At what point does the Bush presidency become intolerable?

WhoNut · Post by **WhoNut** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:14 am

I don't generally post in or create politically motivated threads, but I feel that the Bush term has become completely ridiculous. Both sides of the aisle should be outraged.

How long will it be before a majority of the country decides that invading Iraq was a huge mistake?

What is life like in Afghanistan right now?

Why is John Ashcroft busting head shops?

How did all of those contractors get into Iraq?

What did Bush know about the WTC attacks before they happened?

Are my freedoms, once assured by the constitution, now gone forever?

Unless you're well connected, you should be pissed!

BTW, I have a lot more questions.

fastspaz · Post by **fastspaz** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:18 am

oh boy, let the flamming begin!!! (sp?)

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:37 am

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:43 am

You need to add...

The locking up of the Regan archives.....Why?

The Energy Sessions held behind closed doors..Why?

The all of a sudden pulling away from his old friend, Kenny Lay...Why? Obvious of course..

Paul O'Neil leaving his post....Why? (I don't buy O'Neils bs story)

The out and out lying to the American public to garner support for invading Iraq..

And there is more.........much more......

Not that the news media doesn't have a hand in white washing all this either..

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually I'm starting to wonder if he's not really just a patsy...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ashcroft will be in Idaho, to bash the only Republican to publicly go against the Patriot act.....Go Otter...a man with spine..

WhoNut · Post by **WhoNut** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:46 am

Like I said DH, I have a LOT more questions.

Jim,

You have increased the size of "My Pictures" folder by one.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:50 am

I don't care what anyone says I'm still voting for Jesus Christ as a write-in.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:51 am

Originally posted by agentbeast
I don't care what anyone says I'm still voting for Jesus Christ as a write-in.

LOL....did you miss Cyber's post, yesterday?

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:53 am

Originally posted by downhill
LOL....did you miss Cyber's post, yesterday?

Aparently so, I miss alot around here it seems

Thankfully so.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:55 am

Originally posted by agentbeast
Aparently so, I miss alot around here it seems Thankfully so.

http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread ... did=122673

Looks like the image was jerked, but scrolling down, you can get the gist of it..

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:59 am

Originally posted by downhill
http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread ... did=122673

Looks like the image was jerked, but scrolling down, you can get the gist of it..

It seems I did not miss that thread

Interestingly enough that image did cross my mind before I originally posted in this thread, but I am still going to put Jesus Christ in as a write-in.

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:15 am

wow.

no one opposes?

(kinda like that thread about DU. After I took the time to really research the topic, the people who opposed me let the thread die.)

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:35 am

I take Bush any day over Clinton...

most of the stuff mentioned is nothing at all, no illegal or anything

If you dont like Bush vote him out in 2004, better hope Democats pull in Mrs. Clinton or no way they will win

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:32 am

I guess my opinion revolves around the emotional attachment people feel to bush. They claim that he's just a regular joe and a good christian, but beyond words what actions has he taken to back that persona up?

what has bush done for you, your family and your children's future??

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:10 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
If you dont like Bush vote him out in 2004

Actually the nation did that in 2000, but it didn't seem to do any good.

Hopefully Democrats have learned the Republican way of handling elections.... If you don't like the guy who was elected, just recall him and get a famous celebrity to run. Either that or try to impeach the guy you'd otherwise have no way of beating. Or.... get a court to vote your guy in.

But I'm afraid Democrats don't know how to play the game well enough at that level. So, until 2004, enjoy your high gas prices, high unemployment, dwindling civil liberties, and enormous government debt. And if any of those are a little hard to digest, you'll surely feel better when you take some time and remember the huge tax cuts the wealthiest are getting --- and how much more they deserve it than the rest of us. Yes, I feel better already.

All that said, I don't agree at all with the foreign policy criticisms. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and crew have been pretty damn strong in the face of all the ridiculous PC whining we've had to endure over the Afghanistan and Iraq issues. We need to do more in the middle east, not less.

kieofwoo · Post by **kieofwoo** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:30 am

All that said, I don't agree at all with the foreign policy criticisms. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and crew have been pretty damn strong in the face of all the ridiculous PC whining we've had to endure over the Afghanistan and Iraq issues. We need to do more in the middle east, not less.

