j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 In contrast, Gore didn't just slip up with words, he fabricated stories from whole cloth. My favorite was during one of the debates ( I think that's right) where he went on a name dropping tale about visiting a disaster area with some official or another, then it turned out he'd never done it, and I believe he'd never met that person either. most, if not all of these stories are just plain not true and on the contrary show how anti-Gore the press was. That's not a slipup neither is being a heavy substance abuser or not having done anything valuable with oneself by the age of ~50. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 neither is being a heavy substance abuser or not having done anything valuable with oneself by the age of ~50. Does being in charge of the state with the nation's busiest electric chair count for nothing with you? Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 "What are you talking about, Goat? Perhaps during the election," That is specifically what I was referring to in that post. j-b claimed he had "never" been challenged on substance. He was continually and loudly challenged on substance. "but Mr. Bush has not been challenged by the press on anything since he has become president." I disagree with this too. You don't call endless editorials on his policies, unchallenging? The Nation, the American Prospect, and all their stuff? Numerous comments from McGregory, Krugman, et al? Articles about the bush "turning back the clock" on the environment? Coverage of demonstrations? What about the article that began the tree cutting thread? Doesn't that count? Quote
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 You're still hung up on the statement? bwahahaha Jeez man, makes me think there might be some actual substance to my allegation. Is there something you'd like to tell us young man? = Sex. Choc. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Didn't take long for you to fall right off the wagon and back into the gutter, now did it? Perhaps you need to talk to SAA. Quote
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 this is what Robert Fisk has to say about the US press: http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=9637&repository=0001_article# Quote
RobBob Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 j_b, yer livin' in a Gore-biased dream-world. The 'inventor of the info superhighway' made false claims galore. He came off wooden because of his own lack of charisma, not because of the news media. Then he tried to act tough, injecting the word "fight" into every speech. That was negative and dumb, and was his own (or his handlers') political miscalculation. Quote
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 I disagree with this too. You don't call endless editorials on his policies, unchallenging? The Nation, the American Prospect, and all their stuff? Numerous comments from McGregory, Krugman, et al? Articles about the bush "turning back the clock" on the environment? Coverage of demonstrations? Now we'er getting somewhere. Some examples. The Nation and the American Prospect -- these are not mainstream media and have no circulation compared to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, or even the Seattle papers. I'm stalking about the national newspaper and tv media. As to "turning back the clock," I haven't seen what I would considered unbalanced reporting of the facts, except in SUPPORT of the administration. For example, the thing about global warming that I mentioned earlier. Can you cite a specific story about how they are turning back the clock where the facts were misrepresented in a manner that may have been contrary to the administration's message? Quote
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 But I like who I am and don't want to change. Don't hate me cause I'm sexy. Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 "most, if not all of these stories are just plain not true and on the contrary show how anti-Gore the press was." What about the example I've just presented? Did that happen or did it not? You're telling me investigating Gore to verify his statements is "anti Gore"? "neither is being a heavy substance abuser or not having done anything valuable with oneself by the age of ~50." And here I thought the core of liberal philosophy was the capacity of people to change. Seems now they're being held to task for what they have done in the past and since changed and repudiated. Is this one of the issues of substance you claim never came out? If not, why do you bring it up? I thought you were concerned about substantive issues. And who are you to go around deciding what is valuable for someone else? This of course is a constant issue (and problem IMO) for liberals, the determination of what is valuable for others. Quote
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 (edited) endless editorials Oh yes, I commented on the specific papers you mention, but what about editorials in other papers? In any of the major papers, don't the editorials in favor of Bush policies far outweigh those against -- every day of the week? Edited January 8, 2003 by mattp Quote
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Coverage of demonstrations? Now you are adding insult to injury. Coverage of this kind, if any, is minimal. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 demonstrators should be shot with rubber bisquits...bow, bow, bow Quote
chucK Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Liberal radio talkshows: look to KIRO (the Mariner's station). They got some good ones. They got one token ex-marine rightist he gets the nightime "prime time", but the liberal ones get the drivetime which is probably radio's real prime time. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Um, Trask, isn't that exactly what they do with protesters? But you're right, in any case, as the right to peaceably assemble is stupid and dumb. More guns. Quote
chucK Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Not killing Saddam a mistake?: It kept all the other arabs (oil producers) who are scared of him, beholden to us. Plus if GW times it correctly, the final ouster of Saddam will secure him the 2004 election (if there even is one, terrorist threat need to postpone election due to security reasons). The US is omnipotent in the world right now. The only threat to the power of the people in charge is the US domestic populace. "Threats" are needed to keep the populace on board. Isn't is ironic how everybody (those damn liberal media) continually lambasted Bush on lack of foreign-policy smarts, yet now he's playing it optimally to promote domestic tranquillity/complacency? I thought the press was getting into demo's anti-war pitch (back before the vote in congress), but then Jose Padilla was coincidentally arrested for allegedly planning a dirty bomb and the dem's caved and thre press went with them. Whatever happened to old Jose? Is he still locked up without a lawyer? Maybe we'll see him again if the anti-war thing gets any more steam up. Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 (edited) "Now you are adding insult to injury. Coverage of this kind, if any, is minimal." What are they supposed to do, cover every single instance of these protestors? The same crowd every time, out on another streetcorner over some new injustice everyone else must be forced to address. If it's not animals, it's the po'. If it's not the po', it's the 'vironment. If it's not the 'vironment, it's "globalization", or peace, or healthcare, or..... The protestors are their own worst enemies IMO, by deciding nearly everything is an outrage, and by nearly always consisting of the very same kinds of people, and by constant continual protest, it all just becomes one big blur. You can only see sea turtle costumes and big banners with the earth painted on it along with flowers and peace symbols, so many times before yes, you get the picture, they're upset and they care. Fine. There is no need to cover every protest, IMO. We already know they're upset. We already know the "solutions", proposed by the same people, for the same reasons, for nearly every ill they stood on the corner for, last week. and last year, and the last decade. or three. A crowd of aging hippies and their new acolytes. Another chance, down with the selfish, everything for everyone, givce peace a chance, and another, ad nauseum. They have every right to do so, great. That doesn't mean they force themselves into relevance, because once you've seen them carry on 100 times, the next 500 look just the same! Edited January 8, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Careful Goat, you're startin to lose my respect again. Time to put a sock in it. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Trask, that's totally you, isn't it? 'Cause in all seriousness, it fits the Doctor's mental image of you perfectly. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Yes it is. Now don't be pounding yur pud Doc Quote
RobBob Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Not killing Saddam a mistake?: It kept all the other arabs (oil producers) who are scared of him, beholden to us. What oil producers are scared of him? Kuwait? Which ones appear to feel beholden to us today? This is line of thinking is a step away from conspiracy theory. Quote
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 And here I thought the core of liberal philosophy was the capacity of people to change. only if they truly are attempting to change. Just claiming to see the light at the last minute does not count. Seems now they're being held to task for what they have done in the past and since changed and repudiated. Is this one of the issues of substance you claim never came out? If not, why do you bring it up? I thought you were concerned about substantive issues. he is/was not challenged on substance. Please find multiple references in major news outlets that truly challenge Bush on major issues (prior to ~a month ago). Until then I'll consider the discussion closed. And who are you to go around deciding what is valuable for someone else? This of course is a constant issue (and problem IMO) for liberals, the determination of what is valuable for others. cut the crap. I find it actually quite fitting that righteous conservatives found a figure head in someone with apparently so little spine/moral fiber. Especially after all the morality bashing they played during the Clinton years. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.