Discussion: FOX News

[Carcharodon]

I love the way freedom of speech works for people on the left.The same way it works for people on the right. :huh:

This whole "Us vs. Them" mentality is getting tired. I wish the left and right would just realize that they're the same ****ing thing anymore, which makes statements like the one above even MORE tiresome.

[Kelly]

She didn't finish.

Idiots have rights to [watch whatever they want and agree with whomever they want]

yeah what he said.....

and actually it should have been.... tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......

[Addendum]

Yeah, That accurately quoting thing gets the Right every time. They can't stand it when you do that. :cwink: :hehe:

And then they say "you're taking it out of context".

When the article has the transcript of the segment where the crazy stuff was said, and has audio/video for that segment as well, what more "context" does the listener/reader need? The commercials that aired during the break?

[C. Lee]

I think all news outlets are biased in one way or the other....I don't depend on one station, network, whatever......gather info from many sources, put them in a pile, then go read some Doc Savage books.

[BlackLantern]

http://gawker.com/5244602/shepard-smith-demonstrates-proper-mic-placement-lady-treatment

Shepard Smith is a cool SOB

[StorminNorman]

I don't care how you feel about Fox News, you have to love Shep.

[Hole Shot]

FOX News is not 'fair and balanced' and MSNBC has a left leaning bias.

This should not be news to anyone.


yet we're 36 pages deep.


I stick to getting my news just from my dad's random email forwards these days.

[StorminNorman]

Drudge Report is my homepage. I have my favorites set up so that RealClearPolitics and Politico (along with Mlive.com, NFL.com, Rotoworld.com and Ainticoolnews.com) all tab up with one click. Between that I have no real need for TV news or sports.

[Hole Shot]

Yeah, I hit Drudge first thing in the morning, at lunch and right before bed.


I used to regularly check RCP and Politico but now only if it's linked through Drudge these days. Plus I'm facebook friends with everyone I worked with in politics so I get a summary/op-ed of every damn headline every time someone does a status update.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e0ty5lV_Zk

More proof that Glenn Beck is an ass clown.

A sad, sad, unfunny, ass clown.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I can't believe someone actually spent hours making this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4&feature=PlayList&p=43A14E69DED715CF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=38

[Marx]

I can't believe someone actually spent hours making this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4&feature=PlayList&p=43A14E69DED715CF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=38

:facepalm

[Alastor]

Ah Matt Drudge, this generations Cronkite...

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah, the only agenda Media Matters has is accurately quoting what some talking head says. Some of them don't like that.

From the Media Matters website (the bold is mine):

http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Sounds like an agenda to me . . .

[Addendum]

And it was created by a person who used to provide conservative misinformation, David Brock.

And the site doesn't make up the quotes or the video and audio clips.

So again, their agenda is providing the actual quotes and calling them out on it.

[The Major]

Sounds like an agenda to me . . .Misinformation is bad from either side. That said, they shouldn't just focus on conservative misinformation to avoid conservatives accusing of idealogical bias like you just did.

[VampElvis]

Misinformation is bad from either side. That said, they shouldn't just focus on conservative misinformation to avoid conservatives accusing of idealogical bias like you just did.

Hear, Hear! I (mostly) agree! If you're gonna call your organization Media Matters then you should correct ALL media misinformation. Then you'd have BOTH sides accusing you of bias - and I, for one, am more likely to listen to someone whose catching it from both the tastycrats and the fingerlicans.

[Superman]

Ah Matt Drudge, this generations Cronkite...:lmao: Oh Please, If Matt Drudge is this generations Cronkite then this generation is in alot of trouble. Drudge is nothing but a Neo-con hack pretending to be a reporter. I trust him about as much as I trust Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. :whatever:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm sure he was joking.

I...hope he was joking.

[Superman]

I'm sure he was joking.

I...hope he was joking.I hope he was too. It would be sad if he wasn't.

[Alastor]

LOL....Yes, I was joking. I believe Mark Halperin(sp?) over at Time is where I got the quote from, could be mistaken though.

[chaseter]

:lmao: Oh Please, If Matt Drudge is this generations Cronkite then this generation is in alot of trouble. Drudge is nothing but a Neo-con hack pretending to be a reporter. I trust him about as much as I trust Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. :whatever:
Or Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow.

Yes he was joking.

[Marx]

Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino have joined FOX News as contributors.

[chaseter]

Tucker Carlson:down Dana Perino:up:

[BlackLantern]

Tucker Carlson:down Dana Perino:up:

I want to do naughty naughty things to Dana Perino....Tucker Carlson got owned by Jon Stewart ON HIS OWN SHOW...I have no respect for the man AT ALL

[Kelly]

Bill O'Reilly got after Perino the other night on his show. He asked her if she thought Pelosi was lieing and she wouldn't say yes or no......he did his...."its a yes or question" thing and she didn't bite. He was like..."if you are going to be a contributor here, you need to be open with your opinion......" she didn't care....lol

[BlackLantern]

She's a steel beam....she doesn't look like anything or anyone can irritate her....she's got girl balls (the Scrubs fans will get it)

[Kelly]

She's a steel beam....she doesn't look like anything or anyone can irritate her....she's got girl balls (the Scrubs fans will get it)


She got alittle ticked, I can't remember her exact quote, but it was pretty much....I believe I answered this question a month ago. If Pelosi wants to fight this battle so be it, but it will be one she will not win.....


If she ends up with a show, it will be one I will watch. She knows her stuff....

[Alastor]

I guess we must be thinking of a different Dana Perino. Anyways, not to surprised to hear that Carlson and her have officially become a part of Fox, after seeing how great it worked out for Glen Beck.

[Kelly]

Or maybe we simply have a difference of opinion....it happens...

[Handsome Rob]

Misinformation is bad from either side. That said, they shouldn't just focus on conservative misinformation to avoid conservatives accusing of idealogical bias like you just did.

I didn't have to accuse them of anything--they admit their progressive/liberal ideological bias on that statement I quoted them on.

But, I agree with you. A site dedicated to exposing bias in the media should focus on exposing all bias . . . not just conservative, liberal, etc., bias.

[Superman]

Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino have joined FOX News as contributors.Well that sucks, I kinda liked Tucker on MSNBC, He wasn't always a talking head for the GOP. I hope he doesn't become one at Fox. I have a feeling he will though.:csad:

Dana Perino doesn't surprise me at all. I was wondering what was taking her so long to join Fox anyway. I knew it was just a matter of time.:whatever:

[chaseter]

You like Tucker Carlson!?:dry:

[VampElvis]

I liked his show. Just looking at him I want to punch him in the face, but I rather enjoyed the few episodes of the show I saw.

[bell110]

Yeah, Carlson was pretty cool. Disappointed that he'll be on Fox. Didn't like his bow tie either.

[Kelly]

I don't have a problem with them being on Fox as long as they stay true to who they are....

Greata is from CNN and her show is the same type of show on Fox as it was on CNN....so I have no problem as long as they stay true to what I watched on the other network.

[StorminNorman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e0ty5lV_Zk

More proof that Glenn Beck is an ass clown.

A sad, sad, unfunny, ass clown.

Did you even watch the interview? Glenn Beck kicking this guy out was the responsible response.

[Kelly]

The problem I have with this interview is Beck's motive for having this guy on. It is very clear that his "Beck's" mind is already made up going into the interview. He already has a set agenda for the interview, and its not to allow this guy to say anything that moves away from that agenda.

Voter Registration Fraud vs. Someone bathing in a BK's sink where they wash the utensils that people prepare the food with? REALLY? That is ridiculous.....

If this were "Voter Fraud" then I could see sort of a comparison as far as major problem. But its not.....

I don't like how Acorn does business, I never have.....but this interview was bogus, and ridiculous at the core, and I believe the guy is lieing as far as Acorn not paying on a quota.....BUT, Beck's motive IMO was for a dramatic interview, and he wasn't getting it.

He could not get the guy mad, and nothing outrageous was coming from the interview (which is what Beck likes, he's so DRAMATIC), so cut his mic off and kick him off the set.....not because the guy is doing anything wrong, but simply because the guy is boring.....it has Beck written all over it, that is what he does..........


Ridiculously stupid.....

And yes, I watched the interview at the time that it aired....I watch Beck daily, why? because I agree with much of what he says.....Acorn is corrupt, but let the guy speak, and then pick apart his argument.......stop with the dramatic ********...

[VampElvis]

How could his mind not be made up with the preponderance of evidence that ACORN is shady? If anything the spokesman's responses lead me to believe ACORN doesn't see that there is a problem and will continue on with business as usual. I think we're well past the point where the organization must accept there is a problem and needs to institute reform and if they have that's what their spokesman should be pimping.

[StorminNorman]

ACORN really is nothing more than a successful crime family.

[Addendum]

So ACORN is shady because some of the workers they hired committed voter registration fraud, and the only ones who were victims of the fraud was ACORN itself, since they were paying those workers for every person that got registered. None of those fraudulent registrations turned into votes though.

Have I got it right?

[StorminNorman]

So ACORN is shady because some of the workers they hired committed voter registration fraud, and the only ones who were victims of the fraud was ACORN itself, since they were paying those workers for every person that got registered. None of those fraudulent registrations turned into votes though.

Have I got it right?

No. Not at all.

It has nothing about voter fraud and everything to do with embezzlement and racketeering.

[VampElvis]

So ACORN is shady because some of the workers they hired committed voter registration fraud, and the only ones who were victims of the fraud was ACORN itself, since they were paying those workers for every person that got registered. None of those fraudulent registrations turned into votes though.

Have I got it right?
Nope

[Superman]

You like Tucker Carlson!?:dry:Yeah, I like Pat Buchanan too. What of it? :huh: :yay:

[Addendum]

No. Not at all.

It has nothing about voter fraud and everything to do with embezzlement and racketeering.

Nope

Oh well. It's not a big deal to me either way.

[StorminNorman]

It's only tax payer funding going to a criminal organization.

[Addendum]

My taxes go to several things I don't agree with, so what can you do.

[chaseter]

Live life like Wesley Snipes. Or, get you a cabin in the middle on the woods.

[Addendum]

Live life like Wesley Snipes. Or, get you a cabin in the middle on the woods.

You set yourself up for having an actual reason to say "or you could live in a van down by the river", and you failed to collect :csad:

[Kelly]

My taxes go to several things I don't agree with, so what can you do.\


You can hold your represenatives accountable for their vote.