Why is it that USA needs to do anything in the middle east?

Is it the guilty conscience that's come back to haunt?
Or does the world need to be the way the USA thinks it should be?

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:55 am

Bush gets away with so much because its all in the name of protecting america. Everyone is so concerned with "getting behind" the president in these times of war that no-ones paying attention to the fact that he's fabricating the conflicts to begin with. He's invaded 2 countries that didn't really have anything to do with the 9/11 incident and promptly laid out plans for big oil pipelines in both places. He gets to scare everyone into submission *and* do whatever he wants at the same time. Its amazing.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:47 am

Originally posted by torsten
Actually the nation did that in 2000, but it didn't seem to do any good.

Hopefully Democrats have learned the Republican way of handling elections.... If you don't like the guy who was elected, just recall him and get a famous celebrity to run. Either that or try to impeach the guy you'd otherwise have no way of beating. Or.... get a court to vote your guy in.

But I'm afraid Democrats don't know how to play the game well enough at that level. So, until 2004, enjoy your high gas prices, high unemployment, dwindling civil liberties, and enormous government debt. And if any of those are a little hard to digest, you'll surely feel better when you take some time and remember the huge tax cuts the wealthiest are getting --- and how much more they deserve it than the rest of us. Yes, I feel better already.

All that said, I don't agree at all with the foreign policy criticisms. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and crew have been pretty damn strong in the face of all the ridiculous PC whining we've had to endure over the Afghanistan and Iraq issues. We need to do more in the middle east, not less.

How was Bush voted out in 2000?

The courts ruled, dont even bring up populuraity vote, it dont count so it dont matter.

Btw that argument is so old it makes democrats look worse when they bring that up, it is like when your a kid and playing a game and one kid loses and says NO FAIR, DO OVER...DO OVER...

So IMO gore was acting like spolied kids

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:54 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
How was Bush voted out in 2000?

The courts ruled, dont even bring up populuraity vote, it dont count so it dont matter.

Btw that argument is so old it makes democrats look worse when they bring that up, it is like when your a kid and playing a game and one kid loses and says NO FAIR, DO OVER...DO OVER...

So IMO gore was acting like spolied kids

if democrats had done the same thing, ya'll would have never stopped screaming. illegal acts were committed. lies were spoken. christian values were not lived up to.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:58 am

Originally posted by zooner

if democrats had done the same thing, ya'll would have never stopped screaming. illegal acts were committed. lies were spoken. christian values were not lived up to.

Nah I would not, that is the difference

I would have wanted them to stop and just move on, the way Gore handled it, made us Americans like fools, we were the laughing stock of the world.

btw, illegal acts were committed on both sides, and it not really due to the politician himself, but people who want to get their candidate in so bad they will do anything

Jstyr · Post by **Jstyr** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:02 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
How was Bush voted out in 2000?

The courts ruled, dont even bring up populuraity vote, it dont count so it dont matter.

Btw that argument is so old it makes democrats look worse when they bring that up, it is like when your a kid and playing a game and one kid loses and says NO FAIR, DO OVER...DO OVER...

So IMO gore was acting like spolied kids

Actually what's sad is how republicans constantly bring up how bad a guy Clinton was all because he got a blowjob in office. Meanwhile you have republicans selling arms to Iranians (Iran Contra) with Oliver north lying about his involvement. You have Nixon sanctioning spying on the opposition party and then proposing to cover up with lies after the break-in was discovered....all of which lead to his resignation. Now we have Bush (I love this man) who somehow convinces us that a group of Saudi's bombing our World trade Towers is reason for us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq

But Bill Clinton was terrible because he got that blowjob. I must be crazy to think lying about national security, illegal arms brokering, and political deception are worse than fellatio...... /sarcasm OFF*

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:03 am

Personally speaking I have enjoyed having this President in office. In some ways I think he will be like Clinton in that I believe his second term in office (If he gets one) will be more successful then his first. I hear and understand arguments and complaints about Iraq and Afghanistan, but those things take time. I have no doubt both situations will improve over time.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:08 am

