STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

User avatar
joeysimms
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3838
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:10 am

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by joeysimms » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:56 am

Well, opium production in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, I guess that's a success story.
beware bee wear


User avatar
b3groover
deaf.
Posts: 1977
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: michigan
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by b3groover » Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:20 pm

Another brilliant comic from Tom Tomorrow! Thanks for posting that.

User avatar
ottokbre
deaf.
Posts: 1996
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:54 am
Location: sanfranzizko

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by ottokbre » Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:21 pm

Today, LGF posted how reporters voted as proof of liberal bias. The second I saw it, it made me think of the latest Onion article Election Day Guide;

"Keep in mind that the name of every person who votes against George Bush is going to be read aloud on television the next time we're attacked by terrorists."

LGF post is here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... s#comments
boobs are life's fountain

Electricide
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:04 am
Location: phoenix

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by Electricide » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:03 pm

the group that passed through Al Qaa Qa on April 10th did not find weapons. This is what the 10/25 report on NBC says. They didn't find anything because they weren't looking for anything. It was, as the intrenched reporter put it, a "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad.

This was NOT the first time US troops were at that site. They were there 6 days earlier, as reported here by AP on 4/5/03, and found white powders
Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants.....
For years, the al Qa Qaa site has raised the suspicions of weapons inspectors who believed the facilities could be converted for the production of missiles and chemical and nuclear weapons. It was visited repeatedly during the 1990s and during the last cycle of inspections between Nov. 27 and March 17, when UN experts went to the complex more than 10 times.
less than a day is an impossible amount of time to search a facility that large, which had manyof it's doors locked.

Bu the way, none of the chemcial or explosives here are defined as WMD's by the United Nations Resolution used to define the term. The two main explosives were allowed to be used by Saddam by the IAEA because they have legitimate mining and other civilian purposes.

DD
audio school
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:18 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by DD » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:09 pm

wow everybody answered the persons questions to my post for me. thanks!


and no i dont "hate" the presifake at all. in fact i think hes probbably a pretty nice guy. he has just chosen to surround himself with a group of corporate minded evil leaning people and he has chosen to listen to them and take their advice no matter what. george isnt the bad guy in all this crap. the people he surrounds himself with are.

JES
tinnitus
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 10:31 am
Location: Montreal, PQ
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by JES » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:06 am

TrumpsHair wrote:
Image
How brilliant is this? :lol:
I just thought the image had to be seen again.

So, MM, how about my offer? It's a fair deal!

--JES

User avatar
kcrusher
tinnitus
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:28 am
Location: Location! Location!
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by kcrusher » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:45 pm

lutopia wrote:My reponse is not aimed specifically at DD. I think many of the posters thus far hold similar opinions.
DD wrote:i just dont understand what kind of person can still back this administration.

it has not made any of us safer.
Just what indicator are we using to gauge whether or not we (I assume you mean the people of the Unites States) are in more danger after President Bush's administration?
it totally botched the war.
This is certainly a matter of perspective.
it has botched the environment.
This sounds like an overstatement, but I am open to hearing more about this. Also, references are always a plus.
its running us further and further into debt.
True. While I will be the first to criticize Bush AND our representatives for being fiscally irresponsible I am voting for Bush in spite of this.
vote for ANYONE but bush in '04.
you must really hate the President!

Hey man, do your homework (MASSIVE - you should pay attention here as well..) and maybe you would know what Bush has done to environmental controls - bascially sold them out to the energy companies and logging industry.

If you believe for a moment that the Iraq was wasn't a damn fool mistake, that it wasn't botched and is probably going to have us ravelled up in it for years, then you've swallowed bush & co's bait, hook line and sinker. You're just the kind of sucker they're looking for.

I wish all you who continue to persist in your ignorance would find your own country to fuck up and leave the rest of us in peace.
America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
- Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
MASSIVE Mastering
buyin' a studio
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by MASSIVE Mastering » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:21 pm

Um... The EPA variables show the environment to be CLEANER as a whole than it was...

And no, I don't have time to find the links - It's all public knowledge. Look it up.

JES - Your offer flies in the face of logic and reason. So, no. Mine on the other hand, is based on measurable and non-discriminatory variables.
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

User avatar
Scodiddly
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Mundelein, IL, USA
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by Scodiddly » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm

MASSIVE Mastering wrote:Um... The EPA variables show the environment to be CLEANER as a whole than it was...