The problems we have now have come from generations of people asking..."so what can you do?"

Our forefather's asked that same question and acted on it.

We do that now, and we are called ignorant, a bunch of racists because we question a black president, radical right wingers, etc.....

Therein lies the problem today....YOU CAN QUESTION, if you are big enough to take the namecalling, and continue to question.

IMO, the ignorant ones are those that don't question.

[Superman]

Live life like Wesley Snipes. Or, get you a cabin in the middle on the woods.

You set yourself up for having an actual reason to say "or you could live in a van down by the river", and you failed to collect :csad:That's just sad.

Shame shame chaseter. Turn in your geek card at the front desk.:csad:





:hehe:

[Addendum]

\


You can hold your represenatives accountable for their vote.

The problems we have now have come from generations of people asking..."so what can you do?"

Our forefather's asked that same question and acted on it.

We do that now, and we are called ignorant, a bunch of racists because we question a black president, radical right wingers, etc.....

Therein lies the problem today....YOU CAN QUESTION, if you are big enough to take the namecalling, and continue to question.

IMO, the ignorant ones are those that don't question.

So you hold them accountable, and don't vote for them in the next election. And the person you end up voting for, when they get in office, does similar things that the previous person did.

The only thing that changed is the voting year.

[Kelly]

Doesn't mean I will just sit down and do nothing....I will continue to hold them accountable. I'm patient....I have respresenatives that vote in a fiscally conservative manner....so as far as I'm concerned, as far as my state....I'm good.

[SsM]

\


You can hold your represenatives accountable for their vote.

The problems we have now have come from generations of people asking..."so what can you do?"

Our forefather's asked that same question and acted on it.

We do that now, and we are called ignorant, a bunch of racists because we question a black president, radical right wingers, etc.....

Therein lies the problem today....YOU CAN QUESTION, if you are big enough to take the namecalling, and continue to question.

IMO, the ignorant ones are those that don't question.

I hate being called radical.. It such an insulting word in politics.

Aren't you an independent as well?? Someone called you a radical right winger or is that just a reference?

[Kelly]

I hate being called radical.. It such an insulting word in politics.

Aren't you an independent as well?? Someone called you a radical right winger or is that just a reference?

No, I'm talking about the mainstream media's description of those that were a part of the tea parties, and questioning the massive spending today.


Yes, I'm an independent, and I've had very few label me otherwise.

[SsM]

No, I'm talking about the mainstream media's description of those that were a part of the tea parties, and questioning the massive spending today.


Yes, I'm an independent, and I've had very few label me otherwise.


Yeah, the media did a less than honorable job on the Tea Parties.. Jon Stewart had a segment about it a few weeks ago about how all of the major networks are turning into each other.. and They had CNN(or whichever station was using the sexual innuendo) as turning into COMEDY CENTRAL, and Stewart was freaking out, it was pretty entertaining in a very sad way :(

[BlackestNight]

Yeah, the media did a less than honorable job on the Tea Parties.. Jon Stewart had a segment about it a few weeks ago about how all of the major networks are turning into each other.. and They had CNN(or whichever station was using the sexual innuendo) as turning into COMEDY CENTRAL, and Stewart was freaking out, it was pretty entertaining in a very sad way :(

I think CNN became the new Fox. Fox is now the station of Decent. MSNBC is now Comedy Central.

[chaseter]

Doesn't mean I will just sit down and do nothing....I will continue to hold them accountable. I'm patient....I have respresenatives that vote in a fiscally conservative manner....so as far as I'm concerned, as far as my state....I'm good.
Texas...holla! Crazy thing is, we use to be a wildly Democratic state.

[Kelly]

Texas...holla! Crazy thing is, we use to be a wildly Democratic state.


Reagan changed that....:yay:


And we still are democrat at the state level....we are a moderate state, at the core.

[Arc-Light]

It's only tax payer funding going to a criminal organization.

And you know this how.....

[Arc-Light]

Reagan changed that....:yay:


And we still are democrat at the state level....we are a moderate state, at the core.

No No...there is Texas and there is everyone else.......Texas always went about its own merry way.

[DACrowe]

Hannity got his ass kicked last night by Jesse Ventura of all people and it was hilarious!

YmMpsQ95K9k

[Addendum]

Bush "inherited a negative impact on 9/11"? Um, didn't 9/11 happen 7 months into Bush's first term?

And Reagan "ended the Cold War?" The Soviet Union collapsed during HW Bush's presidency.

At least look at a damn calendar

[StorminNorman]

And you know this how.....

By doing research. By reading news stories and watching the news and digging into stories I find interesting.

[Marx]

Hannity got his ass kicked last night by Jesse Ventura of all people and it was hilarious!

YmMpsQ95K9k

Ventura knows his stuff. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, Ventura owned him.

He's very intimidating. Makes me wish the ROCK OBAMA was more than just a skit. Sigh.

[StorminNorman]

Ventura looks like a mix of Joe Biden and Craig T. Nelson.

[StorminNorman]

Ventura sounds like a college democrat blogger - he didn't "own" Hannity, he simply kept spouting liberal talking points.

And bringing up Usama's mother is ridiculous - Usama's mother has about as much to do with Al Queda as I do.

[Addendum]

I don't think anyone got owned. Both made their own "talking points".

[StorminNorman]

I don't think anyone got owned. Both made their own "talking points".

Exactly. It was two brick walls talking.

[Addendum]

But at least Ventura got rid of the look he had a couple years ago

[Marx]

Exactly. It was two brick walls talking.

That's pretty accurate.

[Kelly]

Depends on who you agree with....that will tell you who got owned.

They are both idiots in my book......

[DACrowe]

Ventura sounds like a college democrat blogger - he didn't "own" Hannity, he simply kept spouting liberal talking points.

And bringing up Usama's mother is ridiculous - Usama's mother has about as much to do with Al Queda as I do.

mm-hm.

:whatever:

You may disagree with his points, and write him off as using "college democrat blogger" talking points, but in all honesty he made his arguments better. In terms of debate, he came off as smart and impartial in his analysis of Obama and did not get angry and lose his fluster. Hannity lost his fluster like he does whenever someone not named Colmes disagrees with him and lost his focus in the argument. He started rambling about 9/11, blaming Clinton and pronouncing his undying love of sucking at the Republican throne of Reagan. Ventura called him a partisan hack who parrots the talking points of the Republican Party and Hannity had no argument against that and instead of trying to pin the world's problems on Obama (like he and Dick Morris did 10 minutes earlier and like he was trying to do with Ventura) he ended up defending Bush, a president over 80% of the country now hates.

You may disagree with Ventura, but he came off as assured, confident and smart. Hannity came off like a tool who couldn't defend his positions.

[Kelly]

:yay:

[DACrowe]

:bow:

[Zar25]

Ventura sounds like a college democrat blogger - he didn't "own" Hannity, he simply kept spouting liberal talking points.

Jesse Ventura's an independent. He doesn't give a **** about Dems or Repubs. He doesn't have an agenda. Hannity's every response was total weak sauce and he couldn't refute any of Ventura's arguments. The Body layeth the smacketh down without fear.

It was wonderful stuff really :yay:

[Heretic]

I've always like Ventura, even though i disagree with him on a lot of issues. Unlike Obama (and Bush) I think that he truly has the best interest of the country in mind, instead of personal gain, and Id vote for him as president in a heartbeat over Obama and most likely Republican candidates.

Ventura/Paul could very well save the country...not that theyd stand a chance of winning.

[Kelly]

Dear God, please give me the means to move to another country if our 2 top leaders, at any point in our history are Ventura and Paul.

thank you for listening....

[Heretic]

Dear God, please give me the means to move to another country if our 2 top leaders, at any point in our history are Ventura and Paul.

thank you for listening....

Two intelligent men wh disagree on many issues but have shown an ability to work with those who disagree...two men who put the good of their country over their own personal gain...

Sorry, Im in...I doubt either mjaor party will come up with anything better.

Besides, Ventura and Paul would both put the breaks on our countries mad dash to a police state.

[Kelly]

Paul is a good doctor from all accounts I've seen, and he has "great ideas"....not a leader.

Ventura is loud.

[Heretic]

Paul is a good doctor from all accounts I've seen, and he has "great ideas"....not a leader.

Ventura is loud.

Loud means people will follow...so Paul steers the ship with Ventura barking out his ideas...sounds perfect!

[BlackLantern]

Two intelligent men wh disagree on many issues but have shown an ability to work with those who disagree...two men who put the good of their country over their own personal gain...

Sorry, Im in...I doubt either mjaor party will come up with anything better.

Besides, Ventura and Paul would both put the breaks on our countries mad dash to a police state.

some people in this country could use some police state:oldrazz:

[VampElvis]

Like this?
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/five_birmingham_police_officer.html

[StorminNorman]

mm-hm.

:whatever:

You may disagree with his points, and write him off as using "college democrat blogger" talking points, but in all honesty he made his arguments better.

Wait...so I shouldn't write off someone simply because they can argue more intelligently than Sean Hannity? :huh: My eight year old nephew can do that.

In terms of debate, he came off as smart and impartial in his analysis of Obama and did not get angry and lose his fluster.

What did he say about Obama? That he's intelligent? The entire focus of the discussion had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do about Bush. It's easy to sound "smart and impartial" on a topic only briefly mentioned in a discussion.

Hannity lost his fluster like he does whenever someone not named Colmes disagrees with him and lost his focus in the argument. He started rambling about 9/11, blaming Clinton and pronouncing his undying love of sucking at the Republican throne of Reagan. Ventura called him a partisan hack who parrots the talking points of the Republican Party and Hannity had no argument against that and instead of trying to pin the world's problems on Obama (like he and Dick Morris did 10 minutes earlier and like he was trying to do with Ventura) he ended up defending Bush, a president over 80% of the country now hates.

You may disagree with Ventura, but he came off as assured, confident and smart. Hannity came off like a tool who couldn't defend his positions.

It's not that I disagree with Ventura, it's that Ventura doesn't know what he is talking about.

Ventura came off as assured and confident - but not smart. He was simply incorrect on several issues. He claimed Bush didn't inherit a recession. He tried to imply a connection between Bush and UBL simply by using Usama's mother (Usama's family has disowned him and are very pro Western). Those are just two obvious examples of well...ignorance that Ventura displayed.

I wasn't trumpeting Hannity - they both were completely useless in that segment.

