others for Clinton's fuck ups.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-07-22 17:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
That's nice, but try reading for meaning next time, or even better, quit
trying to blame others for Clinton's fuck ups.
Clinton balanced the budget and was paying off the national debt,
which is irrelevant, 'cause he's not the topic here, it's the current
administration's influence of the major media.
a***@excite.com
2006-07-22 18:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:42:03 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
Post by Ubiquitous
That's nice, but try reading for meaning next time, or even better, quit
trying to blame others for Clinton's fuck ups.
Clinton balanced the budget and was paying off the national debt,
which is irrelevant, 'cause he's not the topic here, it's the current
administration's influence of the major media.
Clinton didn't balance the budget. Congress controls Federal
spending, not the President. The President isn't responsible
for "paying off" the national debt.
John Agosta
2006-07-01 03:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
Post by Ubiquitous
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
Reagan was in office when Saddam gassed his own people. Tell me what Reagan
did about it, other than look the other way because we were "friends with
Saddam?
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Sorry. Loser. Reagan was in power in 88.
Reagan wasn't president in the 1990's.
Post by cloud dreamer
You can't blame Clinton for everything.
I do love when the Angry Left try to accuse people of the very thing they
do on a routine basis. Think about that next time you try to blame Bush
for Clinton's screwups, mmkay?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
What planet are you from ?
There is nothing "victorious" about the situation in Iraq, unless of course.
the objective
was to create chaos, and cause a nation of people to wonder if they are
going to
see the next morning's sun, or get blown up this evening.
z
2006-06-13 14:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Iraq wasb gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
s***@winning.com
2006-06-25 19:59:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Iraq wasb gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
..or anything that doesn't jibe with these imbeciles' one-sided view of
the world is "liberal"..

... the "L" word -- the word that has been demonized by the same media
they rail against.

Really the most convoluted and weak of all of the neocon's claims.

There is one jack-off in these groups who uses the term "fascist
liberals"...

... now THAT'S ignorance personified. Talk about never reading a book.
Ubiquitous
2006-06-30 19:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Iraq was gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't waste our
time again in the future.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Newport
2006-07-01 00:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From: ***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
so you don't waste our time again in the future.
--------------------------------
What's your excuse?

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-07-01 01:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Newport
Post by Ubiquitous
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't
waste our time again in the future.
What's your excuse?
Obviously you're just not mentally equiped to understand what we're
discussing here. Now run along and play...
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
z
2006-07-03 13:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own people.
Iraq was gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but that was during
the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't waste our
time again in the future.
How much debating skill do I need, when your position is that "I
believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people", even though Halabja happened in March 1988. That's the problem
with the rightwingnuts; they believe they can change reality through
their brilliant debating skills, which consist mainly of calling the
other person names.
Post by Ubiquitous
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Newport
2006-07-05 06:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@snail-mail.net (z)
the problem with the rightwingnuts; they believe they can change reality
--------------------------------------
They do for themselves.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-07-06 10:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people. Iraq was gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but
that was during the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't waste our
time again in the future.
How much debating skill do I need, when your position is that "I
believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people", even though Halabja happened in March 1988.
That's pretty funny, considering how your response to what Clinton did in
the early 1990's is to try and blame Reagan for something similar. Like I
said previously, you need to work on your debating techniques so you don't
waste our time and make a fool of yourself.
Post by z
That's the problem with the rightwingnuts; they believe they can change
reality through their brilliant debating skills, which consist mainly of
calling the other person names.
But not as bad as the Angry Left's, which comsists of accusing others of
doing what they practice. Do let know when you think you're up to the task,
mmkay?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Newport
2006-07-06 10:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
don't waste our time and make a fool of yourself.
---------------------------------
Like Ubi does.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
z
2006-07-06 15:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people. Iraq was gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but
that was during the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't waste our
time again in the future.
How much debating skill do I need, when your position is that "I
believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people", even though Halabja happened in March 1988.
That's pretty funny, considering how your response to what Clinton did in
the early 1990's is to try and blame Reagan for something similar.
No, that's my response to your inability to discern reality from your
wishlist.
Ubiquitous
2006-07-22 00:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by z
Post by Ubiquitous
I believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people. Iraq was gassing the Iran army when Reagan was in office, but
that was during the Cold War.
And when reality conflicts with your beliefs, as in this case, then it
is because reality has a liberal bias.
You might want to practice your debating techniques so you don't waste
our time again in the future.
How much debating skill do I need, when your position is that "I
believe it was Clinton who was in office when he gassed his own
people", even though Halabja happened in March 1988.
That's pretty funny, considering how your response to what Clinton did in
the early 1990's is to try and blame Reagan for something similar.
No, that's my response to your inability to discern reality from your
wishlist.
Well, there you go projecting again...
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-06-15 02:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
but that was during the Cold War.
There never was a 'cold war'.... that was propaganda. Once Kennedy
stopped Soviet military aid to Cuba, any semblance of conflict was ended.
David Johnston
2006-06-15 03:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:09:05 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
but that was during the Cold War.
There never was a 'cold war'.... that was propaganda. Once Kennedy
stopped Soviet military aid to Cuba, any semblance of conflict was ended.
I'd say that the hundreds of thousands of American troops in Vietnam
were participating in a semblance of conflict.
Ubiquitous
2006-06-30 19:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
but that was during the Cold War.
There never was a 'cold war'.... that was propaganda. Once Kennedy
stopped Soviet military aid to Cuba, any semblance of conflict was ended.
Wow, you're quite the revisionist, aren't you?
Or this another example of your selective memory at work?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Rich
2006-05-25 12:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FDR
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
Are you talking about the ones that Democrats were talking about
long before Bush came onto the scene?
Try not to be so bitter about Bush actually doing something about them,
mmkay?
I can hardly wait for 20 years from now when that inflated figures
(100's of thousands) becomes "millions." B.S. propagandist leftist.
z
2006-05-25 14:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by FDR
There are mistakes like that. And then "mistakes" that get 100's of
thousands of people killed for imaginary WMD.
I can hardly wait for 20 years from now when that inflated figures
(100's of thousands) becomes "millions." B.S. propagandist leftist.
Wacky Liberals, counting Iraqis as people. I mean, come on!
Newport
2006-05-26 00:41:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@snail-mail.net (z)
Wacky Liberals, counting Iraqis as people. I mean, come on!
----------------------------------
That's our Rich.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Nanette Sherman
2006-05-17 01:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4
"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.
FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.
The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
This is getting to be a regular thing over at CNN. CNN went to President
Bush for his speech...but wait, it wasn't his speech. The president got a
bad cue from the NBC pool cameras. The video they aired was 16 seconds
long...just enough to embarrass George W. Bush. CNN called it a mistake.
Sure it was. Not one other cable or broadcast news channel aired this
false start ... but CNN did. Can you see where this might lead people to
one conclusion: somebody at CNN did it on purpose. Of course, they've done
stuff like this before...remember the black X over Cheney's face during a
speech he gave?

Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Newport
2006-05-17 22:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@cuedspeech.com (Nanette=A0Sherman) Good help is hard to find
these days.
-----------------------------------
With incompetence at the very top.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
JacquesZMonkey
2006-05-24 10:10:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nanette Sherman
remember the black X over Cheney's face during a
speech he gave?
That was just from one of his buddies shooting back.
Newport
2006-05-24 11:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@aol.com (JacquesZMonkey) That was just from one of his
buddies shooting back.
-------------------------------
Even Dick C.'s *friends* want to shoot him.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-05-26 01:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nanette Sherman
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4
"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.
FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.
The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
This is getting to be a regular thing over at CNN. CNN went to President
Bush for his speech...but wait, it wasn't his speech. The president got a
bad cue from the NBC pool cameras. The video they aired was 16 seconds
long...just enough to embarrass George W. Bush. CNN called it a mistake.
Sure it was. Not one other cable or broadcast news channel aired this
false start ... but CNN did. Can you see where this might lead people to
one conclusion: somebody at CNN did it on purpose. Of course, they've done
stuff like this before...remember the black X over Cheney's face during a
speech he gave?
Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Speaking of which, I see ABC has pulled a "Dan Rather" and fabricated a
story about Danny Hastert being investigated by the FBI wrt Jack Abramoff...
... after the FBI reported he is not under investigation. The things the
liberal media will do to get the spotlight off William Jefferson...
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Newport
2006-05-26 05:04:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
will do to get the spotlight off William Jefferson...
---------------------------
It's off. Ans what about that phoney "independent" investigation"

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-06-20 00:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Newport
Post by Ubiquitous
Speaking of which, I see ABC has pulled a "Dan Rather" and fabricated
a story about Danny Hastert being investigated by the FBI wrt Jack
Abramoff... after the FBI reported he is not under investigation. The
things the liberal media will do to get the spotlight off William
Jefferson...
It's off. Ans what about that phoney "independent" investigation"
Bitter about there not being any "Fitzmas"? My, how quickly your opinion
of that investigation changed!
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
z
2006-05-30 16:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nanette Sherman
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS "MISTAKE"
CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval
Office on Monday night!
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4
"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to
the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.
FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.
The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black
'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.
This is getting to be a regular thing over at CNN. CNN went to President
Bush for his speech...but wait, it wasn't his speech. The president got a
bad cue from the NBC pool cameras. The video they aired was 16 seconds
long...just enough to embarrass George W. Bush. CNN called it a mistake.
Sure it was. Not one other cable or broadcast news channel aired this
false start ... but CNN did. Can you see where this might lead people to
one conclusion: somebody at CNN did it on purpose. Of course, they've done
stuff like this before...remember the black X over Cheney's face during a
speech he gave?
Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Mustn't let the public see the golem being programmed. It's not polite.
Certainly nothing they need to know. Nothing to see here, go about your
business, folks.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-05-30 19:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Nanette Sherman
Post by Ubiquitous
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Mustn't let the public see the golem being programmed. It's not polite.
An idiot is an idiot, is an idiot, is an idiot. it reminds me of his 'slip'
in Florida after 911 when he told a group that he'd seen the *first*
impact on the WTC in New York. That one still has people asking
questions.

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/WellJordan.mp3

Sadly, it reads like this: (Listen and read simultaneously... it's a great laugh).


"Well Jordan you not gon'bleeve where what state I was in when I
heard about the terrrrist attack. I was in Florida. And uhh.. my Chief
of Staff, Andy Card...

"Wl'actually I was in a classroom... talkin' about a reading program,
THAT WORKS!"

"And uh... it uhhh... I had, was sittin' outside, uh, the, the classroom waiting to
go in.., and I saw an airplane hit the tower... of an, of a T, ya' know the TV was
obviously on, and I... I'm used to fly myself and I said, ...well there's one terrible
pilot. And uhh, it said it musta' been a, an horrible accident. But I was whisked
off there n'didn't have much time ta' think about it an I was sitting in the classroom
and Andy Card my Chief Of Staff who's sitting over here walked in and said,
'A second plane has hit the tower America is under attack.' "
z
2006-05-31 18:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
Post by z
Post by Nanette Sherman
Post by Ubiquitous
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Mustn't let the public see the golem being programmed. It's not polite.
An idiot is an idiot, is an idiot, is an idiot. it reminds me of his 'slip'
in Florida after 911 when he told a group that he'd seen the *first*
impact on the WTC in New York. That one still has people asking
questions.
http://www.vestigialconscience.com/WellJordan.mp3
Sadly, it reads like this: (Listen and read simultaneously... it's a great laugh).
"Well Jordan you not gon'bleeve where what state I was in when I
heard about the terrrrist attack. I was in Florida. And uhh.. my Chief
of Staff, Andy Card...
"Wl'actually I was in a classroom... talkin' about a reading program,
THAT WORKS!"
"And uh... it uhhh... I had, was sittin' outside, uh, the, the classroom waiting to
go in.., and I saw an airplane hit the tower... of an, of a T, ya' know the TV was
obviously on, and I... I'm used to fly myself and I said, ...well there's one terrible
pilot. And uhh, it said it musta' been a, an horrible accident. But I was whisked
off there n'didn't have much time ta' think about it an I was sitting in the classroom
and Andy Card my Chief Of Staff who's sitting over here walked in and said,
'A second plane has hit the tower America is under attack.' "
Blast from the past:

What is Korsakoff's syndrome?
Korsakoff's syndrome is a brain disorder that is usually associated
with heavy drinking over a long period. Although it is not strictly
speaking a dementia, people with the condition experience loss of
memory.

Who is affected?
Those affected tend to be men between the ages of 45 and 65 with a
history of alcohol abuse, though it is possible to have Korsakoff's at
an older or a younger age.

What are the symptoms?
The main symptom is memory loss, particularly of events arising after
the onset of the condition. Sometimes, memories of the more distant
past can also be affected. Other symptoms may include:
Difficulty in acquiring new information or learning new skills.
Lack of insight into the condition. Even a person with great gaps in
their memory may believe their memory is functioning normally.
Inventing events to fill the gaps in memory. This is known as
'confabulation'.
Apathy, in some cases, or talkative and repetitive behavior in others.

Treatment
The progress of Korsakoff's can be completely halted if the person
completely abstains from alcohol and adopts a healthy diet with vitamin
supplements. But improvement in memory function is slow and, usually,
incomplete.


Consider Bush's first visit to Ground Zero on Sept. 14, 2001, a story
he repeats so frequently it ought to be rote by now. Bush says the
experience remains "so vivid" in his memory that it "might as well have
happened yesterday."

