GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=432769)

theking 02-16-2005 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
What do you think would happen, if there was a demoract reporter writing derogatory articles about a high ranking Republican, calling him gay, etc, and a democratic White House repeatedly gave him press passes and called on him to ask softball questions? Then, said reporter turned out to be not in fact a reporter, but a gay prostitute with a blog? There would be 24/7 coverage on every major news network, in fact it would be one of the biggest stories of the year.

Not to mention the fact that this gay prostitute was leaked the Valerie Plame documents, which was top secret government information that exposed an active CIA agent. (Wash Post reported that he had received these documents).

Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

If you can look at these two incidents, and still honestly say that any of the mainstream US media is biased against Bush, well, you have serious comprehension problems. Everything Americans watch on TV is controlled by 6 companies, and right now they're pushing the right wing agenda and legitimizing Bush's actions in ways that are quite obvious to any well informed viewer.

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.

It was reported by the media...print and otherwise for several days...and made the rounds of all of the talking head shows. It got the coverage that the story deserved...and then some...but of course not enough coverage to suit some Canadian that is dumb as the Rock which he uses as the singular example of the "US Empire".

theking 02-16-2005 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta
Didn't Bush base his 2003 State of the Union speech on false documents?
Should he go to prison ?

I think you would have a GOP bus up your ass and would still say you can pass wind...

In answer to the question...no. His State of the Union address was based upon a variety of subjects...as are every President's.

tony286 02-16-2005 07:18 PM

I cant believe how they defend W , Rathers mistake was he should of said. We found out the documents are forged but the information is true. Your President who is sending your husbands,wife ,sons and daughters off to die. Avoided serving in a war zone at all costs and lets look at the other members of his admin how they answered the call to serve. Since the media is corporate controlled it is not liberal , liberal media was started by Rush to give the fool listener a feeling its us against them. It was brillant .

Rich 02-16-2005 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404
I cant believe how they defend W , Rathers mistake was he should of said. We found out the documents are forged but the information is true. Your President who is sending your husbands,wife ,sons and daughters off to die. Avoided serving in a war zone at all costs and lets look at the other members of his admin how they answered the call to serve. Since the media is corporate controlled it is not liberal , liberal media was started by Rush to give the fool listener a feeling its us against them. It was brillant .

I agree with you there, these people are extremely smart. Evil, but smart.

directfiesta 02-16-2005 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
In answer to the question...no. His State of the Union address was based upon a variety of subjects...as are every President's.

Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....


I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...
:1orglaugh

theking 02-16-2005 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
I agree with you there, these people are extremely smart. Evil, but smart.

Ahh..."these people are extremely smart"...which is further indication that your are not...and of course you would believe in the mythical "evil" BS...what with the voices in your head that tell you...you own three of the largest Casino's on the net and that you have three Degrees and that a Rock in the Ocean is the singular example to prove that the US is an "Empire". Yep you are dumb as that Rock...Richy boy. I suspect if you ever had a brain...you burned up to many cells...you know "This is your brain on drugs".

titmowse 02-16-2005 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta
Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....


I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...
:1orglaugh

16 words:

""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

a bold-faced lie to the American people

theking 02-16-2005 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta
Such as:
- We know he is trying to acquire fUranium ...
- We have proof that he has STOCPILE of WMD
- We know he has the capability od delivering nuclear attack within 15 minutes
- he has acquired aluminium tubes for nuclear missiles ....

His " false documents", " false proofs" or " doctored reports " have caused:

- The death of 1500 US soldiers
- death of 10 of thousands Iraqi civilians
- 200 billion expense ( and growing) for the US.
- destruction of a sovereign country
- destruction of one of the most ancient civilisation ( america is pigshit: barely 300 years )

and so on ....


I can imagine the outrage and scandal if a gay male prostitute would have been feeding friendly questions to Kerry ...

Just look know to see how the media handles news:

- The UN oil for food scandal: everyday in the news as if it was someting new ( The US knew all allong and were closing their eyes, because , as you say so often, it served their agenda)

- the 20 billion $$$ lost or un-accounted for over the past yoear by the Brener administration in Iraq: no coverage

Anyway, America RULES...
:1orglaugh

Blah...blah...blah. BTW...was it the media where you learned about any un-accounted for $$$ or was it one of your inside sources within the US Government? FYI...all major intel agencies in the world concurred about Iraq's WMD/WMD materials. The new head of the CIA admitted that there was a major breakdown on the Analysis of collected intel...and not just within US intel agencies.

theking 02-16-2005 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by titmowse
16 words:

""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

a bold-faced lie to the American people

That is what the British intel reported to there PM...so it was not a lie.

power182 02-16-2005 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
It's not due to society, it's due to pro government propaganda. If you're called media, you're supposed to report the news. Period. You're not supposed to portray some glamorized, candy coated tale of events because you think that's probably what your viewers would rather see. And it's not one network, it's all of mainstream American media. They have an agenda, and it's to create a bunch of dumbed down, war loving, complacent sheep who will go along with whatever war or scam they're selling next as long as they're entertained. I'm sorry if you disagree with me but I'm right on this.