[StorminNorman]

Jesse Ventura's an independent. He doesn't give a **** about Dems or Repubs. He doesn't have an agenda. Hannity's every response was total weak sauce and he couldn't refute any of Ventura's arguments. The Body layeth the smacketh down without fear.

It was wonderful stuff really :yay:

:whatever: Ventura may not give a **** about Dems and Republicans, but his rant against Bush was irrational and ignorant.

Being "independent" doesn't prevent you from being an idiot, nor a tool. Ventura was being both during that interview.

[Marx]

Paul is a good doctor from all accounts I've seen, and he has "great ideas"....not a leader.

Ventura is loud.

I would have more faith in Ventura, than Paul.

[StorminNorman]

Ventura is a better candidate than Ron Paul.

Which is so damn depressing...

[Kelly]

I would have more faith in Ventura, than Paul.

Ventura is a better candidate than Ron Paul.

Which is so damn depressing...


Shhhhh......I'm still praying...

[gap5ewl]

Beck went on The View this morning... yeah That's all I have to say. :
SsBvEnaXtgo

[StorminNorman]

Beck went on The View this morning... yeah That's all I have to say. :
SsBvEnaXtgo

Barbara Walters caught feelings. :o

Getting pissed at Beck because he didn't a less-than-flattering impression of Barbara Walters seems a little silly, though. Have they heard the impression he does of his wife?

[redfirebird2008]

That's pretty embarrassing for him. Perhaps he'll learn not to exaggerate his anecdotes in the future. Or maybe not. :p

[redfirebird2008]

Barbara Walters caught feelings. :o

Getting pissed at Beck because he didn't a less-than-flattering impression of Barbara Walters seems a little silly, though. Have they heard the impression he does of his wife?

That wasn't really the reason they were bothered. It's the fact that he lied in his re-telling of their train encounter.

[StorminNorman]

That wasn't really the reason they were bothered. It's the fact that he lied in his re-telling of their train encounter.

Except that it is very possible he was told that those seats were reserved.

[redfirebird2008]

Except that it is very possible he was told that those seats were reserved.

He lied about her starting the conversation when he was the one who actually walked over to them and began talking. He admitted as such when they called him out on it. Who's to say he didn't lie about the rest of the story? If he's willing to lie about something as basic as a random meeting with other celebrities, then how do you trust a word he says on anything else? He had no reason to lie about their meeting, but he did.

[Superman]

Beck went on The View this morning... yeah That's all I have to say. :
SsBvEnaXtgo "A lying sack of dog mess" Now THAT was a thing of beauty.

Whoopi is my hero. :bow::heart::applaud :woot:

[Kelly]

What?

He was given wrong information......so what?


He was wrong with the "calling me over..." stuff.....totally.

But, Jesus, it was an Amtrak ride....who the hell cares.


They spend a entire freaking segment on that?

I love Whoopi, I love Barbara, can't stand the others.....but they just gave me another reason why I don't watch that show. Apparently Whoopi and Barbara are still going through menopause....cause that was really nothing to get upset about, it was just.........stupid.

[SsM]

Whoopi Goldberg is as bat**** crazy as beck is :/

[redfirebird2008]

Whoopi Goldberg is as bat**** crazy as beck is :/

This is true. :woot:

[DACrowe]

I like how he essientially admitted he makes stuff up. He hides under the guise that he is a commentator and not a reporter and does no fact checking or gathering (many columnists and op-ed writers across the country would be offended to be lumped into that excuse). Thus he freely admits he made up at least most (if not all) of that story, because most of the women on the View are very liberal and making them look elitist, arrogant and out-of-touch would be appealing to his viewers and listeners.

But it is the fact, as Walters pointed out, that he freely admits he makes things up as he is not a full fledged reporter that makes it so sad. Shield laws in this country, including the one in New York, protect commentators and editorial writers as reporters and they are protected by the same libel protections and are legally viewed as reporters, but Beck will make something up to rouse his viewers as he admits.

Beck is a very bad joke. Earlier in another thread I amassed a small compilation of bat-****ing crazy quotes from Beck. I will never understand why anyone would take a man who wants to be an actual Howard Beale seriously.

[Heretic]

So, Amtrak made him move because someone reserved those seats...and Whoopi and Barbara ended up in those seats....

Not sure where the lie is in that...

Beck speaks off the cuff, without a script...so occasionally small, insignificant details will be wrong...like he'll say she came up to him instead of the other way around. It hardly matters who approached who...though that got an entire segment.

[StorminNorman]

I like how he essientially admitted he makes stuff up. He hides under the guise that he is a commentator and not a reporter and does no fact checking or gathering (many columnists and op-ed writers across the country would be offended to be lumped into that excuse). Thus he freely admits he made up at least most (if not all) of that story, because most of the women on the View are very liberal and making them look elitist, arrogant and out-of-touch would be appealing to his viewers and listeners.

But it is the fact, as Walters pointed out, that he freely admits he makes things up as he is not a full fledged reporter that makes it so sad. Shield laws in this country, including the one in New York, protect commentators and editorial writers as reporters and they are protected by the same libel protections and are legally viewed as reporters, but Beck will make something up to rouse his viewers as he admits.

Beck is a very bad joke. Earlier in another thread I amassed a small compilation of bat-****ing crazy quotes from Beck. I will never understand why anyone would take a man who wants to be an actual Howard Beale seriously.

...:dry:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Beck didn't get tagged for the impersonation.

He got pegged for outright lying.

I mean it's one thing to not check your facts, but to formulate and tell and alternate story to something he was at firsthand.

Funny.

[Hobgoblin]

When someone is mis-characterized on a radio show, lets not be surprised that they are angry and want to fire back. Beck made them look bad for the sole purpose of a laugh, or to please his conservative listeners. Of course they would mention the incident when he appeared on their show.

That said, I'm glad they gave him another segment, so they didnt just beat on him for the duration of his appearance. I wonder how that went.

[StorminNorman]

Beck didn't get tagged for the impersonation.

He got pegged for outright lying.

I mean it's one thing to not check your facts, but to formulate and tell and alternate story to something he was at firsthand.

Funny.

...:dry:

When someone is mis-characterized on a radio show, lets not be surprised that they are angry and want to fire back. Beck made them look bad for the sole purpose of a laugh, or to please his conservative listeners. Of course they would mention the incident when he appeared on their show.

That said, I'm glad they gave him another segment, so they didnt just beat on him for the duration of his appearance. I wonder how that went.

The second segment was equally useless.

[Hobgoblin]

The second segment was equally useless.

Sad but not surprising. This is The View after all, not Meet the Press.

[nathaniel]

I first thought Beck was just unbalanced but i now realise he is just manipulative, he knows what his audience wants to hear and spouts it 24/7 didnt i hear he had a "sick day" after this?

Through all this though this little segment on the view is really a hulaboo about nothing but it does show the lentghs GB goes to, to seem "justlike you" almost as bad as Oreillys "im an average joe" stuff.

The single worst thing i have heard from him was his rant on his radio show (long before his fox show) about hating whinning 9/11 familys this was contrasted on the daily show when he was in tears over how much he loves them.

The scary thing is is this guy gets such high numbers night after night.:csad:

[StorminNorman]

I first thought Beck was just unbalanced but i now realise he is just manipulative, he knows what his audience wants to hear and spouts it 24/7 didnt i hear he had a "sick day" after this?

Through all this though this little segment on the view is really a hulaboo about nothing but it does show the lentghs GB goes to, to seem "justlike you" almost as bad as Oreillys "im an average joe" stuff.

The single worst thing i have heard from him was his rant on his radio show (long before his fox show) about hating whinning 9/11 familys this was contrasted on the daily show when he was in tears over how much he loves them.

The scary thing is is this guy gets such high numbers night after night.:csad:

See, when people get their news from the Daily Show they don't have any idea what they are talking about.

[Superman]

For continuity the second segment...

U2Le1CESaPU

[BlackLantern]

See, when people get their news from the Daily Show they don't have any idea what they are talking about.

my dad is a Fox News watcher and he loves the Daily Show....he says its the one show that makes him laugh every time he watches it

[Heretic]

Beck didn't get tagged for the impersonation.

He got pegged for outright lying.

I mean it's one thing to not check your facts, but to formulate and tell and alternate story to something he was at firsthand.

Funny.

His massive lie was "she comes up to me" as opposed to "I went up to her"

That is the entirety of his outrageous lie.

I expect you to be equally brutal when a democrat lies in a manner such as this.

[Kelly]

Exactly......this whole thing was been blown WAAAAAAY out of proportion. That just didn't seem like Whoopi at all, she normally doesn't take little things that huge before. It's almost like, hey guys we have to really rake this guy over the coals, what do we have? Well, I don't know him all that well, but it works for Fox, so we hate him. Well, he did say that I walked up to him on that Amtrak train, lets get him with that....


lame.....

[Addendum]

Kel, what else does one expect from The View? The show has been nothing more than a bunch of yentas going on about trivial ****. If someone is expecting conversation that is engaging and enlightening from The View, then that person is probably smoking something.

[Excel]

Beck IS a joke; he is a Kieth Olberman wannabe which is just sad, but hes less funny and the stuff he spouts isnt even based off of facts, which isjust pathetic.

[Marx]

Whoopi Goldberg is as bat**** crazy as beck is :/

Bite your tongue! :cmad:

I love Whoopi Goldberg! :yay:

[DACrowe]

...:dry:

What Beck distorts facts and lies or exaggerates to appeal to his viewers and prey on their insecurities or prejudices on something so trivial, it demonstrates why he should not be trusted on anything (like saying Obama will "take away your gun" and "These FEMA prison camps actually exist"). He lies and then when caught, he hides under the excuse that he is a commentator and thus not accountable for his bad journalism. Meanwhile the best columnists and opinion writers in print are held to that level of scrutiny and standard of reporting to the point that it defines their careers and has helps them be recognized as such in state law across the country. These TV commentators then say since they are commentators, they can say whatever they want and if they're wrong, it's not their fault.

It is pathetic.

[DACrowe]

See, when people get their news from the Daily Show they don't have any idea what they are talking about.

True. But they probably have a better idea than people who just watch the "commentators" on Fox News like Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity who are as biased as Stewart and far more dishonest.

