And You Thought Bush and Friends Were The Only One's Out To Limit Ideas

moreluck

golden ticket member
When will these people learn that they are "wired" and can be heard!!

If Edwards & Clinton don't understand microphones, how can they possibly comprehend the nation's budget, healthcare, war, etc.

IDIOTS !!
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
wkmac

And you thought the repubs were meanspirited!

This is nothing new WKMAC,...and yes the Reps are meanspirited...Remember this post?

Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa "GOP" Fair and Balanced?
:ban:


Ron Paul, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

Fox news I'm sure was rabid and foaming at the mouth to expose this soundbite to the masses.Hannity,O'reily and Co.probably can't contain themselves right now with their druel cups poised next to them for tonights broadcast.
Remember the soundbite between Bush and Blair was captured,Bush the bad-* and Blair the sub-servent agreeing.How bout Chanet cussing up a storm.I just believe whats said under the microphone,should stay under the microphone(like Vegas)unless it's criminal activity of course.


moreluck said:
When will these people learn that they are "wired" and can be heard!!

If Edwards & Clinton don't understand microphones, how can they possibly comprehend the nation's budget, healthcare, war, etc.

IDIOTS !!

I suppose this Admin. is doing a great service to our Nation's budget,healthcare,and warfare...LOL
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
wkmac

And you thought the repubs were meanspirited!

This is nothing new WKMAC,...and yes the Reps are meanspirited...Remember this post?................

Diesel,
I should have said "repubs aren't the only one's meanspirited" as that was the actual intent of my comment. It's wasn't to imply the repubs weren't and that the dems actually were as the example above does seem to imply. My Bad!

I think when the power and fame that is US politics today are at stake, it's the general nature of things at some point go to the meanspirited side. I mean, just look at some of our debates here that desolve from time to time into personal attacks whether it be about the nature of politics in this forum or over on some of the main boards when we discuss the specifics of work at UPS or what about the arguments of APWA verses IBT. It's just our nature as humans I guess to at some point go down that path when the chips at stake are high. I guess the good news in this case that of all the pictures painted of Hillary by the various pundits, she's really "HUMAN" after all!
:lol:

As for Fox laying in wait to spring the trap. Sure! Why Not? Love it or hate, they've created a market and when the news works for them, that's the nature of the beast. What I find interesting is that no one walked up on stage and forced Clinton and Edwards to have this conversation and in their defense, was it really so wrong? How many times do we hear the greater public itself express comments that these lesser candidates like Paul or Kucinich should be excluded because they either lack the numbers in the polls or (I always love this one) they only appeal to the more extreme of the parties. It's the 3rd party mentality used on their own maverick thinkers. Hillary and Edwards want Kucinich gone because he's the only one with clean hands concering Iraq!

It's ironic that as extreme as these 2 (Paul & Kucinich)might be painted, in reality they also have a lot in common. Oh they have their differences mind you but I'd actually like to hear a debate between these 2 alone. Instead of 30 sec. sound bites designed only to evoke emotions on an issue that when you analyze it means nothing and has no substance, you might hear real ideas based on thought out processes that require some element of explaination. Mass America would either turn the channel or fall asleep on the couch as we've lost our ability to want ot think and analyze an issue. It's just easier to let someone else do that, formulate a 30 sec. sound bite that appeals to us on a purely emotional level and go with that. Talk radio to the rescue!

I often see attacks against Fox News with the old tired and true mentioning of Hannity and O' Reily and being I work afternoons & evening I don't watch or understand all the fuss anyway. But let me say this about the incorporation of opinion or debate based programming. So many people scream and holler about this and point the boney finger of contempt at Fox News and it's been a lot of democrat officials in Washington who have led this bandwagon. Well sorry folks but Fox News didn't create this format but in reality it was gov't subsidized Public TV that did this with such long established programming as The McLaughlin Group which began in 1982', well before Fox News. It's point-counterpoint argumentive style along with other PBS programming like Washington Weekly set the standard for what would become Crossfire on CNN and now today's versions on Fox. Now that the genie is out of the bottle and a model available to the public that a certain sector of power doesn't like, now it's all bad. You know what the real problem is. We stop reading newspapers and we forgot what "An Opinion Column" is. We've allowed opinion news to be accepted as fact and sure, there are facts involved but then those facts formulate opinion and it's the opinion (that 30 sec. soundbite again) that becomes the facts and there you have it.

Here's an example.

