Digboy, you don't know me from adam. You post an article that claims that the left have no method of rebuttal and no outlet for liberal ideas that are not instantly squashed by the right. Instead of calling you a fag, or criticising your creativity, I went to a neutral source, pulled up actual facts and posted them. There are more anti-bush books than clinton ones. It is easier to find them. They sell better. This seems to be a disconnect between article's argument and the truth.

The end text of your linked article:
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?

My Answer was to post several dozen exhibit Bs with sales figures (amazon sales rank) easily found. How does this make me uncreative?

at least he wasn't at his ranch in texas

You really are not terribly bright...are you? The point was that your source of information is limited to the media...so when you and others make the claims that this or that is not reported in the American news media...it just is not true. You and the others use the American news media for most of your sources of news and provide links to same when it suits your agenda. When it does not suit your agenda then the collective you make the ridiculous claim that this or that was not reported and/or was not kept on the front page long enough to satisfy you...thus a cover up/brushing it under the table. You and others like you live to bash the US...and search and search for something that you think...ah ha...this surely will get those arrogant American assholes riled up...when most of what you and others post is either rehashed "news" or news from a less than credible resource. I have access to every major news outlet in the US as well as most of the world...although I do not read or watch outlets whose language I do not understand. I suspect the majority of Americans have this capability. Americans get the news and for the most part the unadulterated news...or have the ability to do so.

FYI...I think I am familiar with the report you are referring to and if I am correct...the President is the one that called for the report thus the title of the report.

Now go search some more...while giggling like a little school girl...girly man.

Sure Arnold, but you are wrong.

I am referring to a CIA Memo untitled : to Condi

see above post, there is 2 more pages.

What did he do? Nothing! True he dais he can't read more than a one page triple spaced memo....

Post it if you like but I probably have seen it before...and I am satisfied that it will not be of any import to me...even though I am satisfied that you will think that it is of import.

I suppose you have a point to make. Well make it.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Translation:

I suppose you have a point to make. Well make it. = I am a dumb fuck

No...a dumb fuck is one that posts a document that they apparently think is of import...but do not state what the point is that they are attempting to make by posting the document. I assume that I know what the point is...but then again...one should not make assumptions. BTW :321GFY girly man.

Don't be coy.

You know perfectly well it's a jpeg of the first page of the document you asked directfiesta to provide. In case you've forgotten:

"No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."

---Condoleezza Rice March 22 in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post

would you like to see the pdfs of the whole document?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...47/clarke%20me
mo.pdf

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...47/clarke%20at
tachment.pdf

I concur. there's too much lie and fabricated truth goin around anyway.

Its obvious to me Rich is one of the most intelligent people on this board. Why are you such a hateful fuck?

It is more than obvious to me that you and he think the same thing. I do not think he is intelligent...nor do I think that you are...if you believe Richy boy to be intelligent. It is possible that you think the ability to articulate and intelligence correlate and this is not necessarily true...as proven by Richy boy.

well said...
 

when the voters vote Republican they don't know what they are doing, but when they vote for a Democrat they have more credibility (intelligence and compassion)....

Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase





So, ultimately it comes down to whether you accept the Democrat's spin that Mr. Berger was just "sloppy" and "mistakenly" stuffed Top Secret documents relating to terrorism threats into his pants prior to the 9/11 Commission investigation, or whether you have at least a minimal grasp of the obvious. With that, you would have to conclude that Sandy Berger attempted to keep information about terrorism, and the previous administration's approach to it, from the American people and the 9/11 Commission.



I dont remember this being a big story, but it was in fact another felony from he clinton administration.

I cant understand how you can come to that assumption realizing that the democrats have been on wrong on foreign policy for at least 30 years in a row.

If your and Directfiesta's point is that The Secretary of State has been caught in a lie...

I have believed the new the Secretary of State to be a liar since shortly after 9/11...when she made the statement about no one ever thinking that a plane would be flown into a building.

Keep in mind that these documents are from the time period when the WTC attacks were being planned and set into motion.

hmmmmm..... wha???

blah blah blah

Wow, a lot of idiots showed up in this thread, what a waste. Go back to watching TV and stop bothering people, you may think you're making points... but every well educated, rational person realizes you suckers are nothing but a big joke. No amount of ranting will change that, so please just shut up and stop annoying your betters. (IE people with an education)

Anyway, the NY Observer picked up on my brilliant thread and wrote a pretty good article on the subject today:

http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

It's about time the media started taking notes on what I'm saying. :winkwink:

Thank you sir. Don't pay much attention to theking, he's good for a laugh once and a while, but his ranting gets old fast. He's a delusional alcoholic, to be honest I really feel sorry for him and have offered to pay for his therapy.

hhheeee hummmm!

Idiots usually claim idiotic things
so
yes they can :)

I won't go into Rich's bias in this reply, because I want to address the arrogance behind the statement above. Would you care to cite the dictionary that defines "liberal" in part as "compassion and caring"? I'd love to see it.

congrats rich
120+ replies

Your original argument has a fundamental flaw.

And yet you originally said....

You have to decide whether a story about a blogger is as important as a story about Dan Rather. If you decide that it is, then you are correct to draw a comparison here, but you are jumping the tracks a bit. The difference here is that Dan Rather himself, the epitome of mainstream media, played fast and loose with the facts, producing forged documents as "proof" of malfeasance. It was not a sin of omission, it was a sin of commission. Therefore, as a mainstream media icon, he did in fact exhibit bias and instability in the face of a potentially explosive scoop about a conservative politician. There are many stories that the mainstream media ignores simply because there's no perceived value in reporting them.