When Bush first started telling the Ground Zero story in February, he
said he remembered walking through the ruins and seeing "a guy pointing
at me and saying, 'Don't let me down.'"

By March, Bush had the "guy" saying, "'Mr. President, never let me
down."

One morning in May, Bush said: "I clearly remember a guy in a hard hat"
who said, "'Don't let me down.'"

Later that same day, Bush said: "I'll never forget the firefighter that
pointed at me and said, 'Don't let me down.'"

By June, the "guy" had become a whole group of "tired firefighters and
police and rescue workers" who said, "'Don't let us down.'"

By July, the "guy" was just a guy again, but Bush couldn't remember
which kind: "I remember a fireman or a policeman, I can't remember
which one, looking me in the eyes and saying, 'Do not let me down.'"

At about the same time, the guy -- whoever he was -- started getting
physical. No longer did he merely point at the passing president; he
"grabbed me by the arm," Bush said.

One morning in July, Bush said the grabber "was a policeman or a
fireman, I don't know which one, but he had tears in his eyes."

By that afternoon, the guy had become a "firefighter" again, with
"bloodshot eyes and sweat pouring."

In early August, Bush said: "I don't know if he was a firefighter or a
policeman -- I do know that he was looking through the rubble for one
of his buddies."

A week after that, Bush said the guy had been searching for "a loved
one."

One day later, he had been searching for "somebody that he worked
with."

And the day after that, he was searching for a "buddy" again, but this
time he said: "Mr. President, do not let me down."

Two weeks later, Bush had him saying, "You don't let me down."

And on Sept. 14, 2004, "I remember a guy grabbed me the arm, a big old
burly firefighter, I guess he was a firefighter, he said: 'Do not let
me down.'"

It was, the president said, "a day I'll never forget."


Or:
"THE PRESIDENT: 'Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to
believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I
was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in
a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting
outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the
tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I
said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a
horrible accident.'"
-White House Press Release
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting
Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting
Orange County Convention Center
Orlando, Florida December 4, 2001

But he couldn't have seen it; it was not broadcast on TV, because
nobody had any reason to have a TV crew set up at the WTC. There are
only 2 videos of the first plane hitting the WTC.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70910FB3D5F0C748CDDA00894DB404482>
the first was not broadcast until the next day, the second did not
surface until years later when somebody realized what was in the
background of their home video. Furthermore, the timeline of Bush's
school visit shows that he was still en route to the school at 8:46
AM, the time of impact.

Also, notice how Bush starts to mention Andy Card, then drops Card
completely out of the story and changes his story to something
completely different.

On Dec. 20 2001, Bush told The Washington Post a completely different
story, saying that Karl Rove told him about the first plane hitting the
WTC.

But on Jan. 5 2002, Bush was back to telling audiences he saw the first
plane hit the WTC live on TV, before going in to the classroom.

Of course, the footage has since been released of Bush sitting in the
classroom when Andy Card comes in to tell him about the attack. Again,
note how Bush started to refer to Andy Card in his recollection above,
then abruptly dropped Card completely out of the story and goes with
his confabulated tale of seeing it live on TV.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-06-01 13:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
Post by z
Post by Nanette Sherman
Post by Ubiquitous
The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the
president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White
House media advisor for direction.
Then again .. it could just be a lack of skill in the control room. Good
help is hard to find these days.
Mustn't let the public see the golem being programmed. It's not polite.
An idiot is an idiot, is an idiot, is an idiot. it reminds me of his 'slip'
in Florida after 911 when he told a group that he'd seen the *first*
impact on the WTC in New York. That one still has people asking
questions.
http://www.vestigialconscience.com/WellJordan.mp3
Sadly, it reads like this: (Listen and read simultaneously... it's a great laugh).
"Well Jordan you not gon'bleeve where what state I was in when I
heard about the terrrrist attack. I was in Florida. And uhh.. my Chief
of Staff, Andy Card...
"Wl'actually I was in a classroom... talkin' about a reading program,
THAT WORKS!"
"And uh... it uhhh... I had, was sittin' outside, uh, the, the classroom waiting to
go in.., and I saw an airplane hit the tower... of an, of a T, ya' know the TV was
obviously on, and I... I'm used to fly myself and I said, ...well there's one terrible
pilot. And uhh, it said it musta' been a, an horrible accident. But I was whisked
off there n'didn't have much time ta' think about it an I was sitting in the classroom
and Andy Card my Chief Of Staff who's sitting over here walked in and said,
'A second plane has hit the tower America is under attack.' "
"THE PRESIDENT: 'Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to
believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I
was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in
a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting
outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the
tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I
said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a
horrible accident.'"
-White House Press Release
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting
Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting
Orange County Convention Center
Orlando, Florida December 4, 2001
Isn't it amazing how 'cleaned up' the official press version is? I'm just
happy that a few places have the original speech archived in audio.
As you know, it reads exactly as I've written it above.
Post by z
But he couldn't have seen it; it was not broadcast on TV, because
nobody had any reason to have a TV crew set up at the WTC. There
are only 2 videos of the first plane hitting the WTC.
I think the point that a lot of conspiracists are holding on to, is that the
president knew full well what was going to happen that day. "America
is under attack," so let's read a book to children and dally around the
countryside exposed to the enemy.
Post by z
Also, notice how Bush starts to mention Andy Card, then drops Card
completely out of the story and changes his story to something
completely different.
Since he was answering a child's question, some think that he could not
resist the childish urge to brag about his insightful foreknowledge. It would
appear that he had a pre-planned speech, or a response being fed to him
by earpiece which he veered away from. As the audio proves, once he
returned to the preplanned speech after stuttering his way through the
verbal blunder, he was able to get through a huge, run-on sentence
without a single stumble.
Post by z
On Dec. 20 2001, Bush told The Washington Post a completely different
story, saying that Karl Rove told him about the first plane hitting the
WTC.
DIS-information is key to confusing an issue and covering up the truth.
Post by z
But on Jan. 5 2002, Bush was back to telling audiences he saw the first
plane hit the WTC live on TV, before going in to the classroom.
Bumbling fool? (I am tending to side with those who believe that he
may have actually seen it).
Post by z
Of course, the footage has since been released of Bush sitting in the
classroom when Andy Card comes in to tell him about the attack. Again,
note how Bush started to refer to Andy Card in his recollection above,
then abruptly dropped Card completely out of the story and goes with
his confabulated tale of seeing it live on TV.
If in fact the government *was* complicit in the events of 911, there
were a large number of possible ways that the president could have
been piped the event... but on a television in the hallways of a school
building is not one of them.
rst
2006-05-26 17:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is the best thing right wing buffoons can come up with to "prove"
the media is somehow "liberal".

People like this Ubiquitous person -- who have no idea what really goes
on in a newsroom-- make me laugh.
Newport
2006-05-26 20:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@ziplip.com (rst)
People like this Ubiquitous person
-------------------------------
Person or just computer-generated?