[Heretic]

What Beck distorts facts and lies or exaggerates to appeal to his viewers and prey on their insecurities or prejudices on something so trivial, which would explain why he should not be trusted on anything (like saying Obama will "take away your gun" and "These FEMA prison camps actually exist"). He lies and then when caught about it he hides under the excuse he is a commentator and thus not accountable for his bad journalism, when the best columnists and opinion writers in print are held to that level of scrutiny and standard of reporting that it defines their careers and has helped them be recognized as such in state law across the country. These TV commentators then say since they are commentators, they can say whatever they want and if they're wrong, it's not their fault.

It is pathetic.

The FEMA camps do exist and can be found on Google maps..

Also, since Obama became president, many new bills to ban guns have been brught up and are waiting to be voted on, not to mention Obamas deal with mexico which would ban the cleaning, transportation and reloading of guns.

[Paradyme]

True. But they probably have a better idea than people who just watch the "commentators" on Fox News like Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity who are as biased as Stewart and far more dishonest.

So, Stewart is 'better' because he is less dishonest?

Biased much?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

...:dry:



It was funny.

Your sense-o-humor meter might be broken, Norm.



His massive lie was "she comes up to me" as opposed to "I went up to her"

That is the entirety of his outrageous lie.

I expect you to be equally brutal when a democrat lies in a manner such as this.


No.

His massive lie came from saying Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg were too elitist, and had reserved seats on an unreservable train.

Then, following that is that Beck had approched Walters.

Pay attention, man.


So, Stewart is 'better' because he is less dishonest?

Biased much?


Uh...yeah.

As you know, facts and honesty are BETTER than the opposite.

Whereas Beck admits, honestly, he doesn't check facts. He just says ****, and whatever sticks...sticks.

Atleast he admitted it. I kinda respected that.

Until he went on his radio show the day after to claim "The View" owed him an apology. Which then I lost even more respect for him than before.

So, either Beck is a liar. Or a coward. Either way, it's a loss.

[VampElvis]

Whoopi Goldberg is as bat**** crazy as beck is :/

Bite your tongue! :cmad:

I love Whoopi Goldberg! :yay:

I'm pretty sure she went somewhere, at sometime, and told someone that both Eddie and Jumping Jack Flash were good, funny movies. Ergo she must be insane.:oldrazz:

[Paradyme]

Uh...yeah.

As you know, facts and honesty are BETTER than the opposite.

Whereas Beck admits, honestly, he doesn't check facts. He just says ****, and whatever sticks...sticks.

Atleast he admitted it. I kinda respected that.

Until he went on his radio show the day after to claim "The View" owed him an apology. Which then I lost even more respect for him than before.

So, either Beck is a liar. Or a coward. Either way, it's a loss.

Well, I must've misread DA's statement then because from how it read, to me it said that Stewart was still dishonest, just less so. So, I found that to be a bit hypocritical but if its the way you claim then thats obvious.

Beck has admitted this several times before his visit on the View if people actually listened to his show they would know that. He continually tells people to check their facts and not take his word as gospel but I guess there are a few idiots out there that believe every word he says.

[Kelly]

Beck IS a joke; he is a Kieth Olberman wannabe which is just sad, but hes less funny and the stuff he spouts isnt even based off of facts, which isjust pathetic.


Yes, because Keith Olberman is the real deal.......:whatever:

They are both jokes......

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think he has a duty to get his facts right, though. Atleast to try and get the facts right. That's just my opinon, of course.

[StorminNorman]

And Olbermann is incorrect on facts quite often. :huh:

[Kelly]

I agree, but to use this thing with "The View" to prove that he "doesn't" get his facts straight, is just silly beyond words.

I would like to see some other examples of all these commentators....put them all to a test, and let's see who passes and who fails.

All of this, he's better, she's better crap is just that unless their are actual facts proving it....

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yes, because Keith Olberman is the real deal.......:whatever:

They are both jokes......


Atleast Olbermann does his research.

It's better to have someone who TRIES to get facts.

Instead of, you know...a commentator...on life.

[Kelly]

Again, I see both of them as jokes, in their style of providing the facts.....I haven't seen anyone prove whether one is more consistent than the other....

[Paradyme]

I think he has a duty to get his facts right, though. Atleast to try and get the facts right. That's just my opinon, of course.

He gets quite a bit right but as you know things change other information comes out and previous facts change.

I agree, but to use this thing with "The View" to prove that he "doesn't" get his facts straight, is just silly beyond words.

I would like to see some other examples of all these commentators....put them all to a test, and let's see who passes and who fails.

All of this, he's better, she's better crap is just that unless their are actual facts proving it....

It is considering the only fact he got wrong during that whole segment is that he walked up to Walters as opposed to her walking up to him.

[BlackLantern]

Again, I see both of them as jokes, in their style of providing the facts.....I haven't seen anyone prove whether one is more consistent than the other....

they are all jesters in different colored hats....I might watch Maddow once or twice a week, and I usually have the laptop on

[VampElvis]

they are all jesters in different colored hats....
:up:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.

But, I can confidently say that Beck is a dick. He seems to really be a dick with his guests.

Is that part of his act too? As long as it is, I guess it works.

[Paradyme]

I've heard he has A.D.D. Still, he is pretty irritating when he has guests on. Can the guests see him when they are on the show?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno. I have a feeling they can't when they're on the monitor-to-interview with Beck. Because I've seen him really goof on people by doing hand gestures and hand puppets at times, and they never say anything.

That or maybe he cuts their mic. Keeps it classy.

It's entertaining, which is something I certainly understand.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah.

But, I can confidently say that Beck is a dick. He seems to really be a dick with his guests.

Is that part of his act too? As long as it is, I guess it works.

And I can confidently say that Olbermann is a dick. He doesn't seem to be a dick with his guests though, because he rarely ever has anyone on that disagrees with him.

[VampElvis]

So score one for Beck, he may treat them poorly but he at least has another view on his show.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He's pretty agreeable when someone disagrees with him on his show. I could see him being more passive aggressive, though. Getting witty remarks or something across.

Rachel Maddow too. She's had people who disagree with her, and she didn't have his mic cut or shout him down.

I know it's doesn't matter to most, but I like the manners.

Maybe destroying guests is the key to great ratings. Isn't Beck Fox News highest rated show? It's only a matter of time before he get a night show. Maybe taking Great's time slot?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So score one for Beck, he may treat them poorly but he at least has another view on his show.


Yeah...because everyone watching Beck wants they're views challenged.

[Hobgoblin]

Again, I see both of them as jokes, in their style of providing the facts.....I haven't seen anyone prove whether one is more consistent than the other....

Thats why I dont watch "commentators" on TV. I watch the regular network and cable news and skip blowhards like O'Reilly, Olbermann, Beck, Stewart and Colbert. I cant watch any of them.

And yes, I know Stewart and Colbert are comedians, but they are also commentators that many people trust and listen to far to much.

[Marx]

Stewart and Colbert are comedians/satirists. They're not supposed to be viewed as 'serious journalists'.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nope.

And even then, they don't do hand puppets and cut peoples mics off.

[VampElvis]

NONE of these should be viewed as serious journalists!

I believe Olbermann recently said
Neurotic, paranoid, false to fact and false to reason, forever self-rationalizing his inner rage at his own impotence, and failure dripping from every word, and as irrational, as separated from the real world, as dishonest, as insane as any terrorist; the former vice president has today humiliated himself beyond redemption.

If you think those are the words of a journalist I would vigorously disagree.

I know you're point isn't to prop these up or give them legitimacy but rather to distinguish and segregate Stewart/Colbert from them, and I appreciate that. BUT satire has a place. Spewing vitriol while masquerading as a journalist is an egregious offense by my estimation.

[BlackLantern]

I'd never consider Olbermann a journalist by any means

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, he's a sports journalist.

There's that.

[Hobgoblin]

Stewart and Colbert are comedians/satirists. They're not supposed to be viewed as 'serious journalists'.

And yet I'm sure many young people would get their news from them before they would from serious journalists.

[DACrowe]

So, Stewart is 'better' because he is less dishonest?

Biased much?

You misread my post. I am not saying Stewart is a journalist or should be held to any level of credibility. He is a comedian and social satirist. Historically, satirists have actually done great things and brought political corruption to light, such as when a political cartoonist brought down the corrupt Boss Tweed Democratic machine in New York.

But I would hardly say one should take Stewart, Colbert, SNL, etc. as serious indicators of what is going on in the world, albeit they tend to be fairer and more biting in their comedy (as equal opportunists) than TV talking heads on ALL the news networks.

But that was my main point. Stewart has no credibility as he is simply an entertainer who is incredibly biased. However, I see little difference between Stewart and O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maddows and ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between him, Beck or Hannity in terms of content. The difference is they take themselves seriously as journalists or voices of reason and have huge egos.

Yet, people like Hannity and Beck (who after getting humiliated on the View took a sick day and came out swinging and cursing the View ladies out and saying they lied to him in the safety of his radio show) claim to be credible.

My point:

Is not to praise Stewart, but to deride TV commentators, especially ones who openly distort the truth and then hide under the guise of entertainer or commentator. It is deceitful and ridiculous. Beck tries to be funny and Hannity calls himself an entertainer and also a journalist. They want to eat their cake and have it too. While liberally skewed, Stewart admits to it and does make fun of both sides and does not view himself as the guiding light of reason like they do. And as such he has been far more effective on our culture as he succeeded in getting **** like Crossfire canceled and CNBC to actually apologize to him on his show.

And he did it without making **** up and then crying about it on his safely screened and insulated radio show.

[gap5ewl]

You misread my post. I am not saying Stewart is a journalist or should be held to any level of credibility. He is a comedian and social satirist. Historically, satirists have actually done great things and brought political corruption to light, such as when a political cartoonist brought down the corrupt Boss Tweed Democratic machine in New York.

But I would hardly say one should take Stewart, Colbert, SNL, etc. as serious indicators of what is going on in the world, albeit they tend to be fairer and more biting in their comedy (as equal opportunists) than TV talking heads on ALL the news networks.

But that was my main point. Stewart has no credibility as he is simply an entertainer who is incredibly biased. However, I see little difference between Stewart and O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maddows and ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between him, Beck or Hannity in terms of content. The difference is they take themselves seriously as journalists or voices of reason and have huge egos.

Yet, people like Hannity and Beck (who after getting humiliated on the View took a sick day and came out swinging and cursing the View ladies out and saying they lied to him in the safety of his radio show) claim to be credible.

My point:

Is not to praise Stewart, but to deride TV commentators, especially ones who openly distort the truth and then hide under the guise of entertainer or commentator. It is deceitful and ridiculous. Beck tries to be funny and Hannity calls himself an entertainer and also a journalist. They want to eat their cake and have it too. While liberally skewed, Stewart admits to it and does make fun of both sides and does not view himself as the guiding light of reason like they do. And as such he has been far more effective on our culture as he succeeded in getting **** like Crossfire canceled and CNBC to actually apologize to him on his show.

And he did it without making **** up and then crying about it on his safely screened and insulated radio show.

:up:
I really think people underestimate Stewart. Yes he's a comedian but he really points some stuff out. I must say, I watch all forms of news and sometimes Stewart makes more sense than a lot of these "journalists" which is scary..

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Fair and Balanced is misadvertising. Clearly.

[Superman]

Beck went on his radio show the day after the View thing and said that he didn't lie and that they should apologize TO HIM.:whatever:

e1lnXGIqQWI

[Kelly]

I think they should all just shut up.....

[BlackLantern]

Yes....let it die....

[Zar25]

:whatever: Ventura may not give a **** about Dems and Republicans, but his rant against Bush was irrational and ignorant.

Being "independent" doesn't prevent you from being an idiot, nor a tool. Ventura was being both during that interview.

Oh please ... Which part of his rant was irrational ? He was saying true stuff. Hannity didn't have a leg to stand on against a man who knows his facts and is not afraid of him.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Hannity was the one who claimed that Bush inherited the negative impact of 9/11.

So, I'd say Ventura wasn't the idiotic tool during the interview.

[StorminNorman]

Oh please ... Which part of his rant was irrational ? He was saying true stuff. Hannity didn't have a leg to stand on against a man who knows his facts and is not afraid of him.

Bringing up Usama's family trying to find a link between Bush and UBL - Usama's family disowned Usama and are pro Western.

Claiming Bush didn't inherit a recession.

I haven't watched that clip in about a week, but those are two of many mistakes Ventura made. If you would like me to go on, I will find the clip and watch again - giving you a point for point break down of Ventura's stupidity.

[StorminNorman]

Hannity was the one who claimed that Bush inherited the negative impact of 9/11.

So, I'd say Ventura wasn't the idiotic tool during the interview.

Bush did inherit the negative impact of 9/11. :huh:

Also, Hannity being stupid doesn't make his sparing partner smart.

[Addendum]

Bush did inherit the negative impact of 9/11. :huh:
From whom? Himself?

[StorminNorman]

From whom? Himself?

The terrorists were already in the country and Bin Laden and the Taliban were sitting pretty in Afghanistan. There is nothing Bush could have done during the 8 months he was in office to prevent 9/11.

As FDR inherited the responsibilities of Pearl Harbor because it happened on his watch, so did George W. Bush.

[Carcharodon]

The terrorists were already in the country and Bin Laden and the Taliban were sitting pretty in Afghanistan. There is nothing Bush could have done during the 8 months he was in office to prevent 9/11.Funny. I thought he was informed of the threat by the Clinton administration.

[BlackLantern]

what I find amusing is that a lot of the talking heads move from network to network...Kiran Chetry left Fox and was at CNN like a week later...some of them have worked for all 3

[Addendum]

The terrorists were already in the country and Bin Laden and the Taliban were sitting pretty in Afghanistan. There is nothing Bush could have done during the 8 months he was in office to prevent 9/11.

As FDR inherited the responsibilities of Pearl Harbor because it happened on his watch, so did George W. Bush.

Usually, when people say a president inherited something, it was because of the previous administration: such as Reagan inheriting a bad economy from Carter, or Clinton inheriting a recession from HW Bush.

But what you and Hannity are saying is completely wrong. Here's the definition of the word "inherit"

1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors.
4. to succeed (a person) as heir.
5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes.
6. to take or receive property or the like by virtue of being heir to it.
7. to receive qualities, powers, duties, etc., as by inheritance (fol. by from).
8. to have succession as heir.

[Kelly]

9/11 was in the workings long before even before the first WTC bombing.....it was simply an extention of that.....so to say that Bush could have done something about that is crazy.....NOW, did the CIA drop the ball in some areas...VERY POSSIBLE, in fact I believe they did. Could have Clinton done more? Sure, he himself has said that.....but I blame 9/11 on one group, a group of Terrorists....no one else. That is cut and dry for me. Done there...

As far as the economy, yes the problems from the Bush administration screwed up this economy....but, I'm no longer looking at that, I am now looking at the clean up. It's like....."are we stupid?" do you (Obama) not think that the American people don't know who screwed up the economy...HEEEELLLOOOOOO Obama, it is the ONE, MAIN REASON WHY YOU ARE IN OFFICE.....it's the economy stupid.....we GET IT. There is no reason for him to keep saying it, and just this week, he said it again. That is what I'm tired of.....I'm watching the clean up now.....if it is "in fact" a clean up. I'll give him time....

Now, as far as Hannity and Ventura.....I don't either seriously. I don't need to, I read, I listen, I watch as much as I can from a variety of sources, I don't need either of them to explain it to me.....I can figure it out myself.

[Addendum]

I never said that Bush could have done something, or that Clinton should have done more.

Just that since 9/11 happened when W Bush was president, any negatives had no choice but to fall on him. For someone to say that they "inherited it" implies that it was something passed on from his predecessor, which most certainly was not the case.

FDR didn't "inherit" responsibilities of Pearl Harbor, because it happened while he was in office, not when Hoover was president. However, FDR did inherit the problems from the great depression, as well as the depression itself.

[StorminNorman]

Funny. I thought he was informed of the threat by the Clinton administration.

No. He was informed that Al Queda may use planes in a terrorist attack. He was also informed that Al Queda may use all sorts of other tactics. What was he suppose to do, prevent people from flying? Shut down all airports? Based off of one, of many, intelligence memo's?

[StorminNorman]

Usually, when people say a president inherited something, it was because of the previous administration: such as Reagan inheriting a bad economy from Carter, or Clinton inheriting a recession from HW Bush.

But what you and Hannity are saying is completely wrong. Here's the definition of the word "inherit"

1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors.
4. to succeed (a person) as heir.
5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes.
6. to take or receive property or the like by virtue of being heir to it.
7. to receive qualities, powers, duties, etc., as by inheritance (fol. by from).
8. to have succession as heir.

Bush inherited a country about to be attacked. He received a country where the conditions of a terrorist attack had already been placed, planned and ready to execute.

[The Major]

There is nothing Bush could have done during the 8 months he was in office to prevent 9/11.

Bush could have given those warnings about al queda from Germany and Clinton to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and local police. Those agencies are there for a reason. What possible excuse for those organizations to be asleep at the wheel for 8 months?

[The Major]

No. He was informed that Al Queda may use planes in a terrorist attack. He was also informed that Al Queda may use all sorts of other tactics. What was he suppose to do, prevent people from flying? Shut down all airports? Based off of one, of many, intelligence memo's?
He could have used those memos to investigate leads, have the proper agencies be on guard, monitor flight schools and add additional security measures to airports to prevent terrorists from hurting people. This isn't an impossible goal.

[VampElvis]

You've gotta understand what they were told. They we told Al Qada had an ill to attack which was construed as an aversion to doing so. See, they meant to say will to attack but, having already stolen all the Ws from the keyboards, the message was corrupted:woot:

[Addendum]

Bush inherited a country about to be attacked. He received a country where the conditions of a terrorist attack had already been placed, planned and ready to execute.

That isn't the same thing as saying "Bush inherited the negative impact of 9/11"

[Carcharodon]

No. He was informed that Al Queda may use planes in a terrorist attack. He was also informed that Al Queda may use all sorts of other tactics. What was he suppose to do, prevent people from flying? Shut down all airports? Based off of one, of many, intelligence memo's?He took no action. How is that better?

[DACrowe]

The terrorists were already in the country and Bin Laden and the Taliban were sitting pretty in Afghanistan. There is nothing Bush could have done during the 8 months he was in office to prevent 9/11.

As FDR inherited the responsibilities of Pearl Harbor because it happened on his watch, so did George W. Bush.

We'll never know for sure but don't paint Bush as angelic as he had a memo on his desk by August saying bin Laden planned to fly planes into US buildings and when first told about the Talibhan he asked if they were a rock band.

And he did inherit the responsibilities of 9/11, as FDR did the Great Depression and later WWII. And unlike FDR he failed miserably at handling them. What with failing to apprehend those behind the 9/11 attacks, invading the wrong country on knowingly-faulty information without meeting the criteria for a just preemptive war (if there is such a thing) and publicly condoning and allowing torture to be administered by the government on his watch and spying on Americans without warrants.

Whether you want to blame Clinton or not (I think there is enough blame to be spread around equally) he was at a point in history where he had to rise to the occasion and time and time again he literally and figuratively just sat there.

[Zar25]

Bringing up Usama's family trying to find a link between Bush and UBL - Usama's family disowned Usama and are pro Western.

Funny thing how when we had men in place at the Afghanistan border to go after Osama, the order given from high on up was to NOT pursue.Tell me that makes any sense to you. Also remember how the family was flown out of the country without even the slightest investigation or questioning ?

That just sounds fishy to me.

Claiming Bush didn't inherit a recession.

Total weak sauce argument. You can argue that the markets were slow and business developments were sucky and as far as recessions went it was minor really but also remember Bush just came off a Clinton admin with $200 billion dollars worth of surplus. If he was capable enough he could've made the something of it. It's very telling that by the end of his term the entire world economy was frakking wrecked.

Bush was incompetent. That's the bottom line. You can't really argue against that. The facts are clear.

[Addendum]

We'll never know for sure but don't paint Bush as angelic as he had a memo on his desk by August saying bin Laden planned to fly planes into US buildings and when first told about the Talibhan he asked if they were a rock band.

And he did inherit the responsibilities of 9/11, as FDR did the Great Depression and later WWII. And unlike FDR he failed miserably at handling them. What with failing to apprehend those behind the 9/11 attacks, invading the wrong country on knowingly-faulty information without meeting the criteria for a just preemptive war (if there is such a thing) and publicly condoning and allowing torture to be administered by the government on his watch and spying on Americans without warrants.