No, you think your right, there is a difference; and your apology is far from necessary, I think on my own as well. The media is a business, and like any other business you target your audience. If society wanted something new, that void would be filled; it?s called a free market, not government funded and controlled channels. Everybody has an agenda and will use the tools they have at they have available to them to push it. I don?t care where the source is, in the states or not, that will always hold true. I personally blame the government school system for breeding the individuals you speak of and many of the opposite extreme; the media merely feeds them what they want. Go look at the 56 billion we spend on education annually and revamp it, the media will follow the masses. Remember, people will always use the tools they have available to them to push their agenda; your children are the tools. This is killing America far faster than the media or Bush could ever dream of, they only wish they had that power.

dig420 02-16-2005 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
That is what the British intel reported to there PM...so it was not a lie.

dumbfuck, the whole world knows this administration only wanted intel that slanted the way they wanted it to, except you and other dumbfuck conservatives.

Hey did you ever find a friend?


http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm -- chew on that, Waylon.

titmowse 02-16-2005 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
That is what the British intel reported to there PM...so it was not a lie.

The CIA suspected those British documents were forgeries and that's why they sent Joe Wilson to Niger. Wilson found no truth to the documents and said so BEFORE Bush's SOTU speech.

The documents were indeed forgeries:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...fel-162426.htm

lie

theking 02-16-2005 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
dumbfuck, the whole world knows this administration only wanted intel that slanted the way they wanted it to, except you and other dumbfuck conservatives.

Hey did you ever find a friend?


http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm -- chew on that, Waylon.

He may have wanted slanted intel...but he did not get slanted intel...at least according to the reports made by the Congressional investigating committees...and the report made by the independent investigating committee. So who is credible here? You...a fucking druggie pornographer...the lowest of the low in US society...or the learned men and women on the Committees? Don't bother to answer Danny boy.

directfiesta 02-16-2005 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
Blah...blah...blah. BTW...was it the media where you learned about any un-accounted for $$$ or was it one of your inside sources within the US Government? .



Thanks for making my point : you heard and read about the UN scandal, the bad Kofi AnnaN, AND SO ON

But not of this mere 9 billion ...

You are such a bunch of suckers.........

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)
{b}Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds{/b}

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...dit/index.html
:1orglaugh

directfiesta 02-16-2005 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
That is what the British intel reported to there PM...so it was not a lie.

The document Dan Rather based his claim of Bush missing his service was supplied by somebody else also ...

Sp, what is the difference ... ( aside from dead people )....

Go get drunk, you will make more sense.

Rich 02-16-2005 08:23 PM

So, I guess the answer to my question, " Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"?", is yes, idiots can and will continue spitting out this line until Rush tells them not to.

Thanks guys.

dig420 02-16-2005 08:23 PM

what's also hilarious is that the Bushies are going after pornographers again - and you shouldn't be here if you're not one, you pathetic crippled old fuck theking - for fictitious depictions of rape and torture while they're fighting for the right to do it in real life.

FunForOne 02-16-2005 08:23 PM

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

dig420 02-16-2005 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
So, I guess the answer to my question, " Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"?", is yes, idiots can and will continue spitting out this line until Rush tells them not to.

Thanks guys.

yes, there's nothing you can say and nothing Bush can do that will get thru to these people. The scary thing is there are so many of them.

directfiesta 02-16-2005 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
he scary thing is there are so many of them.

cause is inbreed ...

Rich 02-16-2005 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
yes, there's nothing you can say and nothing Bush can do that will get thru to these people. The scary thing is there are so many of them.

yeah they've really come out of the woodwork recently.

theking 02-16-2005 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Hmm...sounds similar to the rhetoric that was used when the Congress...during President Clinton's term of office...passed a resoultion calling for the removal of Saddam and the Baathist party. The US Congress took away the previlige from both Presidents to be the first to call for the overthrow of the Iraqi Government.

Pipeline Q 02-16-2005 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne
Rather retired as somewhat of a self punishment, to lessen the chance of him going to prison for the felony he committed.

Rather's retirement had been in the works many months before the fake document story even came about. I think he first notified CBS about a year before that in fact, but the official date was just recently set. It had nothing at all to do with the fake documents.