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2006-06-08 21:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rst
This is the best thing right wing buffoons can come up with to "prove"
the media is somehow "liberal".
I hate to break the news to you, but it's already been proven.
Post by rst
People like this Ubiquitous person -- who have no idea what really goes
on in a newsroom-- make me laugh.
I know a lot more about it than you think I do.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2006-06-08 21:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by rst
People like this Ubiquitous person -- who have no idea what really goes
on in a newsroom-- make me laugh.
I know a lot more about it than you think I do.
Sure.... about terrorism no doubt.
Newport
2006-06-09 17:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ya think Ubi's a terrorist?

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2007-03-01 17:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
An interesting exchange from an interview on PBS's "Frontline" with Len
Downie, executive editor of the Washington Post:

_Every person we speak with who would identify themselves [sic]
as a conservative journalist says: "Bias? If you think we're
biased, look at The Washington Post, that liberal newspaper."_

All I can say is that people just need to read us and then decide
whether we're liberal or not. We're an independent newspaper.
We have a strict separation, between the editorial page--which,
last I heard, is a supporter, for instance, of the Iraq war
and considered by many liberals to be rather conservative--and
our news gathering.

In our news gathering, we seek to be strictly nonpartisan and
onideological. We're human beings, we make mistakes, but we do
not set out to be, nor do I think we are, liberal. And judging
from my e-mail traffic in recent years, the left is much more
critical, and much more angrily critical, of our coverage than
the right has been.

The implication of that last comment is that because the left is angrier
than the right with the Post, the Post must not be biased toward the left.
But this is a non sequitur. It seems to us more likely that (a) the Post is
biased toward the left, but not biased enough to satisfy the Angry Left,
(b) the left is angrier at this moment than the right is.

But note how the Angry Left's anger bolsters Downie's complacency: Both
left and right accuse the Post of bias, therefore the Post must not be
biased. We've long argued that the liberal media ill-serve liberal
politicians by reflecting rather than challenging their prejudices (see
this article, for example: http://tinyurl.com/2d8764). By making it easier
for journalists to deny that they are biased, the Angry Left may be
exacerbating this problem.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
David Morgan (MAMS)
2007-03-01 22:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But note how the Angry Left....
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.....
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the
Angry Left
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.....
have been attempting to turn our military victory
VICTORY !?!?!?!?!?!?! Hahahahahahahaha....
in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Too bad for you that it's true... and this .sig file continues to show
your shill/pundit attitude and your ignorance & denial of that truth.

Get a life.....
Ubiquitous
2007-04-01 22:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
But note how the Angry Left....
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.....
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the
Angry Left
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.....
Thanks for agreeing with me. If it quacks like a duck...
Post by David Morgan (MAMS)
have been attempting to turn our military victory
VICTORY !?!?!?!?!?!?! Hahahahahahahaha....
in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Too bad for you that it's true... and this .sig file continues to show
your shill/pundit attitude and your ignorance & denial of that truth.
I do love when the Angry Left accuse others of the very thing they do,
but you really need to quit ignoring historical fact.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
David Johnston
2007-03-01 22:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
An interesting exchange from an interview on PBS's "Frontline" with Len
_Every person we speak with who would identify themselves [sic]
as a conservative journalist says: "Bias? If you think we're
biased, look at The Washington Post, that liberal newspaper."_
All I can say is that people just need to read us and then decide
whether we're liberal or not. We're an independent newspaper.
We have a strict separation, between the editorial page--which,
last I heard, is a supporter, for instance, of the Iraq war
and considered by many liberals to be rather conservative--and
our news gathering.
In our news gathering, we seek to be strictly nonpartisan and
onideological. We're human beings, we make mistakes, but we do
not set out to be, nor do I think we are, liberal. And judging
from my e-mail traffic in recent years, the left is much more
critical, and much more angrily critical, of our coverage than
the right has been.
The implication of that last comment is that because the left is angrier
than the right with the Post, the Post must not be biased toward the left.
But this is a non sequitur. It seems to us more likely that (a) the Post is
biased toward the left, but not biased enough to satisfy the Angry Left,
(b) the left is angrier at this moment than the right is.
I dunno. You're sounding pretty angry.
Steve Newport
2007-03-02 04:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Political Theatre of the Absurd: a right-winger calling a left-winger
"angry."

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
2007-03-02 17:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Political Theatre of the Absurd: a right-winger calling a left-winger
"angry."
----------------------------------------
Also a definition of "irony."

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2007-04-01 22:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ubiquitous
An interesting exchange from an interview on PBS's "Frontline" with Len
_Every person we speak with who would identify themselves [sic]
as a conservative journalist says: "Bias? If you think we're
biased, look at The Washington Post, that liberal newspaper."_
All I can say is that people just need to read us and then decide
whether we're liberal or not. We're an independent newspaper.
We have a strict separation, between the editorial page--which,
last I heard, is a supporter, for instance, of the Iraq war
and considered by many liberals to be rather conservative--and
our news gathering.
In our news gathering, we seek to be strictly nonpartisan and
onideological. We're human beings, we make mistakes, but we do
not set out to be, nor do I think we are, liberal. And judging
from my e-mail traffic in recent years, the left is much more
critical, and much more angrily critical, of our coverage than
the right has been.
The implication of that last comment is that because the left is angrier
than the right with the Post, the Post must not be biased toward the left.
But this is a non sequitur. It seems to us more likely that (a) the Post is
biased toward the left, but not biased enough to satisfy the Angry Left,
(b) the left is angrier at this moment than the right is.
I dunno. You're sounding pretty angry.
It's called "projection".
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Steve Newport
2007-04-03 02:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
It's called "projection".
--------------------------------
When one speaks loudly in the legitimate theatre.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2007-04-11 13:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes" interviewed John McCain for Sunday's program, and
he put this question to the senator:

We've talked about the majority of Americans wanting out
of Iraq at this point. I wonder at what point do you stop
doing what you think is right and you start doing what the
majority of the American people want?