By the way, Dan does indeed have a history of rancorous intercourse with the Bush family (do you remember when he tried to blindside Bush 41 only to get his head handed to him on a platter during the 1988 campaign?). He also has a history of emotional instability and rashness on the air. I can provide examples, but I'm sure you already know what they are.

The bottom line is, you are drawing an unequal comparison between two things which really are not the same.

You suffer from a serious case of americanpenis envy. Do you ever have anything of substance to post unless it is slamming America is some way?

Natural Born Killers.

I'm not arguing that Dan Rather doesn't have a liberal bias. I'm not arguing the this blogger is a more important journalist than Rather. I'm also not using either of these two incidents alone as proof of bias. What I'm saying is, the way each of these stories has been covered in the rest of the media, proves the bias.

Certainly this story is WAY more important than "Rathergate", for many reasons. First of all it involves the White House giving unprecedented access to a non journalist, who's paid by the GOP to ask scripted questions at televised press conferences. That in itself would be a story if the entire mainstream media wasn't protecting this White House. Secondly, this non journalist gets access to classified documents revealing the name of an active, undercover CIA agent. On top of that, for a media that reported about a blow job 24/7, the guy turns out to be a gay military hooker.

Did anyone see Leslie Blitzer's interview with this "Jeff Gannon". Jesus, it was such a softball interview, you would have thought Leslie was interviewing the President himself.

To reiterate, the fact that the mainstream media is providing relatively little attention to this story should prove in everyone's mind that the mainstream US media is, at best not liberal, at worst a mouthpiece for the current administration.

If this exact same thing had happened with a reporter coving Kerry's campaign who had written hatchet jobs about the President, it would have been the biggest story of the year. You know it, I know it, even old Pathfinder knows it.

There were a lot of question that Kerry never had to answer.

He was never asked about his treasonous statmetents, his admitted war crimes, his book documenting those admitted war crimes, his voting record for the past 20 years where he voted among other things on the side of the soviet union.

Nobody in America knew who John Kerry really was, and that was by design and assistance from the media.

Instead we were given story after story trying to link prisoner abuse to the president. How many times did you hear the word "quagmire" in the months preceeding the election?

Sure, Abu Graib was a big story, but I think one paper in new york made it the front page story 29 out of 30 days. Every single one of them was trying to let people believe that Presdient Bush was over there torturing people.

The Dan Rather thing - Its not only that they manufactured the story, its also that they waited to air the story at a time they believed would hurt the current president of the united states and affect the outcome of the US presidential election.

Amen brother. Who here among us would like to have been in the Hanoi Hilton when Kerry's congressional testimony was given? He and Jane Fonda both got complete passes on their Vietnam activities by the mainstream press (except of course on Fox News ) :winkwink:

Lots of brave americans were getting bamboo shoved up their fingernails because they wouldn't admit to the stuff John Kerry was saying. The enemy of our great country loved John Kerry so much, they played his speach over the loud speaker of the prison to watch the tortured American soldiers cry.

Exit polling showed that 70% of Bush voters think that we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That tells me that the media, liberal or otherwise, didn't do a very good job of driving that point home to thier viewers/readers.

For fear of looking "unpatriotic" very few in the media were harshly critical of this administration during the war.

Where were you? It was unbelievalbly critical.


I remember the morning Katie Curic(sp) reffered the democrat party as "We".

From cnn.com:
"Jane Fonda -- actress, political activist and partner of anti-war protester Tom Hayden -- entered enemy territory for two weeks in November and emerged, in the eyes of many, as a traitor after posing for photographs at the seat of an anti-aircraft cannon and making radio broadcasts urging U.S. airmen to stop bombing North Vietnam. Fonda told servicemen stationed on aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin that the bombs they were loading into planes were illegal and that using the bombs 'makes one a war criminal.' "

Note CNN's use of the qualifier "in the eyes of many". I wonder just what the hell Jane Fonda would actually have to have done for CNN to have omitted that qualifier? <--LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

From snopes.com:
"During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured: TRUE"

'In a June survey done by the Pew Research Center only 7% of journalists described themselves as conservative compared to 34% who identified themselves as liberal. That's an astounding ideological filter through which our news has to pass, especially when you consider many liberals won't admit to being liberal. Just ask Senator's Kerry and Edwards.'



You have been programed to unknowingly do their bidding. They count on people like you and minorities to spread their message without understanding the actual world events. How else can you explain every single democrat changing their core values to acccomidate the election season?


See all those trees out there? Thats IS the forest!

A reasonable person might think that the media would have been very proud that the Washington Post exposed Watergate and that it might have been an inspiration. Instead that was probably the last time anyone in the mainstream media did any serious investigative journalism. Which is not to say that nothing "inconvenient" is ever printed or given air time, but such items often appear only after there is enough dynamic behind them. The events of 911 are a good example in that many of the issues finally brought out by commissions and enquiries eventually got (lowkey) mainstream coverage. Yet most of that information was freely available via the internet, "underground" press and foreign media within 48-72 hours of the events taking place.

Given the political tendencies of most media empire owners, it is tempting to see the media as right-leaning. Perhaps this is part of the problem, but mainly the blame goes to the role of the news being switched from information to entertainment. Dumbing down the news inevitably involves a shift to the right, because right-wing politics are the only ones where everything is black and white, where slogans and emotions can replace argument and reason. The massive problem the Democrats face is that where once only leftists had to hold an audience long enough to explain complex concepts, centrist ideas are now complex to many voters. Sound bites don't work if you have to explain to someone why higher taxes might be a good thing, or why national education standards do not mean a surrender to "big government".