And no, I don't have time to find the links - It's all public knowledge. Look it up.
The same EPA that's controlled by the White House?

The same EPA who's director (a Bush appointee, Christine Todd Whitman) quit a while back because of excessive interference from said White House?

User avatar
eeldip
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: NoPo

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by eeldip » Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:07 pm

''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!''- christine whitman

thats called choosing "redness over expertness" (see Mao)

its how the white house wants the EPA to be run you maoist fucks.

give us america back and get in your time machine and go back to 1958 china! leave your american flags at the door. they are covered in shit and we need to clean them.

LTA
gettin' sounds
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by LTA » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:24 pm

eeldip wrote:''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!''- christine whitman

thats called choosing "redness over expertness" (see Mao)

its how the white house wants the EPA to be run you maoist fucks.
At least 1957 china isn't like Iraq in 1979. From wikipedia:
"Shortly afterwards, (Saddam) convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of members who he thought could oppose him. These members were labeled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one to face a firing squad. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty."
Like there has never been "Blueness" over expertness in US past either. And don't forget great use of the Peter Principle, which also introduces the Red Queen Principle.

User avatar
kcrusher
tinnitus
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:28 am
Location: Location! Location!
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by kcrusher » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:29 am

Scodiddly wrote:
MASSIVE Mastering wrote:Um... The EPA variables show the environment to be CLEANER as a whole than it was...

And no, I don't have time to find the links - It's all public knowledge. Look it up.
The same EPA that's controlled by the White House?

The same EPA who's director (a Bush appointee, Christine Todd Whitman) quit a while back because of excessive interference from said White House?
Yes, it certainly is curious that EVERY other estimate of environmental standards has environmental quality WORSE under the Bush admin, Mr. Massive. Don't you find it AT ALL curious about Mr. Whitmans' resignation? Don't you find it curious that Bush relaxed controls on emissions for almost every major pollutant (mercury, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorines, etc. ), yet somehow, miraculously, our environment gets better?

Seriously, man - are you really that much of a sucker for Bush propaganda?

Here's some possible sources for you...

http://www.nrdc.org/
www.sierraclub.com (try just 'clean water' under 'environmental update' at the top)
http://www.environment2004.org/documents.php
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environm ... _3-29.html
http://www.movingideas.org/issuesindept ... nment.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Envir ... ecord.html

and that's just a mere sampling - try typing 'bush environment' into google and see what you come up with. curiously the only sites that give bush a good view on his environmental policy are those on his own website or under control of the government.

it's pretty sad when states start sueing the epa over environmental controls (or lack thereof).
America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
- Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
MASSIVE Mastering
buyin' a studio
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by MASSIVE Mastering » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:11 pm

If you stop quoting leftist and communist propaganda and just look at the numbers... Sierra Club? Indeed...

You're talking about rollbacks that Clinton put in place at midnight on the last day in office.

You DO realize that, don't you? Oh, did they all forget to mention that? It seems that they did! I can't find that information anywhere at the S.C.!

Those numbers were all good for eight years of his administration, and if Gore won the ticket in 2000, they'd STILL be in place.

Don't be such a sucker...
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

User avatar
T-rex
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:44 am
Location: Louisville KY

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by T-rex » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:22 pm

I'm sorry, i need to back up for a minute. Did this thread on bias in the media get started with a story from the Drudge Report?

Liberal bias in the media? WHERE? This administration has quite possibly had more dirty dealings than any other and yet they never get any press.

Bush's records from his service (or lack there of) in the National Guard can't be located and reported on. the best they can come up with is some forgeries. Everyone knows he ditched the last of his service and all we hear about is whether Kerry really got shot at or not while he WAS there.

Bush's appalling record on the economy. The deficit? These are merely mentioned as passing statements so they can get to the important stories.

Haliburton? Where's all the talk about that? Why don't we have detailed reports of what the goverment is paying to rebuild Iraq?

The EPA resignation? If you weren't looking for that, it certainly didn't make news. However combined with the fact that a plethora of environment laws have been repealed, this seems like a news story to me.

What got us out of Nam when we did was the fact that it was televised. We can't even film an american casket coming back from Iraq. There have been 1100 soldiers killed and 5,000 iraqi citizens killed and not one photo. Sinclair wouldn't even let Nightline run their memorial service on Sinclair stations and this was far before the election.
[Asked whether his shades are prescription or just to look cool]
Guy: Well, I am the drummer.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests