| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 04/19/2009 : 20:57:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
When Fox News even goes so far as to brand the demonstrations ["FNN Tax Day Tea Party," or whatever], you are no longer looking at a nonpartisan event. Nor are you seeing a natural groundswell of public opinion. You are watching a "reality show" ginned up by the same kind of amoral TV executives who made the fictional Howard Beale a sensation in NETWORK.
This is why I stopped bothering to watch TV news a few years ago. It's not 'news' any more, as you say it's a reality show.
I look back with nostalgia to the day when 'news' was exactly that; it was objective, factual, and boring. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 04:01:39
|
Exactly!
Here's what really bothers me - and I think its been said already in this thread - that these people kept their mouths shut when the country was being raped and pillaged by Bush, taking the biggest surplus the US ever had and turning it into the biggest deficit they've ever had. What's more, they let him do it for TWO FULL TERMS of office, and no one lifted even a hair on their pinkie fingers to stop him or make him accountable for what he did!
(Incredulous!)
((And they impeached Clinton for lying about a stupid extra marital affair!))
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 04:20:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I look back with nostalgia to the day when 'news' was exactly that; it was objective, factual, and boring.
Fox News has found the Conservative Right to be a profitable niche to market to. CNN has found its niche in marketing to the Liberal Left.
Would it be correct to say that the goal is not only market share, but also political influence that can be used towards increasing the power enjoyed by CNN and Fox?
Will our two major US political parties be absorbed by these news conglomerates?
Are these a contemporary version of Hertz vs Avis? (Mad Magazine readers of yore will understand.)
|
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 04:38:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Exactly!
Here's what really bothers me - and I think its been said already in this thread - that these people kept their mouths shut when the country was being raped and pillaged by Bush, taking the biggest surplus the US ever had and turning it into the biggest deficit they've ever had. What's more, they let him do it for TWO FULL TERMS of office, and no one lifted even a hair on their pinkie fingers to stop him or make him accountable for what he did!
There has been a lot of water under the bridge since 2000. Just because they were less overtly vocal then doesn't mean they should continue to just silently take it up the ass.
(As for the Clinton affair, one of the things I didn't like about about it was that Monica was young enough to be his daughter and it demonstrated an abuse of his power, etc. I was also curious about why it was "OK" for Bill to cheat on the world's most intelligent and admired woman.) |
Edited by - duh on 04/20/2009 04:43:30 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 09:16:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Exactly!
Here's what really bothers me - and I think its been said already in this thread - that these people kept their mouths shut when the country was being raped and pillaged by Bush, taking the biggest surplus the US ever had and turning it into the biggest deficit they've ever had. What's more, they let him do it for TWO FULL TERMS of office, and no one lifted even a hair on their pinkie fingers to stop him or make him accountable for what he did!
There has been a lot of water under the bridge since 2000. Just because they were less overtly vocal then doesn't mean they should continue to just silently take it up the ass.
"Less overtly vocal"? They were silent. The "right" team was running things, and the blabbermouths at Fox News were in "support the President" mode. The patriots took it up the ass, all right, and asked for more!
By the way, I'd say it's MSNBC that's marketing itself to the left, with CNN more toward the middle [despite that one reporter, they do try the best for "fair and balanced" on cable], and Fox out in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 10:05:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
(As for the Clinton affair, one of the things I didn't like about about it was that Monica was young enough to be his daughter and it demonstrated an abuse of his power, etc. I was also curious about why it was "OK" for Bill to cheat on the world's most intelligent and admired woman.)
I won't say I condone what Clinton did, but certainly his "crime" was one that hurt only himself and his family - at the VERY worst, temporarily damaged the integrity of the office he held. Not nice, but hardly something I'd say was an impeachable offence.
The things Bush did, on the other hand, got well over 4000 soldiers killed, tens of thousands more injured (not to mention the loss of life and limb of innocent civilians in the process) and also put the USA into an economic tailspin that will take the whole world many years to recover from. Exactly how many lies and half-truths were told to cause such damage are innumerable. What's more, the anti-US feelings world-wide reached an all-time high, and no matter what good intentions he had, terrorism is far more prevalent today then it was before 9/11. And yet, he walks away from this smoldering mess without even a slap on the wrist.
And now people are blaming Obama for it all?! Where's the logic in that? Can't they give the guy a chance to try to fix things before they start protesting?
Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 11:42:47
|
I agree, Chocky. President Clinton disappointed me greatly with his personal actions: as the first Baby Boomer to hold this office, he besmirched it and us. But what he did hardly rose to the level of an impeachable offense [and the rest of the country agreed as well, as Ken Starr and the Republican lynch mob found out to their horror]. I always say, the one good thing that came out of the whole affair is that now, Judge Starr will never sit on the Supreme Court -- and buddy, he was in line.
If Clinton was impeachable, why in the world is George W. Bush walking around today, giving up his phony "ranch" for the comforts of the city life [in reality Bush is afraid of horses]? |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 13:00:01
|
Remember, in the 2004 election, the Democrats didn't pick as strong as candidate as they could have. I didn't know that Bush was still president; I thought the people voted Obama into office in 2008? Don't they get "credit" (if we find that at the end of his 8 years, that he has done well for us), or "blame" (if we find that he has done badly) for that?
My posts about politics are mushy in nature because I don't like to commit myself to a particular point of view unless I am absolutely certain that I know the truth. If I make a statement in favor of anything, somewhere there is evidence that what I thought was wrong. Then I'd have to go waste time finding evidence to support my point of view. Then someone would shoot that down and I'd have to waste more time that I should have used on training horses or web programming. I see political cause and effect not as linear, but as a tangled three dimensional web and no one is innocent and all players and points of view are suspect.
Revisiting Randall's comment about the rebels who founded the US: I can feel sympathy for the Loyalists. They wanted order and peace and change brought about by working through the established system. They didn't want the bloodshed, chaos, suffering, and loss of life that the rebels brought on. As Randall stated, there are two or more sides to a story.
Here's a followup regarding that video of the CNN reporter.
|
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 13:13:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
If Clinton was impeachable, why in the world is George W. Bush walking around today, giving up his phony "ranch" for the comforts of the city life [in reality Bush is afraid of horses]?
The impeachment circus may have inadvertently played a part in lost opportunities for capturing Bin Laden, because it distracted the administration. Imagine, perhaps if not for that, 9/11 may have been prevented, and we would be none the wiser today.
We can blame Ken Starr and the ideologues who blew Clinton's lying about the affair out of proportion (one interpretation of the lying might be that he was simply being a gentleman, trying to protect the lady); one might also blame Clinton, who was responsible for his own behavior. If the misbehavior hadn't occurred, there would not have been an impeachment, however misguided. One could go so far as to blame Linda Tripp, who egged on Monica. One could blame Hillary for not sticking her husband (she was very familiar with his habits) into a chastity belt. etc. etc. etc.
Hmmm, how can one blame Socks or Buddy for the mess? I know; Buddy should have bit Bill on the cigar and Socks should have scratched the other pussy. |
Edited by - duh on 04/20/2009 13:16:28 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 17:46:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
quote:
Originally posted by randall
If Clinton was impeachable, why in the world is George W. Bush walking around today, giving up his phony "ranch" for the comforts of the city life [in reality Bush is afraid of horses]?
The impeachment circus may have inadvertently played a part in lost opportunities for capturing Bin Laden, because it distracted the administration. Imagine, perhaps if not for that, 9/11 may have been prevented, and we would be none the wiser today.
Except for that pesky PDB stating, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US." |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/21/2009 : 04:30:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
I didn't know that Bush was still president; I thought the people voted Obama into office in 2008? Don't they get "credit" (if we find that at the end of his 8 years, that he has done well for us), or "blame" (if we find that he has done badly) for that?
Um... I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say here.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/22/2009 : 20:25:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
Revisiting Randall's comment about the rebels who founded the US: I can feel sympathy for the Loyalists. They wanted order and peace and change brought about by working through the established system. They didn't want the bloodshed, chaos, suffering, and loss of life that the rebels brought on. As Randall stated, there are two or more sides to a story.
Yeah, but the original rebels pointed out pretty dramatically that the "established system" was gamed against them. Nowadays, we all play by the same rules. But if you'll look to your right, the "loyal opposition" isn't even "loyal" any more!
Once again, I love that these tea-partyin' patriots sat on their hands when the "established system" was the one they happened to like [i.e., when conservatives ruled]. Now, the "established system" can go to hell, and it's time to revolt! It'd be comical if not for...naw, it *is* comical! Hence the "tea-bagging" jokes.
Imagine the Fox-gasbag fury just a few short years ago if any Democrat had ever stated that he wanted the President of the United States to fail. Imagine the gasbag fury! Such cynical hypocrisy is finally getting what it's deserved all along: ridicule. I hope it drowns in it. Yes, America -- I want Rush Limbaugh to fail! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Tea Parties