FunForOne 02-16-2005 08:33 PM

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Seems like one political party likes talk more than action. I belive that sums up the lack of recent success of the liberal democrat party despite the obvious media slant.

hagbard 02-16-2005 08:33 PM

I heard about this on liberal NPR on tuesday evening. I saw it on my liberal local NBC affiliate that evening. It has 4x appeared on drudge report (conservative) It aired on the 14th on our local CBS as well. I'm not sure where the right wing conspiracy media blackout is here...

dig420 02-16-2005 08:36 PM

yeah but Clinton didn't spend 100's of billions of dollars and young American lives to contain Saddam, did he? He did it thru diplomacy.

Also let me remind you that it was the incompetence of Bush that allowed 9-11 to happen, it's well documented that his incoming administration had absolutely no interest in the counter-terrorism.

Rich 02-16-2005 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
yeah but Clinton didn't spend 100's of billions of dollars and young American lives to contain Saddam, did he? He did it thru diplomacy.

Also let me remind you that it was the incompetence of Bush that allowed 9-11 to happen, it's well documented that his incoming administration had absolutely no interest in the counter-terrorism.

pfft, details. What's more important, facts, or a thousand talking heads bobbing in unison? This is America we're talking about dammit, facts only get in the way. Rhetoric sounds better.

titmowse 02-16-2005 08:46 PM

And we come full circle.

How did a male escort with no journalism experience -except for a $50.00 seminar- get access to a CIA memo?

"TN: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

--Jeff Gannon for Talon News

http://web.archive.org/web/200312022...nterview.shtml

FunForOne 02-16-2005 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
yeah but Clinton didn't spend 100's of billions of dollars and young American lives to contain Saddam, did he? He did it thru diplomacy.

Also let me remind you that it was the incompetence of Bush that allowed 9-11 to happen, it's well documented that his incoming administration had absolutely no interest in the counter-terrorism.


I'm not sure you understand.


Clinton threw a bomb, but he didn't do anything.

Clinton's own guy, Dick Morris, said that Clinton wanted to do something but he was afraid any military action would bring up his draft dodging trip up north. Aint that great, he let America get weeker by balancing the budget on the backs of the mlitary because he was worried about his reputation.


The 9/11 attacks were not the first attack on America, they were not even the first attack on the world trade center.

theking 02-16-2005 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
yeah but Clinton didn't spend 100's of billions of dollars and young American lives to contain Saddam, did he? He did it thru diplomacy.

Also let me remind you that it was the incompetence of Bush that allowed 9-11 to happen, it's well documented that his incoming administration had absolutely no interest in the counter-terrorism.

But of course one could reasonably argue that the President who served two terms...while not once but at least twice...a statement made by Bin Laden... that was made known world wide...officially declaring war on the United States of America and then proceeded to attack the CONSUS as well as American assets around the world...stood by and did virtually nothing...may just be the one "that allowed 9-11 to happen". In your drug induced burned out brain...I do not expect you to agree...Danny boy...so no response needed...thank you very much.

Robatolla 02-16-2005 08:48 PM

dig man your right!not only were we attacked on 9-11but the whole country has been duped and lied to. but with the cooperation of the media many many people actually believe we belong in iraq and don't even try to tell a republican we should'nt be there or they treat you like a fool.there is no diplomacy with republicans.

hagbard 02-16-2005 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
dumbfuck, the whole world knows this administration only wanted intel that slanted the way they wanted it to, except you and other dumbfuck conservatives.

Hey did you ever find a friend?


http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm -- chew on that, Waylon.


Chew on what? Someone's self professed rant? Wild speculation about what someone that neither of you know would do? Try typing in Anti bush books into google

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...568639-7302259

first result. dozens of books out there. There are 5220 results for "anti bush books" Type "anti clinton books" 358 results there. These books are not written by some idiots in a basement who wander around looking for a publisher who will touch such a volitile topic. These are people who are selling them like mad and are being advertised through SOME media (Since the media is SOOO conservative as you claim, where are these people getting their ads?)

Just shut up and relax a bit. The dems are a bunch of whining bitches who can't win a fight and REFUSE to fix their own problems. Before you bitch at me like I'm sure you're about to; I am voting clinton in 2008 and I dont care of the fucking pope is running against her. I LOVE the dem party historically and if you would all stop the goddam finger pointing and look inward for your problems perhaps you could get back on top.

good luck if that url is all you haveto prove your point.

FunForOne 02-16-2005 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
pfft, details. What's more important, facts, or a thousand talking heads bobbing in unison? This is America we're talking about dammit, facts only get in the way. Rhetoric sounds better.


the irony of your statement is that it is 100% rhetoric.