Whether you want to blame Clinton or not (I think there is enough blame to be spread around equally) he was at a point in history where he had to rise to the occasion and time and time again he literally and figuratively just sat there.
FDR didn't inherit World War 2. It was built up, came to a head, boiled over, and then affected the US all while he was President.

Only Truman could say that he "inherited" World War 2, since he took office after FDR died while it was still going on.

[DACrowe]

FDR didn't inherit World War 2. It was built up, came to a head, boiled over, and then affected the US all while he was President.

Only Truman could say that he "inherited" World War 2, since he took office after FDR died while it was still going on.

touche I was just using the word as loosely as other posters were. What I meant is these are two major crises that FDR had to deal with and he did so exemplary. Even if you claim Bush could not prevent 9/11 (we'll never know, but he certainly could have done more) his response was beyond inadequate, it was plain wrong.

[Superman]

How the heck can anyone say FDR inherited WW2 when he was starting his Third Term as president when WW2 started. Who did he inherit it from? Himself? Please.:whatever:

[Heretic]

Bush and Clinton both dropped the ball...Clinton certainly moreso...

[Marx]

That's debatable Heretic.

[Heretic]

Clintn dropped the ball by doing exactly what Obama is doing...treating terrorism as a police issue, not a military issue. As a result, we were attacked by muslim extremists over and over during his presidency and he only really sought to indict and convict those responsible. That put us in a horrifyingly weak position, making 9/11 something they were willing to try (keep in mind, we werent torturing anybody during all of these attacks we suffered...so the "they attack us because of Gitmo" nonsense can be left out).

Bush had intel that something was going to go down, and didnt take it seriously...because...you know...he's W...what else would he do???

So, they both take blame. Obama is now reverting back to the mentality of Clinton, where we get attacked and then arrest those responsible and try them in court, and post 9/11 that is a horrible decision that could cost hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives.

This is all assuming that 9/11 wasnt an inside job (something Im on the fence about, but due to some professional ties wth the Truth movement, I feel its worth a mention).

[Marx]

Clintn dropped the ball by doing exactly what Obama is doing...treating terrorism as a police issue, not a military issue. As a result, we were attacked by muslim extremists over and over during his presidency and he only really sought to indict and convict those responsible. That put us in a horrifyingly weak position, making 9/11 something they were willing to try (keep in mind, we werent torturing anybody during all of these attacks we suffered...so the "they attack us because of Gitmo" nonsense can be left out).

Bush had intel that something was going to go down, and didnt take it seriously...because...you know...he's W...what else would he do???

So, they both take blame. Obama is now reverting back to the mentality of Clinton, where we get attacked and then arrest those responsible and try them in court, and post 9/11 that is a horrible decision that could cost hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives.

This is all assuming that 9/11 wasnt an inside job (something Im on the fence about, but due to some professional ties wth the Truth movement, I feel its worth a mention).

In my view Bush screwed up more than Clinton did with respect to Bin Laden. (That's really beside the point now though.)

As far as 'they attacked us because of Gitmo' line, no one is saying that. What people are saying is that Gitmo is a very effective recruitment tool for terrorists.

And as for 9/11 being an 'inside job', I would be more than happy to discuss that with you in the conspiracy thread.

[Matt]

I won't defend Obama on many issues and I will concede that Obama has come off as incredibly weak on defense, but terrorism should be treated as a police action. Terrorism is not a state. We cannot be in a war with something that any lunatic with a gun can be. Its like the war on drugs or the war on crime. It is unwinnable as long as we look at it from such a perspective.

[Matt]

In my view Bush screwed up more than Clinton did with respect to Bin Laden. (That's really beside the point now though.)

As far as 'they attacked us because of Gitmo' line, no one is saying that. What people are saying is that Gitmo is a very bid recruitment tool for terrorists.

And as for 9/11 being an 'inside job', I would be more than happy to discuss that with you in the conspiracy thread.

The difference between Bush and Clinton was, when 9/11 happened, Bush spent 2 weeks on TV saying "I know you're in Afghanistan and we're coming for you Osama Bin Laden!" where as with Clinton, a Delta Force squad would've been in his the Afghani mountains that very night. No one would've known they were there and Bin Laden would've been killed in his cave while he slept. Acting strong on defense and being strong on defense are two very different things. Bush talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Clinton was the opposite and Obama seems to do neither.

[Heretic]

As far as 'they attacked us because of Gitmo' line, no one is saying that. What people are saying is that Gitmo is a very effective recruitment tool for terrorists.


Is there ANY documentation to back up that talking point?? Ive heard that over and over again...yet no proof is ever offered. I do know that a large number of the terrorists we release end up back on the job, killing americans...

[Addendum]

Any documentation to back up that talking point?

[Matt]

In my view Bush screwed up more than Clinton did with respect to Bin Laden. (That's really beside the point now though.)

As far as 'they attacked us because of Gitmo' line, no one is saying that. What people are saying is that Gitmo is a very effective recruitment tool for terrorists.

Actually, Dick Durbin just said it on Meet the Press :dry:.

[Heretic]

The difference between Bush and Clinton was, when 9/11 happened, Bush spent 2 weeks on TV saying "I know you're in Afghanistan and we're coming for you Osama Bin Laden!" where as with Clinton, a Delta Force squad would've been in his the Afghani mountains that very night. No one would've known they were there and Bin Laden would've been killed in his cave while he slept. Acting strong on defense and being strong on defense are two very different things. Bush talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Clinton was the opposite and Obama seems to do neither.

That is ridiculous. Muslim terrorists DID attack us on Clintons watch and he did nothing. The WTC was bombed and we definitely arrested and convicted those immediately responsible...woohoo! Our embassy was bombed, the Cole was bombed...it got kind of repetitious after awhile and no sneak attacks taking out Bin Ladin happened.

The fact is, when foreigners kill Americans in an act of war, its not a crime that they should be arrested and tried for, its a attack that they should be killed for...the constitution should never come into play because they should be dead before they hit American soil.

[Heretic]

Any documentation to back up that talking point?

Only what Ive heard officials say...and though i dont believe Satan...I mean Dick Cheney...I tend to believe the military leaders and CIA guys...

[Addendum]

The only agency that has merited my trust is NASA

[Marx]

Actually, Dick Durbin just said it on Meet the Press :dry:.

Ugh. Durbin needs to shut up.

[Heretic]

The only agency that has merited my trust is NASA

NASA???? They killed anybody so far this week???

[Carcharodon]

NASA???? They killed anybody so far this week???At first I was like :funny:, but then I was like :dry:, and eventually I was all like :csad:.

[Matt]

NASA is a waste of money.

[Heretic]

At first I was like :funny:, but then I was like :dry:, and eventually I was all like :csad:.

Good.

NASA is just about worthless, btw.

[Marx]

NASA is a waste of money.

Bite your tongue! :cmad:

I LOVED NASA!

[Matt]

NASA is great on paper, but the fact is, at the time we are not gaining enough from their research to warrant the budget they have when our country could so very much use the billions of dollars that is their budget on something else. We should fix Earth's problems, then worry about space.

[Heretic]

NASA is great on paper, but the fact is, at the time we are not gaining enough from their research to warrant the budget they have when our country could so very much use the billions of dollars that is their budget on something else. We should fix Earth's problems, then worry about space.

Yeah, there are billionaires that need a bailout!

[Superman]

What people are saying is that Gitmo is a very effective recruitment tool for terrorists. I just saw a video on YouTube of McCain saying that very thing.

The part about Gitmo is at about 1:38...

wNeqKl8oUWk

Update: I was wrong, He's not talking about Gitmo, He's talking about Abu Ghraib. The question was about torture. My bad. :(

[Heretic]

EVERY democrat talking head is saying that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.

The truth is you cant tell if it is or isnt. Terrorist groups had NO PROBLEM getting recruits before 9/11 because they hate us for "fill in the blank". They are having an easy time now too..but no one is saying "I liked America and supported their efforts, but when they detained suspected terrorists...that was the last straw...Im joining the jihad!"

[Superman]

If, As John McCain said in the video I posted above, Abu Ghraib was used as a recruiting tool to get THOUSANDS to join Al-Qaeda, Just what the heck do you think Gitmo is doing for recruitment?:whatever:

That's not coming from a Dem talking head, It came from John McCain a Republican.

[Heretic]

If, As John McCain said in the video I posted above, Abu Ghraib was used as a recruiting tool to get THOUSANDS to join Al-Qaeda, Just what the heck do you think Gitmo is doing for recruitment?:whatever:

That's not coming from a Dem talking head, It came from John McCain a Republican.

Im sorry, we're talking facts, not what we think..

And John McCain is hardly a conservative. Te Republcans went with a guy they hated in an effort to get liberal voters, nothing more.

[DACrowe]

That is ridiculous. Muslim terrorists DID attack us on Clintons watch and he did nothing. The WTC was bombed and we definitely arrested and convicted those immediately responsible...woohoo! Our embassy was bombed, the Cole was bombed...it got kind of repetitious after awhile and no sneak attacks taking out Bin Ladin happened.

The fact is, when foreigners kill Americans in an act of war, its not a crime that they should be arrested and tried for, its a attack that they should be killed for...the constitution should never come into play because they should be dead before they hit American soil.

I agree those who are responsible should be punished (if captured I do support a military trial at least as opposed to cutting straight to execution, as even in wartime we try to instill some order and justice)...but you are talking about going to war with non-state actors. You cannot declare war on an organization, rather you root them out through any justifiable means (which unfortunately has come into question thanks to some of the unscrupulous).

Who do you declare war on? A nebulous "they?" It is a police action to weed out these terrorists and it requires changing the environment that breeds such extremism. If a state is protecting and aiding these non-state actors, then war can become necessary such as in Afghanistan (and not like Iraq). But it must be proven and announced as the cause for war with that nation publicly. However, otherwise you want to change the culture and work with governments to round terrorists up in states. You cannot treat it as a war where we simply bomb everything and hope we hit them as that is not going to solve the problem and the last 8 years have shown that strategy is ineffective.

[Heretic]

I agree those who are responsible should be punished (if captured I do support a military trial at least as opposed to cutting straight to execution, as even in wartime we try to instill some order and justice)...but you are talking about going to war with non-state actors. You cannot declare war on an organization, rather you root them out through any justifiable means (which unfortunately has come into question thanks to some of the unscrupulous).