Diesel said:
[Fox news I'm sure was rabid and foaming at the mouth to expose this soundbite to the masses.Hannity,O'reily and Co.probably can't contain themselves right now with their druel cups poised next to them for tonights broadcast.
Remember the soundbite between Bush and Blair was captured,Bush the bad-* and Blair the sub-servent agreeing.How bout Chanet cussing up a storm.I just believe whats said under the microphone,should stay under the microphone(like Vegas)unless it's criminal activity of course.
/QUOTE]

OK, I'm the broadcaster on BS News and here goes my delivery.

"Today Diesel was quoted as saying (see the above) and we've investigated these comments. His unfounded attack of Fox News and the mention of the Bush and Cheney gaffs is based souly on the fact that Diesel is a democrat through and though contary to the public image that he tries to paint himself more an independent. Diesel is a leftwing extremist democrat party loyalist to the core. This is Marty Muckraker for BS News signing off!"

Marty Muckracker and BS News! Hey, that's pretty good ain't it!
:lol:

Sure I used an actual fact of news (your comment)but then the rest was purely opinion either based on interpretation of your comments from a specific point of view or in some cases just using your words to re-enforced an already preconceived idea or opinion. For better or worse (I happen to believe worse) that this type of opinion news reporting is what America wants and they look to sources for news that tend to re-enforce our general thinking on things. Even on these opinion news shows, there is always a 2 minute segment on the half hour where they switch to an actual news talking head and a factual news cast is given. Those newcasts are not opinion driven but are fact driven and are done to give the whole thing the appearance of legit news. It'd be like having a newspaper fully loaded with opinion pieces and the only hard news itself being found on a single page of the paper and not on the front page either. As I said, America wants this as we look to re-enforcing opinions in many places.

Fact is, we all do this to some degree or another as it's human nature. Fox News isn't the disease itself, it's only a symptom IMO. As to Bush and Cheney's gaffs, they got tons of airplay from many sides so in some respect I guess Fox's fun with Clinton and Edwards is an effort to make it all "Fair and Balanced!"

:lol:

As to this adminstration doing service to the budget, healthcare, warfare, etc. Well the dems have control of Congress where all spending bills must originate so what have they done to correct this? And don't argue the President can veto because that just tells me the dems can't sell their ideas to the public to gain the votes. Look what was done with the immigration bill. Truth is, many democrats elected to Congress in the last election were elected on platforms of moderation and not confrontation like some of the leadrship might want it or some pundits want the larger public to believe. And to make matters worse, polling data shows the Congress with worse numbers that Bush. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ What does that say? The dems are chasing Bush on the nightly news while gas prices go up, real estate is imploding a bit and they can't even secure the borders. No wonder the numbers are dumping. I may not agree with their solutions but that is where a lot of America is at, not trying to one up Bush at every turn.

Besides, for decades the dems controlled the Congress and during this period they sat idle as President after President of both parties via executive order leached away powers from Congress and transferred to the President these powers. Many people berate Bush for alledging to create a dictatorship because of his consolidation of power in the office of the President and I for one am not happy with such practices although he's only continuing past practice IMO. That power has long been there as Lincoln himself played with violation of Habeas Corpus to the succeeding years with the expansion of the power of the President regarding war powers and use of the military from Woodrow Wilson and then FDR/Truman and finally LBJ to Nixon. Yeah Reagan had his fun too as did Bush 1. All these men took the federal gov't and specifically the office of President to new found levels never envisioned by the founders. I often wonder what the shock and horror would be on the founders faces when they hear the arguments for federal gov't expansion all under the auspices of the commerce clause or what we do today under the so-called war powers. Do you think the founders envisioned an empirical military force at the behest of one man after they had just fought a country and king for our freedom that had the exact same setup. I know Diesel, I'm preaching to the choir but I thought you and I might sow a few seeds.:wink:

Condemn Bush all you want and I'm with ya but I'll call it out everytime if someone even thinks about trying to let the dems escape on their complicity in the scheme of things. It's very probable that there would have been no Bush or Cheney or Iraq had there not been an LBJ, FDR or Wilson and come to think of it under Wilson, there may have been no 9/11 if someone at the end of WW1 had made England live up to it's promises to the Saudia tribal chiefs in the first place. Now that's a helluva comment likely to stir up Rudy!
:thumbup1:

Outside of Ron Paul I think the only other candidate so far that seems to show a clue of knowing any history of that region is Joe Biden. His idea for dividing Iraq up into 3 regions is a good one since this restores Iraq to what it was prior to the end of WW1. It's a good first step to consider IMO.
 
Top