Wow. Did any reporter ever ask this of an antiwar politician in 2003, when the
war was popular? For that matter, has any reporter ever asked a politician
this question when the politician is on the liberal side of an issue and the
majority on the conservative side?
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
Steve Newport
2007-04-11 14:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From: ***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
"We've talked about the majority of Americans wanting out of Iraq at
this point. I wonder at what point do start doing what the majority of
the American people want?" Did any reporter ever ask this in 2003?
--------------------------------------
The investigative media took far too long to start doing their jobs.
Many reporters now openly admit it.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
David Johnston
2007-04-11 21:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes" interviewed John McCain for Sunday's program, and
We've talked about the majority of Americans wanting out
of Iraq at this point. I wonder at what point do you stop
doing what you think is right and you start doing what the
majority of the American people want?
Wow. Did any reporter ever ask this of an antiwar politician in 2003, when the
war was popular?
Since there were no antiwar politicians in a position do do anything
about it in 2003, would such a question be relevant? Supposing for a
moment that in some alternate universe that HypotheticAl Gore was
elected President and then had 9/11 happen, and instead of invading
had chosen to hold back and engage in a long and fruitless attempt to
get Afghanistan to cooperate in rounding up OBL, I rather suspect the
liberal press would indeed be asking that question to supporters of
HypotheticAl Gore as poll results came in saying "Let's attack! Let's
attack now!". Having the presidency puts you in the hotseat. It puts
you in the hotseat no matter which party you are of, or who controls
Congress. The media are always going to put pressure on you and your
supporters, "liberal" or not.
Steve Newport
2007-04-11 22:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@block.net (David=A0Johnston)
Supposing for a moment that Al Gore was elected President
-----------------------------------
He was.


O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Ubiquitous
2017-09-15 01:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The broadcast network evening newscasts remain as hostile as ever towards
President Trump and his agenda, although the networks appear to be easing up
on their obsessive wall-to-wall coverage of the administration.

Since Inauguration Day (January 20), Media Research Center analysts have
reviewed every mention of President Trump and top administration officials on
ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News,
including weekends. As of August 31, coverage of the administration has
totaled nearly 74 hours (4,418 minutes) of airtime, or about 39 percent of
all evening news coverage.

For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015
and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the
available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more
coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two
years as President.

Analyzing the networks’ spin makes it clear that the goal of all of this
heavy coverage is not to promote the President, but to punish him. In June,
July and August, broadcast evening news coverage of Trump was 91 percent
negative — worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated
during the first three months of the administration, usually a traditional
honeymoon period for new presidents.

Methodology: Our measure of spin was designed to isolate the
networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan
politics. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely
showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting
Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied
evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or
negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts
presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements
from the networks’ own reporters.

Using these criteria, MRC analysts tallied 1,567 evaluative
statements about the Trump administration in June, July and
August, of which 1,422 (91%) were negative vs. a mere 145 (9%)
which were positive. Since Trump took office on January 20,
there have been 4,144 such evaluative statements, of which
3,712 (90%) were negative, vs. 432 (10%) which were positive.

The networks’s aggressive anti-Trump spin has been constant throughout 2017,
as it was during the presidential campaign last year. The closest the evening
newscasts came to achieving balanced coverage was in April, when a few
reporters and analysts praised the President’s use of cruise missiles to
punish the Syrian regime for a chemical weapons attack. Yet network coverage
that month was still skewed against Trump by a greater than four-to-one ratio
(82% negative, vs. 18% positive).

The rate of TV coverage has been intense. Early in the year, the networks
focused on the Trump presidency as if it were a national crisis, with White
House news consuming almost half (49%) of all evening news airtime in
January, February and March. That rate subsided in April and May (see chart),
and has averaged 32 percent over the past three months — more than triple the
rate of coverage of the last two years of the Obama administration (10%), but
a significant decline compared to the earliest days of the administration.

It remains to be seen whether this drop in Trump presidential coverage is
permanent, or merely reflects the traditional decline in political news
during the summer months.

Four topics consumed more than half (53%) of all Trump news from June to
August. The networks’ favorite topic was the ongoing Russia investigation,
which consumed 415 minutes of airtime (27% of all Trump news) during the past
three months. But the frenzied coverage of late spring has abated. In June,
the three evening newscasts devoted 236 minutes to the probe; that fell to
140 minutes in July and just 40 minutes in August.

The failed attempt to repeal ObamaCare was the second-most frequent topic,
with 176 minutes of coverage this summer. During these same months, Trump’s
handling of the crisis with North Korea was the focus of 136 minutes of
coverage, while his response to the violence in Charlottesville drew 97
minutes of coverage.

The Russia investigation was also the source of most of the negative comments
about Team Trump — 322 negative vs. 21 positive statements, yielding a 94%
bad press score. Evening news coverage of the effort to repeal and replace
ObamaCare was just as negative as the President’s much-maligned statements
about the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. There were slightly
more negative statements about the GOP health care replacement bill (240)
than the comments about Charlottesville (213), with virtually no positive
statements on either topic, for a matching score of 97% bad press.

A key difference, of course, is that the ObamaCare coverage unfolded over the
course of the spring and summer, while the Charlottesville coverage was
contained in an intense week of coverage in mid-August.

There was far less media spin regarding President’s handling of the showdown
with North Korea, with only 57 negative statements and nine positive ones,
for an 86% bad press score. Most of the coverage has actually been neutral,
with the negative press clustered around Trump’s “fire and fury” threat to
the North in early August.

The networks’ aggression in covering Trump contrasts with their docile, often
adoring coverage of President Obama. Both Presidents are, of course, highly
controversial — the key difference is that Obama’s policies matched the
liberal media’s preferences, while Trump’s agenda clearly clashes with the
establishment media’s world view.

On Friday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin gave the game away when
he admitted that Trump “will get good coverage, if he works with Democrats,
for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a
lot of people in the media like.” All Presidents deserve critical news
coverage from time to time, but the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump has
seen thus far is as much a reflection of the media’s ideological bias as
anything else.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-09-20 01:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last March, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin argued
that the Obama administration had ordered surveillance on the Trump
campaign and that there was evidence to suggest information gathered
during that surveillance was leaked to harm Donald Trump
politically.

Monday’s report that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
was wiretapped by the Obama administration before and after the
election confirmed what Levin had said, proving Levin’s analysis —
which was meticulously detailed and came from mainstream media
sources — was correct.

But back in March, the mainstream media dismissed Levin’s claims out
of hand. Levin was labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” the
“overwhelming” evidence Levin presented in great detail was largely
ignored, and Levin’s integrity was attacked viciously in the media.

Instead of following up on the evidence Levin presented:
1.ABC’s Brian Ross called Levin “a conspiracy-loving talk show
host.”

2.The Washington Post claimed Levin was “confounded” or “trying to
confound everyone who listens to him.”

3.Writing for the Post, Chris Cillizza labeled Levin’s claims a
“conspiracy theory” and wrote of his evidence: “The proof that all —
or any — of these events are tied together by actual facts as
opposed to supposition is not offered.”

4.The New York Daily News declared Levin “the conservative radio
host behind Trump’s wiretap conspiracy theory.”

5.CNN’s Brian Stelter accused Levin of having “cherry-picked news
stories that supported his thesis and omitted information that cut
against it.”

6.The New York Times called Levin’s detailed argument a
“conspiratorial rant.”

7.The L.A. Times said Levin advanced his claims against the Obama
administration “without evidence” and labeled it a “conspiracy
theory.”

8.The Guardian pointed at Levin as “the talkshow [sic] host behind
the baseless Obama wiretap rumor.”

9.The Daily Beast smeared Levin as “a perpetually angry conservative
media star and commentator who too often enjoys indulging in wild
claims and grand conspiracy-theorizing.”

10.The Atlantic referred to the matter as “Levin and Breitbart’s
conspiracy theory.”

11.The Associated Press falsely claimed that Levin “voiced without
evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.”


Well, now Levin has been vindicated, and these media outlets look
like fools. The mainstream media reaction to Levin’s accurate claims
is a sterling case in point for why Americans don’t trust the media.
--
Nick Gillispie describes the Obama-era media as "more prone to being
lapdogs than watchdogs." That has a nice ring to it, but it seems to
us the metaphor is a little off. The pro-Obama media are acting like
watchdogs--but watchdogs whose master is Obama rather than the
public.
FPP
2017-09-21 00:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Last March, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin argued
that the Obama administration had ordered surveillance on the Trump
campaign and that there was evidence to suggest information gathered
during that surveillance was leaked to harm Donald Trump
politically.
A warrant was issued by a Federal Judge for surveillance of Manafort & Co.
That isn't politics. That's Law Enforcement.
--
So... Trumpcare dead, defeated. Flynn resigns, shamed. (Kellyanne)
ConJob marginalized. Giuliani, Christie vanish. This Milo (Yiannopoulos)
kid loses book, job. CPAC expels (Richard) Spencer. WHO's winning?
-Keith Olbermann
Ubiquitous
2017-09-28 11:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why didn't TV networks show angry, booing NFL fans Sunday or Monday?
By Michael McCarthy

With President Donald Trump's attacks against protesting NFL players still
reverberating, the league's TV partners decided to air live coverage of the
national anthem before Week 3 games. Those partners left out a key element of
the coverage: crowd shots of angry fans.

Networks typically do not televise the national anthem except for the Super
Bowl and other special occasions, but they recognized there would be intense
viewer interest this past weekend.

Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
The audio mics picked up the boos. Yet the TV networks mostly avoided crowd
shots Sunday, so there was never a chance for viewers to see fans jeering
players.

A segment of Patriots fans in Foxborough, Mass., for example, nearly booed
their own players off the field when some Pats sat or kneeled, with some
screaming, "Stand up!"

WATCH: Patriots fans boo their team during anthem protest in wake of
Trump's comments. More from @arniestapleton:
https://t.co/5dfjstwRJs pic.twitter.com/kvLmSzG28w
— AP NFL (@AP_NFL) September 24, 2017

One behind-the-scenes TV staffer at another stadium told Sporting News that
camera operators were ordered to avoid crowd shots in case they showed fans
counterprotesting the protests.

NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports and ESPN pay billions each year to televise
live NFL games. The league saw this weekend's unprecedented anthem coverage as
a golden opportunity to demonstrate unity among players, coaches and owners --
and opposition to Trump's comments.

If crowd shots were indeed purposely avoided, it was a wise business decision
by the networks not to bite the hand that feeds them their most popular
programming, but a weak move from a journalistic standpoint. By covering one
of the most significant days in NFL history with rose-colored glasses, the
networks cheated viewers. We got an incomplete picture of what really happened
in stadiums on Sunday and Monday.

Yes, the main television focus should have been on the players, coaches and
owners sitting, kneeling or linking arms. But fans hold the ultimate power
over the networks and the league, and they were missing in action during
coverage.

CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Sabatelle told Sporting News no one at her network
was instructed to ignore the crowd.

"The anthem was covered by each crew in their own way, with many choosing to
stay with what was happening on the field," Sabatelle said. "There was no
directive given to not show the fans."

And yet, fans were hardly shown, much less interviewed, by NFL networks
Sunday.

During ESPN's "Monday Night Football" telecast of the Cowboys-Cardinals in
Glendale, Ariz., play-by-play announcer Sean McDonough noted, "Boos can be
heard from this sellout crowd" as Jerry Jones and the Cowboys collectively
took a knee.

But we never saw any of these frustrated spectators. Were they booing both
teams for protesting? Just booing the visiting Cowboys? Both? We got only one
quick shot of a fan holding Old Glory while Jordin Sparks sang "The Star-
Spangled Banner."

The booing at the NFL football game last night, when the entire
Dallas team dropped to its knees, was loudest I have ever heard.
Great anger
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

ESPN declined to comment, but a source said there was no edict from Bristol,
that it's up to the director of the "MNF" game telecast to make the call from
the production truck on what shots to use.

During NBC's telecast of "Sunday Night Football" in Landover, Md., we got
plenty close-up views of Raiders and Redskins sitting or linking arms during
the anthem. The fans were strictly in the background.

Fans booing Jets and Dolphins players were loud and clear during CBS's
telecast from East Rutherford, N.J. But we never saw them. Instead, we got a
lot of field-level shots of linked arms players and saluting police officers.

Thought I heard boos as #Jets +#Dolphins knelt or took a knee during
playing of national anthem. CBS avoided crowd shots. Anybody @MetLife?
— Michael McCarthy (@MMcCarthyREV) September 24, 2017

During the singing of the anthem before Giants-Eagles at Lincoln Financial
Field in Philadelphia, Fox stuck to up-close, ground-up shots of players,
coaches and owners. The only image of fans was one long shot showing them
clapping before the network cut to commercial.

Again, the story of fans who were not enamored of Sunday's anthem protests
were out there if TV networks wanted to show us. The reactions of those fans
should have been a bigger story.

In Detroit, a contingent of Lions fans booed their own players when they
protested for racial justice, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Perhaps it's unfair to judge networks by strict journalistic standards since
they are effectively billion-dollar business partners with the league. But
viewers shouldn't have to go to social media or local newspapers to find out
what really happens inside stadiums.

We're all big boys and girls. The sky isn't going to fall if networks show the
booing of protesting players.

Plenty of people are dubious about the league's real aim in all of this. Does
it really support the players' rights to protest, or was the emphasis on
"Unity" a self-serving PR ploy by a league seeking to deflect attention from
the real causes of Kaepernick's protest?

Deadspin's Tom Ley, for example, called BS on "Choose Your Side" Sunday: "The
NFL is literally using this for brand marketing."

Next time, the networks showing NFL games should keep it real. Give us the
truth, as uncomfortable as that might be, and not the glossy, Hallmark card-
version the NFL wants us to see.
--
Nick Gillispie describes the Obama-era media as "more prone to being
lapdogs than watchdogs." That has a nice ring to it, but it seems to
us the metaphor is a little off. The pro-Obama media are acting like
watchdogs--but watchdogs whose master is Obama rather than the
public.
FPP
2017-09-28 13:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
The audio mics picked up the boos.
Booing at a football game?
I'm shocked!