Originally posted by Jstyr
Actually what's sad is how republicans constantly bring up how bad a guy Clinton was all because he got a blowjob in office. Meanwhile you have republicans selling arms to Iranians (Iran Contra) with Oliver north lying about his involvement. You have Nixon sanctioning spying on the opposition party and then proposing to cover up with lies after the break-in was discovered....all of which lead to his resignation. Now we have Bush (I love this man) who somehow convinces us that a group of Saudi's bombing our World trade Towers is reason for us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq

But Bill Clinton was terrible because he got that blowjob. I must be crazy to think lying about national security, illegal arms brokering, and political deception are worse than fellatio...... /sarcasm OFF*

I dont bring up Clinton because of his marital affairs, even though I think as a President of the United States he should at least not lie about it while under oath and get caught in perjury.

What I dislike about Clinton is we are wheer are now, bad economy, 9-11 and the aftermath, due to Clinton not caring enough to go after terrorists when he had the chance, adn the eocnomy was going south way before clinton left office, ecnomists seen it coming.

Also keep in mind economy is like anything else it has its cycles, ups and downs, right now we are in a bad cycle, but the positive news is looks like it is slowly starting to rebound, but lets face it 9-11 really made our economony go in a tumble a lot worse and caused our recoevery tobe slower, even the power outage lastw eek cost the country billions of dollars, all these things hurt.

He had many oppurtuninites but choose to ignore it, on top off all the GATES he had, and cover ups he had?

Lets face it no politician is clean, all of them do illegal things whether democrat or republican, but comparing Bush to Clinton is pretty bad

I see nothing wrong with what we did for Afghanistan and Iraq, even if we dont find all of the teorrirsts and find WMD, we still are helping to make the place a better place to live, while it might take a while, in the end it will be worth it for the people who live there.

As far as Nixon resiging he at least in the end realized it was the right thing to do instead of bringing the country down even further, not like Clinton who should have resinged a long time ago.

Jstyr · Post by **Jstyr** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:29 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
I dont bring up Clinton because of his marital affairs, even though I think as a President of the United States he should at least not lie about it while under oath and get caught in perjury.

What I dislike about Clinton is we are wheer are now, bad economy, 9-11 and the aftermath, due to Clinton not caring enough to go after terrorists when he had the chance, adn the eocnomy was going south way before clinton left office, ecnomists seen it coming.

Also keep in mind economy is like anything else it has its cycles, ups and downs, right now we are in a bad cycle, but the positive news is looks like it is slowly starting to rebound, but lets face it 9-11 really made our economony go in a tumble a lot worse and caused our recoevery tobe slower, even the power outage lastw eek cost the country billions of dollars, all these things hurt.

He had many oppurtuninites but choose to ignore it, on top off all the GATES he had, and cover ups he had?

Lets face it no politician is clean, all of them do illegal things whether democrat or republican, but comparing Bush to Clinton is pretty bad

I see nothing wrong with what we did for Afghanistan and Iraq, even if we dont find all of the teorrirsts and find WMD, we still are helping to make the place a better place to live, while it might take a while, in the end it will be worth it for the people who live there.

As far as Nixon resiging he at least in the end realized it was the right thing to do instead of bringing the country down even further, not like Clinton who should have resinged a long time ago.

Ahahahahaha...no really hahahahahahaha.

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:32 am

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:22 am

Originally posted by Indy

Yeah looks like a good idea!!! Let's beat that son of a bitch.

WhoNut · Post by **WhoNut** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:39 am

And this is why I don't start this kind of thread.

Could someone answer one of my questions please?

How about "What is life like in Afghanistan right now?"

Did we win that war?

Is the population better off than they were under the Taliban?

Who's in charge now?

Are we safer than before we invaded?

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:56 am

Originally posted by WhoNut
And this is why I don't start this kind of thread.

Could someone answer one of my questions please?

How about "What is life like in Afghanistan right now?"

Did we win that war?

Is the population better off than they were under the Taliban?

Who's in charge now?

Are we safer than before we invaded?

The Taliban is no more, Al-queda while they do exist still in pockets, they are not like they were before 9-11.