Who do you declare war on? A nebulous "they?" It is a police action to weed out these terrorists and it requires changing the environment that breeds such extremism. If a state is protecting and aiding these non-state actors, then war can become necessary such as in Afghanistan (and not like Iraq). But it must be proven and announced as the cause for war with that nation publicly. However, otherwise you want to change the culture and work with governments to round terrorists up in states. You cannot treat it as a war where we simply bomb everything and hope we hit them as that is not going to solve the problem and the last 8 years have shown that strategy is ineffective.

So, 9/11 was in NYC. Do NYC police have any jurisdiction in Pakistan?? Iraq? Last I checked, NYC cops cant even arrest someone in Buffalo!! Therefore, it cannot be a police action.

The problem is that we cannot define our enemy. The enemy defines itself. According to them, we are at war with the Muslim armies...we can say that we are at war with the lollipop brigade if we want to, but to our enemy, we are at war with Islam. Its quite simple...we g everywhere that they are...and if the country wont help us, they are the enemy and should be dealt with in one way or another.

Unless you want to send NYC police officers into Iran to make some arrests and see how that goes.

[Superman]

Im sorry, we're talking facts, not what we think..

And John McCain is hardly a conservative. Te Republcans went with a guy they hated in an effort to get liberal voters, nothing more.Conservative? Who said anything about conservatives? I said REPUBLICAN and like it or not McCain IS a Republican.

Oh you want to talk "Facts"?, Exactly what "Facts" are you using when you say stuff like this?...

but no one is saying "I liked America and supported their efforts, but when they detained suspected terrorists...that was the last straw...Im joining the jihad!"

Come on, Back that statement up. Use "Facts" to prove to me that "NO ONE" said that. Prove to me that isn't just what you "Think" people are not saying. Prove to me that Gitmo or Abu Ghraib isn't being used as a recruiting tool.

Come on, Lets see your "Facts". :whatever:

[Heretic]

Oh, I like how you changed that around, but life doesnt work like that.

You see...the accusation is that these prison DO work as a recruiting tool, and that countless numbers of new recruits have come on board due to the atrocities there...

So...since that is the accusation...the proof is in YOUR hands to produce.

However...on my side of the argument...

There have ALWAYS been a limitless supply of new recruits for this cause because as the terrorists themselves claim, they hate us for being us. They bombed us many, many times long before we opened any prisons to house their friends.

So...my proof is that they had amazing recruiting drives long before we ever decided to even fight back, while they were bombing us left and right with no return fire from us.

You got any proof to back up your accusation...since it is always the responsibility of the accuser to provide proof?

Nice try though...

[StorminNorman]

EVERY democrat talking head is saying that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.

The truth is you cant tell if it is or isnt. Terrorist groups had NO PROBLEM getting recruits before 9/11 because they hate us for "fill in the blank". They are having an easy time now too..but no one is saying "I liked America and supported their efforts, but when they detained suspected terrorists...that was the last straw...Im joining the jihad!"

Exactly. Again, find me anyone that joins Al Queda because America tortures. Anyone that would be offended, morally, by torturing would not then go join a terrorist group known for...tortures and beheading. Anyone morally upset by Gitmo wouldn't go out and join a group that recruits women and children to be suicide bombers.

You don't get offended by horse racing and then go start a dog fighting ring.

If, As John McCain said in the video I posted above, Abu Ghraib was used as a recruiting tool to get THOUSANDS to join Al-Qaeda, Just what the heck do you think Gitmo is doing for recruitment?:whatever:

That's not coming from a Dem talking head, It came from John McCain a Republican.

Abu Ghraib is much more serious than Gitmo. It's not comparable. Abu Ghraib was an abomination, Gitmo is peachy.

Also, I don't really give a damn about what John McCain thinks.

[Superman]

Oh, I like how you changed that around, but life doesnt work like that.

You see...the accusation is that these prison DO work as a recruiting tool, and that countless numbers of new recruits have come on board due to the atrocities there...

So...since that is the accusation...the proof is in YOUR hands to produce.

However...on my side of the argument...

There have ALWAYS been a limitless supply of new recruits for this cause because as the terrorists themselves claim, they hate us for being us. They bombed us many, many times long before we opened any prisons to house their friends.

So...my proof is that they had amazing recruiting drives long before we ever decided to even fight back, while they were bombing us left and right with no return fire from us.

You got any proof to back up your accusation...since it is always the responsibility of the accuser to provide proof?

Nice try though...First of all I never made the accusation that they were recruiting tool, I just said McCain said it. 2nd You're the only one changing things around. I talk about McCain as a republican and you try to change it to be about conservatives.

You say you are "Talking Facts" but you make blanket statements like the one above with no "Facts" to back it up.

You claim that these prisons don't work as a recruiting tool but again show no data with YOUR accusations.

You say your proof is that they had amazing recruiting drives long before the US got involed but yet once again give no data to back up that blanket statment.

The only thing I'm accusing you of is not backing up ANYTHING you say with the "Proof" you claim you have or the facts you claim you're talking in.

Now I know you will try to switch it around again but I'm going to save you the trouble and tell you I'm done with you on this subject since all you can do is make blanket statements and claim they are your proof. I've got better things to do than read your OPINIONS.

Have a nice day.

[Superman]

Abu Ghraib is much more serious than Gitmo. It's not comparable. Abu Ghraib was an abomination, Gitmo is peachy.

Also, I don't really give a damn about what John McCain thinks.I'm not even going to comment on that "Peachy" line.:whatever:

And I don't remember asking if you gave a damn. In fact I don't remember talking to you at all on this subject.

[Heretic]

Good job!

However, I am DEFENDING...

The ACCUSATION...which is what must be proven...is that they are being used as a recruiting tool. Whether YOU made that accusation or not hardly matters, thats the subject being discussed. You inserted yourself into it when we were not speaking of you...we're speaking of democratic talking heads, and John mcCain.

So...when they make an accusation, you cant then expect others to prove them wrong...you make the accuser prove themselves! Thats how its done!

Besides...I have no idea where to get recruitment numbers for a loose worldwide terrorist group that doesnt even keep recruitment numbers and isnt even limited to one specific group...so my only proof is that the group has thrived for hundreds of years (under one name or another). Also, since those very nonexistent recruitment numbers is what the accusers would use to prove their point, they are unable to as well.

Meaning...the very accusation is flawed and pointless and used to scare people.

[Marx]

I would strongly encourage everyone to lose the snarkiness. Last warning.

[Marx]

Im sorry, we're talking facts, not what we think..

And John McCain is hardly a conservative. The Republcans went with a guy they hated in an effort to get liberal voters, nothing more.

John McCain won the Republican nomination because of Independent support, not the support of the Republican Party.

[Heretic]

John McCain won the Republican nomination because of Independent support, not the support of the Republican Party.

Lots of Republicans voted for him because "hes the only one that will draw democrat votes" and then once he was the frontrunner, most people jumped onto his bandwagon whether they liked him or not.

I seem to remember (but wont bother looking for links to) reports that independents were all about Obama anyway.

[StorminNorman]

Lots of Republicans voted for him because "hes the only one that will draw democrat votes" and then once he was the frontrunner, most people jumped onto his bandwagon whether they liked him or not.

I seem to remember (but wont bother looking for links to) reports that independents were all about Obama anyway.

You are wrong.

If you look at the results in New Hampshire and Florida, the two states that cemented McCain's nomination, Romney won Republicans and McCain won Indepedents (or, in the case of Florida, Republicans that consider themselves Indepedents).

[Heretic]

ooookay....thats pretty much what i said...

and once McCain became the front runner, everyone voted for him. They gritted their teeth and did it.

[StorminNorman]

ooookay....thats pretty much what i said...

How so? It seems to me it's almost the opposite.

and once McCain became the front runner, everyone voted for him. They gritted their teeth and did it.

But...McCain became the front runner only because of non-GOP voters. Thats what you are arguing. McCain was not elected because he was believed to be the best bet to win over democrats, it was because Independents wanted him as the GOP candidate. McCain, being McCain, promptly then went to the far right in one of the worse campaigns ever.

[Heretic]

What is wrong with you people???

McCain was getting the left over left leaning independent votes that werent going to Obama...

DING DING DING Republicans thought he could steal left wing voters away.

Republicans jumped on his bandwagon.

I swear...this is about the 5th thread this week where Im very plainly saying something and someone accuses me of saying the opposite.

[StorminNorman]

What is wrong with you people???

McCain was getting the left over left leaning independent votes that werent going to Obama...

DING DING DING Republicans thought he could steal left wing voters away.

Republicans jumped on his bandwagon.

I swear...this is about the 5th thread this week where Im very plainly saying something and someone accuses me of saying the opposite.

But that's not why Republicans voted for John McCain. People voted for McCain because after he won New Hampshire and Florida he was the perceived front runner and Huckabee and Romney split the conservative votes on Super Tuesday. The idea that McCain could win over democrats and independents had little to do with it.

[Heretic]

But that's not why Republicans voted for John McCain. People voted for McCain because after he won New Hampshire and Florida he was the perceived front runner and Huckabee and Romney split the conservative votes on Super Tuesday. The idea that McCain could win over democrats and independents had little to do with it.

I ALSO SAID THAT REPUBLICANS JUMPED ON HIS BANDWAGON WHEN HE BECAME THE FRONTRUNNER.

Again...that was VERY clear in my statement. You have now agreed to my entire point, while still disagreeing with me.

Seriously...just read...and instead of putting your own spin on it...take the words for what they are.

[StorminNorman]

I ALSO SAID THAT REPUBLICANS JUMPED ON HIS BANDWAGON WHEN HE BECAME THE FRONTRUNNER.

Again...that was VERY clear in my statement. You have now agreed to my entire point, while still disagreeing with me.

Seriously...just read...and instead of putting your own spin on it...take the words for what they are.

Did you forget your words?

Lots of Republicans voted for him because "hes the only one that will draw democrat votes" and then once he was the frontrunner, most people jumped onto his bandwagon whether they liked him or not.

I seem to remember (but wont bother looking for links to) reports that independents were all about Obama anyway.

Let me break it down.

Lots of Republicans voted for him because "hes the only one that will draw democrat votes"

A portion of Republicans voted for him because he's the only one that will draw Democrat votes. A small portion. The majority of people don't take into consideration Electability when voting...as evidence by the election of John McCain.

and then once he was the frontrunner, most people jumped onto his bandwagon whether they liked him or not.