And you're a moron.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Byker
2017-10-05 19:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sept. 24 a 25-year-old black man allegedly born in Sudan shot up the
Burnette Chapel of Christ in Antioch, TN. He killed 38-year-old Melanie Crow
Smith and wounded at least eight others, including himself.

Among the wounded were the church’s minister Joey Spann and his wife Peggy.

Police took accused gunman Emanuel Kidega Samson to the hospital, where he
was treated for injuries before being returned into custody.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/24/nashville-police-responding-
shooting-antioch-church/697968001/

Samson’s social-media posts reveal a deeply disgruntled black man obsessed
with black-identity politics and white supremacy and police brutality and
all the other topics that ensure that black men who myopically fixate on
them and never pause to smell the roses may ruin their chance at ever
escaping their chronic disgruntlement and embarking on a new life blessed
with never-ending waves of gruntling and regruntling.
http://gotnews.com/breaking-antioch-shooter-black-power-radical-posted-youre-
likely-killed-white-man/

The major American news media has wisely chosen not to make a big deal out
of this story for fear that it might unnecessarily cause racial tension...

http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_s5f9xu_--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--
Ubiquitous
2017-10-11 01:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.

In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”

According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
. . . my imprint is on every video we do.”

Dudich goes on to display his hatred for President Donald Trump and explains
how he is trying to destroy him:

I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and
Eric. ...

Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott ...
So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and
you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his
business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other
things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being
President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something
incredibly illegal, which he would have to.

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the
anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

Dudich also claims in the video that he “used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon
a time” and appeared to suggest that he has attacked people.

WATCH:

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-11 01:28:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.
No? Really!
You clowns are falling for it? Again?

What is Lil' Jimmie dressing up as today?--
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
FPP
2017-10-11 03:24:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.
In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”
According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
. . . my imprint is on every video we do.”
Yeah... that may be a bit of a stretch. He was in a junior position,
and he re-posted already published videos. That's some big fish you've
got there...

"Based on what we've seen in the Project Veritas video, it appears that
a recent hire in a junior position violated our ethical standards and
misrepresented his role," the paper said. "In his role at The Times, he
was responsible for posting already published video on other platforms
and was never involved in the creation or editing of Times videos."

So Lil' Jimmie found somebody that doesn't like Trump?
Shit! I could have helped him with that!

Let's start with the guy who called Trump "a fucking moron".
What was his name again? Oh, yeah... "Mr. Secretary.
--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins
Ubiquitous
2017-10-16 10:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Geraldo Rivera said his trip to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria confirmed
how badly biased the press is against President Trump.

"Having seen how he was treated in Puerto Rico and then seeing the press
about how he was treated in Puerto Rico it was almost an absolute 100
percent disconnect," the Fox News contributor told "Fox & Friends" on
Saturday.

Rivera visited Puerto Rico and interviewed the president and first lady as
they surveyed storm relief efforts in the devastated country.

He remembered crowds who were "ebullient" about the president's visit.

The federal government's response to Hurricane Maria has been far better
than it is given credit for, he continued.

"This president has the worst relationship not only with the press but with
those on the other side of the aisle that I have seen since Richard Nixon,"
Rivera said.

"He does not get the benefit of the doubt for anything. Anything he does is
construed in the most wicked, negative way possible."

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/10/14/694940094001_5610554987001_5610554664001.mp4
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-19 01:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Late on Tuesday evening, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL), one of the
more radical members of the House of Representatives, told the media
that one of her constituents, Myeshia Johnson, had been called by
President Trump. Johnson is the widow of one of the soldiers, Sgt.
La David Johnson, killed in Niger two weeks ago. According to ABC
News:

In an interview with CNN Tuesday night, the Democratic
congresswoman said of Trump's comment about Sgt. Johnson:
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed
up for. But I guess it still hurt.' That's what he said."
When asked by ABC Miami affiliate WPLG if she was sure that
is what she heard Trump say, Wilson responded, "Yeah, he
said that. To me that is something that you can say in a
conversation, but you shouldn’t say that to a grieving
widow. And everyone knows when you go to war, you could
possibly not come back alive. But you don’t remind a
grieving widow of that. That’s so insensitive."

President Trump fired back on Twitter:

Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to
the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof).
Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2017

Which led Wilson to return fire: “the president is evidently lying …
I have proof too, this man is a sick man.”

The media are running with the story; Wilson was, after all, present
on speakerphone during the conversation. But the level of initial,
unchallenged credibility accorded to Wilson is somewhat troubling.
It is worth noting that back in May, Wilson stated that Trump was
“on the brink of impeachment”; she made her national name by wearing
colorful hats and crusading for the imprisonment of George Zimmerman
in the Trayvon Martin case. She’s an ardent opponent of Trump’s.
Just two days ago, President Trump enraged his opponents by stating
(in evidence-free fashion) that President Obama did not call the
families of slain American troops; it’s rather convenient that
within 48 hours, an ardent Democrat would come up with a quote from
Trump proving his lack of compassion to those same family members.

It’s entirely possible that Trump said what Wilson alleges. But
we’re not hearing anything from Myeshia Johnson, who should be the
one making this allegation. And we’re not seeing a transcript or
hearing a recording. Which means that once again, we’re stuck in he
said-she said land, where various partisan players can choose
whether or not to believe their political favorites.

Here’s the position we should all be taking: we don’t know yet. We
can have our suspicions, but we simply don’t know. Even Wilson’s
replay of the conversation is a paraphrase, and there are ellipses
in her quotes that do a lot of heavy lifting. Did Trump say that
Johnson “knew what he signed up for” in response to something
Johnson’s wife said? Did he say something else that got lost in the
ellipses? We just don’t know.

So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-19 11:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
It's a very, very short jump.
--
"Take a Tic-Tac and grab 'em by the pussy is the closest thing to a plan
Donald Trump has described this entire election." -Samantha Bee
NoBody
2017-10-20 11:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
Yeah but what about Trump?
Ubiquitous
2017-10-22 23:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or
that Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
Yeah but what about Trump?
Heh.

So it turns out that rodeo clown proved herself to be a liar again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-20 11:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-23 11:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.
Nobody believes anything coming out of the White House, or the
Leadership of either House.

President Weinstein has seen to that.
--
"The 2016 Republican Party Platform... it's not so much a platform, as
it is the Republican Party's suicide note." -S. Bee
Ubiquitous
2017-10-22 23:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly
sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the
media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.

“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to
1981.

Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump
is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian
collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think
there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes,
or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before
he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.

Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First”
strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international
relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes
Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant
character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not
going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming
forward.”

Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic
mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.

“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they
want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s
influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so
far as I know, been to China.”

He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”

In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a
legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address
the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought
to the country illegally as children.

Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the
publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even
yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.

He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major
immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald
Reagan.