I love when Irony bites people in the ass!

dig420 02-16-2005 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
But of course one could reasonably argue that the President who served two terms...while not once but at least twice...a statement made by Bin Laden... that was made known world wide...officially declaring war on the United States of America and then proceeded to attack the CONSUS as well as American assets around the world...stood by and did virtually nothing...may just be the one "that allowed 9-11 to happen". In your drug induced burned out brain...I do not expect you to agree...Danny boy...so no response needed...thank you very much.

you can beg me not to respond wetbrain, but it isn't going to happen til I get tired of fucking you, so just lie back and enjoy it.

Clinton had a vigorous and successful anti-terrorism apparatus in place, the Bushites wanted NOTHING to do with it when they came into office. Their priority was pornography. 9-11 slapped them in the face and all of a sudden the isolationists realized the rest of the world wasn't going to go away just because they didn't want to deal with them.

Your President is an idiot. An incompetent. This isn't my opinion, he's failed at everything he's ever done. All you fucking Pabst Blue Ribbon drinkers identify with him though, and with his general anti-intellectualism and simplistic thinking and we, your betters, are stuck with the consequences.

This is a great time in America for ignorant rednecks. I hope you enjoy it to the fullest before the bombs start falling.

Robatolla 02-16-2005 08:54 PM

really most politicians and governments are a bunch of fags,even the things designed keep a handle on these things(n korea,iran syria,iraq,afghan.,)oh shit did the tsunami even happen.fuck this shit pisses me off:action-sm

FunForOne 02-16-2005 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420
you can beg me not to respond wetbrain, but it isn't going to happen til I get tired of fucking you, so just lie back and enjoy it.

Clinton had a vigorous and successful anti-terrorism apparatus in place, the Bushites wanted NOTHING to do with it when they came into office. Their priority was pornography. 9-11 slapped them in the face and all of a sudden the isolationists realized the rest of the world wasn't going to go away just because they didn't want to deal with them.

Your President is an idiot. An incompetent. This isn't my opinion, he's failed at everything he's ever done. All you fucking Pabst Blue Ribbon drinkers identify with him though, and with his general anti-intellectualism and simplistic thinking and we, your betters, are stuck with the consequences.

This is a great time in America for ignorant rednecks. I hope you enjoy it to the fullest before the bombs start falling.


cant argue with that.

Give your money to Michael Moore and sit back and bitch while the conversatives compete with each during politcal races from now on. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and every rapper has prayed for peace in the middle east.


the process has started, nothing a democrat and do about it for a long time to come.

dig420 02-16-2005 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagbard
Chew on what? Someone's self professed rant? Wild speculation about what someone that neither of you know would do? Try typing in Anti bush books into google

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...568639-7302259

first result. dozens of books out there. There are 5220 results for "anti bush books" Type "anti clinton books" 358 results there. These books are not written by some idiots in a basement who wander around looking for a publisher who will touch such a volitile topic. These are people who are selling them like mad and are being advertised through SOME media (Since the media is SOOO conservative as you claim, where are these people getting their ads?)

Just shut up and relax a bit. The dems are a bunch of whining bitches who can't win a fight and REFUSE to fix their own problems. Before you bitch at me like I'm sure you're about to; I am voting clinton in 2008 and I dont care of the fucking pope is running against her. I LOVE the dem party historically and if you would all stop the goddam finger pointing and look inward for your problems perhaps you could get back on top.

good luck if that url is all you haveto prove your point.

There's more brilliance and creativity in two lines of that article than you'll ever demonstrate in your entire life, I don't care how you're voting for. To deny it is like sticking your hand over your eyes and thinking nobody can see you.

Historically, I hate the Dems. They were the shitty party until the Dixie Democrats broke off and took their southern fried hatred and misogyny over the Republicans, where they're enjoying absolute control of their new party. Yep, the Dems have been pussies, afraid and too ethical to fight back against Republican sleazy tactics in the recent past, but I think you're about to see a change in that modus operandi with the emergence of Howard Dean in the top spot of the party heirarchy.

Mr.Fiction 02-16-2005 08:57 PM

The right wing contols the U.S. media.

If someone tells you otherwise, it's usually because they are brainwashed by that very media.

There are a lot of brainwashed idiots out there and you could not convince most of them of the truth because they prefer the brainwashing.

Robatolla 02-16-2005 08:58 PM

we are in a steady decline towards disaster and the wool is being pulled over everyones eyes.amaericans are just dying to be the ones that don't take no shit,but these countries we are dealing with are hellbent on the US and have dealt with war as daily life this isn't shit if it is in the name of islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robatolla 02-16-2005 09:00 PM

brainwashing is a perfect phrase for it.just like religion is brainwashing.this white house seems awfully religious.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123