From what I read the people are better off for now, but who knows what will happen in 20 years.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:01 am

Ummm..I'd say that info is incorrect....

The Taliban aren't in power....but they are replaced with factions just as evil....and...in fact still exist..

Al-Qaeda, probably just got a huge swelling of numbers, after our war in Iraq......don't kid yourself on this one..

Afghanistan is still a very dangerous place to live....Not much rebuilding there as was promised.....and there are the War Lords who helped throw the Taliban...they extract a terrible payment....

Just because it's not in the news...doesn't make it hunky dory over there...

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:08 am

Originally posted by WhoNut
And this is why I don't start this kind of thread.

Could someone answer one of my questions please?

How about "What is life like in Afghanistan right now?"

Did we win that war?

Is the population better off than they were under the Taliban?

Who's in charge now?

Are we safer than before we invaded?

1. Life in Afghanistan is still rough.
2. Yes, part of the objective was to remove the Taliban from running that country and we did so.
3. I believe the population is better off.
4. Karzai is running the country with our assistance amongst others.
5. In time yes I believe we will be safer.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:10 pm

Originally posted by kieofwoo
Why is it that USA needs to do anything in the middle east?
Is it the guilty conscience that's come back to haunt?
Or does the world need to be the way the USA thinks it should be?

You asked three questions:

1. To prevent Islamofascists from aquiring weapons with which to terrorize the rest of the world, and from having bases from which to organize and perpetrate their terror. -- And hopefully, to liberate a few people from the fundamentalist oppression they support.

2. The conscience of those who overthrew Hussein and the Taliban, and continue to wage war on terrorist organizations -- is very clear.

3. The world needs to be a place where people are freer as individuals. To the extent that the US is willing to promote that in places that don't respect the individual, good for the US.

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Btw that argument is so old it makes democrats look worse when they bring that up, it is like when your a kid and playing a game and one kid loses and says NO FAIR, DO OVER...DO OVER...

I have 2 words for you..... Gray Davis.

As for the load of partisan nonsense about Clinton, here are the facts: For 12 years ('80-'92), two Republican administrations ran up enormous debt, giving tax breaks to the rich while spending money the nation didn't have. By 1992, the debt had taken a horrible toll on the economy; things were in shambles. When Clinton was elected he immediately took steps to reverse the deficit, inject some fiscal responsibility, and the economy responded. Under Clinton we had economic prosperity for 8 years and it was no accident. The government went from deficits to surpluses for the first time since the 1950s. As soon as Bush got in, his first priority was the same as the previous Republicans...... huge tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy, while spending increases or continues as usual, producing........ guess what....... DEBT. And our economy responds in kind. I'm getting sick of people trying to suggest that these basic facts aren't so.

Originally posted by um.... well..... several people
...............................

Where did this speculation that Al Qaeda is now stronger come from? Huh? There is no evidence to suggest such a thing. In fact, quite the opposite. The effort has gradually been picking off more and more of their leaders and disruputing their ability to organize and carry out plans. They are WEAKER and the world is safer because of it.

Afghanistan IS a better place than it was before. Much so, especially since it isn't run by a government that openly protects forces that are dedicated to and engaged in the destruction of civilization.

Iraq is a much better place than it was. MUCH MUCH better, and it's only going to get better still. If some people would stop swallowing the slanted garbage that's delivered by much of the media, and try to get a little perspective, they'd realize what an enormous accomplishment we've had in only a few months. Most of the media is driven by people who DON'T WANT the Americans to succeed there -- and their reporting blatantly reflects it. Every slight negative is highlighted while every success (including the big picture) is minimized. Do not mistake the agenda of these people. They are driven by a pathetic resentment of American power (no matter how it's used) as are a few people who write on this forum.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:27 pm

Where did this speculation that Al Qaeda is now stronger come from? Huh?

The CIA..........is in fact suggesting it......Mostly within Saudia Arabia........

Afghanistan IS a better place than it was before. Much so, especially since it isn't run by a government that openly protects forces that are dedicated to and engaged in the destruction of civilization.

Apples and oranges.....life there is still a very hard proposition.....and herion manufacturing is very much on the upswing again as we cut it off from economic help. Ok..you got me on one thing....a woman has more rights there now........*shrug*

Iraq is a much better place than it was. MUCH MUCH better,

So your implying that now is the time for the Chicken Hawks to finally join up?

Meanwhile......you and a few others seem to be engaging in Carl Rove tactics....
What is the thread subject?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:35 pm

Originally posted by torsten
You asked three questions:

1. To prevent Islamofascists from aquiring weapons with which to terrorize the rest of the world, and from having bases from which to organize and perpetrate their terror. -- And hopefully, to liberate a few people from the fundamentalist oppression they support.

2. The conscience of those who overthrew Hussein and the Taliban, and continue to wage war on terrorist organizations -- is very clear.

3. The world needs to be a place where people are freer as individuals. To the extent that the US is willing to promote that in places that don't respect the individual, good for the US.I have 2 words for you..... Gray Davis.

As for the load of partisan nonsense about Clinton, here are the facts: For 12 years ('80-'92), two Republican administrations ran up enormous debt, giving tax breaks to the rich while spending money the nation didn't have. By 1992, the debt had taken a horrible toll on the economy; things were in shambles. When Clinton was elected he immediately took steps to reverse the deficit, inject some fiscal responsibility, and the economy responded. Under Clinton we had economic prosperity for 8 years and it was no accident. The government went from deficits to surpluses for the first time since the 1950s. As soon as Bush got in, his first priority was the same as the previous Republicans...... huge tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy, while spending increases or continues as usual, producing........ guess what....... DEBT. And our economy responds in kind. I'm getting sick of people trying to suggest that these basic facts aren't so.Where did this speculation that Al Qaeda is now stronger come from? Huh? There is no evidence to suggest such a thing. In fact, quite the opposite. The effort has gradually been picking off more and more of their leaders and disruputing their ability to organize and carry out plans. They are WEAKER and the world is safer because of it.

Afghanistan IS a better place than it was before. Much so, especially since it isn't run by a government that openly protects forces that are dedicated to and engaged in the destruction of civilization.

Iraq is a much better place than it was. MUCH MUCH better, and it's only going to get better still. If some people would stop swallowing the slanted garbage that's delivered by much of the media, and try to get a little perspective, they'd realize what an enormous accomplishment we've had in only a few months. Most of the media is driven by people who DON'T WANT the Americans to succeed there -- and their reporting blatantly reflects it. Every slight negative is highlighted while every success (including the big picture) is minimized. Do not mistake the agenda of these people. They are driven by a pathetic resentment of American power (no matter how it's used) as are a few people who write on this forum.

Torsten, I'm over here in the AOR right now and I can tell you for a FACT that you are completely wrong about Iraq and Afghanistan. You have no clue as to just how bad conditions are over here. You have absolutely no idea how infested this region is with Al Qaeda.....

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:48 pm

downhill,

In Saudi Arabia? I have no doubt that Al Qaeda has attemted to relocate their efforts to places that are more friendly, but on the whole, their structure has been weakened. They are nowhere near the strength they were pre 9/11.

We didn't go into Afghanistan just to improve living standards or infrastructure, nor to stop heroin production. It was an issue of national security and ending its status as a training ground for terrorism. As a side benefit, the people no longer have to live under the taliban.

Please explain the Karl Rove comment.

UOD,

I've done extensive reading about the conditions in Iraq, including accounts from soldiers there, and daily net blogs from people who are living in the situation.

What is "wrong" about saying truthfully that Iraq is much better off than it was under Hussein? That is true. Perhaps you're forgetting the scope of what it meant to have the nation controlled by a force that was friendly to terror vs one that is not.

What is behind your comment? Are you disapproving of the effort you're a part of? Disapproving of its method or plan?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:58 pm

Originally posted by torsten
downhill,

In Saudi Arabia? I have no doubt that Al Qaeda has attemted to relocate their efforts to places that are more friendly, but on the whole, their structure has been weakened. They are nowhere near the strength they were pre 9/11.

We didn't go into Afghanistan just to improve living standards or infrastructure, nor to stop heroin production. It was an issue of national security and ending its status as a training ground for terrorism. As a side benefit, the people no longer have to live under the taliban.