“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that
Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he
does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-23 11:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly
sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the
media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to
1981.
Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump
is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”
The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian
collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think
there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes,
or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before
he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.
Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First”
strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international
relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes
Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant
character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not
going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming
forward.”
Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic
mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.
“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they
want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s
influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so
far as I know, been to China.”
He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”
In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a
legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address
the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought
to the country illegally as children.
Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the
publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even
yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.
He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major
immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald
Reagan.
“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that
Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he
does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.
Cozying up to Carter now? Yeah... no hypocrisy, there...
--
"The 2016 Republican Party Platform... it's not so much a platform, as
it is the Republican Party's suicide note." -S. Bee
FPP
2017-10-26 11:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
Nine. 9.
--
"The 2016 Republican Party Platform... it's not so much a platform, as
it is the Republican Party's suicide note." -S. Bee
Ubiquitous
2017-10-27 00:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
Nine. 9.
Nonresponse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-26 09:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here's one top takeaway from network news coverage in 2017: Sneaky Russian
influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves
Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary
Clinton.

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage of the Trump
administration since Inauguration Day. From Inauguration Day, January 20,
through last Friday, October 20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing
1,000 minutes of coverage discussing Russia's attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump's campaign may have colluded with the
Russians in this project.

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

According to an October 22 story by The Hill's John Solomon and Alison
Spann, FBI agents "were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check
that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in
the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped
arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin's
efforts to build his own country's version of Silicon Valley, agents said."

According to the same article: "'There is not one shred of doubt from the
evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary
Clinton's circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset
strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,' said a source
familiar with the FBI's evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of
anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media."

In fact, from April 2015 through last night, the Clinton/Uranium/Russia
story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage -
less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year
to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia.

ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News have been the most
intensive, churning out 350 minutes and 381 minutes of evening news coverage
of the Trump/Russia story, respectively, while the NBC Nightly News aired a
relatively restrained 269 minutes of coverage since January 20. (Note: These
statistics include weekend broadcasts, when aired in the Washington D.C.
area.)


Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of
coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the
Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news
this year.

There's no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors in exchange for
all of the cash going their way, but there's no proof that Trump and his
campaign team did anything wrong vis a vis Russia, either - yet the media
have made it their business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and
his presidency.

Now that they have a chance to be equally zealous in applying the same
standard to a Democrat, it's obvious that much of the media's interest in
the Trump/Russia story has less to do with Russia's attempts to infiltrate
our government and politics, and more to with a partisan news agenda.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-26 23:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
Nine. 9.
--
"Tinkle, tinkle little Czar, Putin put you where you are." -George Takei
Ubiquitous
2017-10-27 00:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
Nine. 9.
Nonresposnse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-27 01:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
on the Russia collusion story. The endless crusade to find the
smoking gun that links the Trump campaign colluding with Russian
intelligence operatives has only ended with delivering buckshot in
the Democrats’ direction. The latest bombshell in this story doesn’t
even have to do with Trump, though his name is on the dossier, it’s
the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Marc Elias, a lawyer for both entities, retained Fusion GPS, who
then used ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele to gather information
on Trump. He used sources outside and inside the Russian foreign
ministry and intelligence community to compile the unverified
documents that has served as one of the reasons why we have ex-FBI
Director Robert Mueller looking into the allegations of collusion,
acting as special counsel.

Former Bush aide Ari Fleischer noted that the DNC-funded this
outing, and the Russians gave Steele information which could be
construed as collusion, no? And the Democrats only funded Steele.
So, it seems there could be a Hillary/Russia angle. The Uranium One
deal, which has been fraught with pay-to-play allegations is also
back into the mix since we now know that the Obama administration
and the FBI knew the Kremlin was bribing their way to control the
Canadian mining company—Uranium One. The Obama administration kept
things quiet since they didn’t want to not upset the Russian reset.
The Russians took over the company in 2013, and its mining sites in
the U.S. It gave them control of 1/5 of our uranium supply. The
Committee on Foreign Investment, which oversees deals that could
impact America’s national security priorities, approved the transfer
of the majority stake to the Russians that led to the takeover of
Uranium One. During the process, Bill Clinton got a $500,000 check
for a speech from a Russian bank selling Uranium One futures. The
Clinton Foundation got $2.35 million from the then-chairman of
Uranium One. Hillary was secretary of state at the time, one of the
principals on the committee.

Yet, only a mere 20 seconds has been devoted to that development,
while at least 1,000 hours of coverage has been given to the ‘Trump
is the Manchurian Candidate’ hysteria. That constitutes one-fifth of
all the coverage the big three—ABC, NBC, and CBS—has given to this
administration. Rich Noyes at the Media Research Center broke it
down:

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage
of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day. From
Inauguration Day, January 20, through last Friday, October
20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing 1,000 minutes
of coverage discussing Russia’s attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump’s campaign may have
colluded with the Russians in this project.

[…]

According to an October 22 story by The Hill’s John Solomon
and Alison Spann, FBI agents “were surprised by the timing
and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank
provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer
of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton
helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow
to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s
version of Silicon Valley, agents said.”

According to the same article: “‘There is not one shred of
doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had
set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she
was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and
the assumed successor to Obama as president,’ said a source
familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only
on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to
speak to the news media.”

Imagine $500,000 in Russian money being paid for a speech
delivered by Donald Trump or a member of his family. But
Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news
coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s
This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first
disclosed the potential scandal.

[…]

There’s no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors
in exchange for all of the cash going their way, but there’s
no proof that Trump and his campaign team did anything wrong
vis a vis Russia, either — yet the media have made it their
business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and his
presidency.

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/hv/images/2017/299/43acd47d-
2a23-4232-9d04-053568527d16.png

On the Clinton funding the Trump dossier development, Kristine Marsh
added that ABC News gave a mere 31 seconds to the story, but devoted
10 minutes to the meeting Donald Trump, Jr. had with a Russian
lawyer in June of 2016, which turned out to be nothing.

The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed about this Uranium One
revival, snarkily calling it the “silence of the scams.”

The Rosatom [the Russian state-owned corporation that took
over Uranium One] director named Arkady Dvorkovich, was “a
top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one
of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on
Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14,
2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president
wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents
show,” wrote the Hill.

Mr. Clinton ended up meeting with Russian strongman Vladimir
Putin instead. The Russians ended up getting control of the
uranium. The sale benefited donors to the Clinton
Foundation, which failed to disclose some of the money
donated as required by an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama Administration.

To The New York Times’ credit, they did devote a lengthy article to
this story back in 2015. Yes, it’s par for the course concerning the
duration of the coverage—and the old “if this were a Republican’
game never gets old. It doesn’t make it any less infuriating.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-10-27 23:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
on the Russia collusion story.
Nope. We all know you won't believe anything that contradicts your
dogma, that's all.
--
"Tinkle, tinkle little Czar, Putin put you where you are." -George Takei
Loading...