Please explain the Karl Rove comment.

UOD,

I've done extensive reading about the conditions in Iraq, including accounts from soldiers there, and daily net blogs from people who are living in the situation.

What is "wrong" about saying truthfully that Iraq is much better off than it was under Hussein? That is true. Perhaps you're forgetting the scope of what it meant to have the nation controlled by a force that was friendly to terror vs one that is not.

What is behind your comment? Are you disapproving of the effort you're a part of? Disapproving of its method or plan?

Torsten, it's plain and simple. It's black and white. Ideologically, yes, these two countries are better off. So friggin what? Have you ever been in South Central L.A.? Sure...it's in the good ole democratic, capitalistic, freedom loving US of A but that doesn't mean that it's a great place to live.

Al Qaeda is here Torsten. They are not going anywhere and they are spreading just as fast as freedom itself. The bad thing is this....Saddam aint around to keep them in check Torsten. They are multiplying like cockroaches and Iraq doesn't even have a security force of it's own!!!!!!

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:14 pm

UOD,

The conditions in Iraq that you compare to South Central are the result of 3 decades of dictatorship and decay. When people complain about the obvious and suggest that the responsibility for it lies somewhere other than Hussein, they are incorrect and not helping the situation.

Yes, Al Qaeda exists in Iraq (as they did before April '03) but the fact is that they exist in a place where they are now hunted. Actually, evidence seems to indicate that most of the recent violence has come from outside forces that have infiltrated the country. Still further evidence that more needs to be done in the middle east. No one said it was going to be easy. I put the war on Islamofascism in the same category as WWII. We need to be that serious about it. Unfortunately we're not.

Again, what is your point? Are you saying that the US should have done this differently?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:23 pm

Karl Rove tactics......

Changing the subject....or even the war....to draw attention away from the subject at hand......

As to the part about the news being negative about the war.....are you speaking of the same one, that broadcast about the hundreds of scuds heading south to meet the American forces? (Where are they? ) or the same news that broadcast about a huge chemical factory? (not even a trace in it)...and so on and so on?

If so....then I don't get your point....they have been onboard since the beginning and are only now starting to ask questions...Which is their jobs........It's what they really do exist for....

Unless one is into tabloid journalism...

UOD...glad to see your doing ok. Stay safe, my friend.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:39 pm

I looked back at the original post. It includes the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Ashcroft, contractors, WTC intelligence, and civil liberties. That covers most of what has been posted in the thread. Also, my comment in defense of Clinton was a response to what Ghosthunter had said. So what's the point in saying that I'm "engaging in Karl Rove tactics"? Huh? Karl defends Clinton from unwarranted attacks now?

No, the news media does NOT exist solely to highlight the negative and push everthing else aside. That's the slanted anti-American foreign policy bias that drives much of the media. Are you watching only Fox? I don't know where else you could've come to the conclusion that the media is "on board." Do you follow the BBC? They've earned their "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation" nickname. You won't find a more anti-American major media outlet outside of the middle east. They seem to exist solely to oppose US foreign policy. They make Fox look..... well..... fair and balanced. Their constant propaganda and lies have been well documented. If you'd like to get a wider perspective on that and the media's coverage of Iraq, try reading through Andrew Sullivan's archives before and after the war.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:51 pm

Of course that isn't what I said, (about the news)...so since you read what you wanted in my post....let me clairfy...

It's the new's job to be an Omsbudsman..so to speak...

People love the negitive..it elevates their own lives.....but back to the news.....Or even more important.....

An apology to WhoNut for the deviation in his thread..

Shagster · Post by **Shagster** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:55 pm

I like him

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:01 pm

Originally posted by downhill
It's the new's job to be an Omsbudsman..so to speak...

People love the negitive..it elevates their own lives

I'd say it's more their job to report facts and show those facts in perspective -- and try to be as objective as possible in doing so. Unfortunately that's not what I've observed in the Iraq coverage. There's clearly ideology at work.

Focusing mostly on the negative without a constant perspective to keep it in check is a dangerous thing for a democratic society with a short attention span. It doesn't serve us well.