McCain, outside of three states, didn't win over 50% of votes in Super Tuesday states. Had the Romney and Huckabee campaigns, which were far more alike on the issues, not split the true Conservative vote - McCain would not be elected.

I seem to remember (but wont bother looking for links to) reports that independents were all about Obama anyway.

And this was also incorrect. Indepedents impacted the Republican nomination far greater than it did the Democratic.

[Heretic]

A few things...

The Democratic primaries brought out the biggest turnout in history...and yet you actually expect me to believe that it was the democratic base and not independents voting??

The rest of your dissection of my words was just rewording what I said and calling me wrong for some stupid reason.

McCain was running on independents and people who thought hed match up well against a democrat. You agree with that. he was NOT winning at this point, so theres no reason for him to be getting the major party vote.

You also agree that when he became the frontrunner the rest of the party basically got behind him with exceptions.

Thats the entirety of my point. Ive explained it about 5 times to you now and frankly, Im worn out on it.

[Carcharodon]

I swear...this is about the 5th thread this week where Im very plainly saying something and someone accuses me of saying the opposite.A rational person would look at that observation and conclude that it must be something wrong with them.

[Heretic]

A rational person would look at that observation and conclude that it must be something wrong with them.

No, not at all.

A rational person would wonder why someone hes nevr met feels the need to follow someone around commenting in every thread trying to pick another argument.

Im not starting up another threads argument, but what ve found from that particular psychopath is that no matter you type, they assume you are attacking their very core beliefs..even if it has nothing to do with them, and they spend ten pages demanding that you provide information that you readily admit you do not have to give.

[Carcharodon]

No, not at all.

A rational person would wonder why someone hes nevr met feels the need to follow someone around commenting in every thread trying to pick another argument.I'm in here all the time. :huh: Don't flatter yourself.

Im not starting up another threads argument, but what ve found from that particular psychopath is that no matter you type, they assume you are attacking their very core beliefs..even if it has nothing to do with them, and they spend ten pages demanding that you provide information that you readily admit you do not have to give.It has something to do with them when they make bogus claims and never back them up. :yay:

Case in point: your swine-flu paranoia.

[Addendum]

This is going to sound completely strange so bear with: When you post something publicly, someone is going to comment on it. It may not be something you agree with, it may get what you said entirely wrong, or might not. Whining about people posting is just going to get more people posting.

As for me, I find the entire situation humorous, especially when someone acts like they're all riled up about stuff that happens on an internet message board. Like I've said before, I just post here to shoot the **** (killing time at work or at home).

[SsM]

Carch is here all the time so I highly doubt he is following you around, that said. Argue all you want.

Just keep it civil :up: don't leave the hype over an argument. A few months ago I felt had to take a little leave from the politics threads because I was getting heated in a couple of arguments and I didn't want to say something I would regret. Just do something like that, don't leave the hype...

[Addendum]

The hype is stronger than heroin. But the only thing that can get high from it is the post count.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Gitmo IS a recruitment tool.

Intelligence officials have said that. It's a fact.

And that's why it's a political liability. It's why even a President McCain would have to closed it down. It's way too easy a political target.

[SsM]

I feel sorry for the Gitmo prisoners that are going to be put in American prisons...

Will they be in the General population? Man... That can't end well, can it?

[Wiseman]

I feel sorry for the Gitmo prisoners that are going to be put in American prisons...

Will they be in the General population? Man... That can't end well, can it?

That's what I always wondered, cause you either have to take the white power side or the black power side and neither one likes arabs so.........what do they do

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nope.

I imagine most would be butchered.

Or commit suicide from the hell they're put through.

Seriously.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

That's what I always wondered, cause you either have to take the white power side or the black power side and neither one likes arabs so.........what do they do

White supremists wouldn't take them, and the Latin gangs wouldn't either. Black muslim gangs could...maybe. But, they could be turned away just for being labeled a terrorist.

I don't anyone in prison would want to take in terrorists.

Mostly, because most people who are in those gangs aren't true believers of anything. They're just trying to survive in there. I could see EVERYONE hating people from Gitmo.

[SsM]

White supremists wouldn't take them, and the Latin gangs wouldn't either. Black muslim gangs could...maybe. But, they could be turned away just for being labeled a terrorist.

I don't anyone in prison would want to take in terrorists.

Mostly, because most people who are in those gangs aren't true believers of anything. They're just trying to survive in there. I could see EVERYONE hating people from Gitmo.


Exactly, so the only way to guarantee their safety is put them in solitary.... I guess?

[StorminNorman]

Gitmo IS a recruitment tool.

Link?

Intelligence officials have said that. It's a fact.

Intelligence officials said Iraq had WMD's.

And that's why it's a political liability. It's why even a President McCain would have to closed it down. It's way too easy a political target.

President McCain would have closed Gitmo? Well now I must change my position. After all, when I think of people whose opinion I respect - the first person I go to is John ****in McCain.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Okay. So we keep Gitmo open.

That will make everything better?

[StorminNorman]

Okay. So we keep Gitmo open.

That will make everything better?

We rename Gitmo. We go on a full tour. We rename it, we paint it different colors, we attempt to change the perception. After all, that is all that Obama cares about - perception, not ethics.

But we can stay true to our ethics, too. We make sure that those sent to Gitmo are ones we KNOW are terrorists, not taxi drivers. American citizens suspected of being a terrorist go through American courts, not in Gitmo. We have a system of checks and balances in place to make sure those in Gitmo deserve to be in Gitmo.

And then we treat those terrorists the same way we have.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

That's all Politicians care about. Don't try and make this into an Obama exclusive trait.

See, the problem with that stuff you want...and by all means, it's a nice list that I rather like. Is what's already been done before.

What do we do with the people are suspected of stuff, that we have no evidence on?

I think that's the real problem, legally and politically.

I think Gitmo itself is nothing. We know that there is other places they'll keep these terrorists at.

It's way too much trouble to re-paint the walls. And Obama can't back out of it now, or he'll look weak on this issue.

[StorminNorman]

That's all Politicians care about. Don't try and make this into an Obama exclusive trait.

It's not an Obama exclusive trait, it's something most politicians do. My problem with Obama is, however, his entire campaign was based on him being different from other politicians. He has failed on that front completely.

See, the problem with that stuff you want...and by all means, it's a nice list that I rather like. Is what's already been done before.

No, it's what we have said we were doing. But we weren't. If we did, this list wouldn't be necessary.

What do we do with the people are suspected of stuff, that we have no evidence on?

Evidence shouldn't be real hard. If you are found with an AK 47 in your hand surrounded by suspected terrorists, that's evidence. If you are picked up in Afghanistan in a car driving around minding your business, there is no evidence and you shouldn't be picked up.

Suspicion is always based on something. So we look at that something. If there is nothing to that something, your suspicion is baseless.

I think that's the real problem, legally and politically.

It's not really that big a problem. I would always give soldiers on the field the benefit of the doubt, their testimony being evidence enough in military tribunals.

I think Gitmo itself is nothing. We know that there is other places they'll keep these terrorists at.

Obama doesn't know where that place is yet.

It's way too much trouble to re-paint the walls. And Obama can't back out of it now, or he'll look weak on this issue.

Well...Obama is weak on this issue. He leaped without looking.

[chaseter]

Don't make things an Obama/Democrat exclusive trait but by all means lets continue to slam Bush/Cheney/Repubs and brand them for the exact same things happening right now. Hypocrisy...gotta love it.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It's not an Obama exclusive trait, it's something most politicians do. My problem with Obama is, however, his entire campaign was based on him being different from other politicians. He has failed on that front completely.



Like he's the first.


No, it's what we have said we were doing. But we weren't. If we did, this list wouldn't be necessary.


what?

Evidence shouldn't be real hard. If you are found with an AK 47 in your hand surrounded by suspected terrorists, that's evidence. If you are picked up in Afghanistan in a car driving around minding your business, there is no evidence and you shouldn't be picked up.

Suspicion is always based on something. So we look at that something. If there is nothing to that something, your suspicion is baseless.

Even if it was that easy, because it's not. You can find people who were in the vicinity that "looked" like someone on a photo, but can't be confirmed.

But besides that, are you worried about radicalization?

I mean, after 7 years in prison for not doing anything...you think a handshake and "sorry" would be enough for that guy?


It's not really that big a problem. I would always give soldiers on the field the benefit of the doubt, their testimony being evidence enough in military tribunals



I'd be fine with that, to go along with the suspcion thing.

But, it sounds as ****** as any third world court system. Far from America's great democracy. But whatever, I'm cool with it.


Well...Obama is weak on this issue. He leaped without looking.


Cause Gitmo is sooooo cool.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Don't make things an Obama/Democrat exclusive trait but by all means lets continue to slam Bush/Cheney/Repubs and brand them for the exact same things happening right now. Hypocrisy...gotta love it.


I'm a hypocrite now?

[Marx]

Let's keep our comments to the subject, not the posters.

[StorminNorman]

Like he's the first.

So? Why shouldn't he be criticized for lying just because he isn't the worlds first liar?

If someone kills someone, is "Like he's the first :whatever:" a credible defense?

If someone rapes someone, is "Like he's the first :rolleyes: a valid response?

If someone this nation discriminates against a group of minorities, is "Like it's the first time" an acceptable comeback?

what?

You claimed that we have been doing what I proposed.

If that was the case, this would not be an issue.

Even if it was that easy, because it's not. You can find people who were in the vicinity that "looked" like someone on a photo, but can't be confirmed.

That would be enough to be in Gitmo. While in Gitmo, those whose legitimacy is questionable - like this what if scenario - it would be to the militaries benefit to continue to try to link this hypothetical detainee to a terrorist group. If, after a set time, more evidence cannot be found - release him.

But besides that, are you worried about radicalization?

I mean, after 7 years in prison for not doing anything...you think a handshake and "sorry" would be enough for that guy?

7 years is too long. If the occasional innocent detainee leaves Gitmo and then joins Al Queda - fine, the next time we fine him we can keep him for good.

I'd be fine with that, to go along with the suspcion thing.

But, it sounds as ****** as any third world court system. Far from America's great democracy. But whatever, I'm cool with it.[/quote]

I don't think foreign terrorist suspects should enjoy the full benefits of America's great democracy.

Cause Gitmo is sooooo cool.

Obama must think so, after all - he can't find any place better yet.

[chaseter]

I'm a hypocrite now?
I would have quoted you if it was meant to directly be against you. There is a double standard for Obama right now and it is annoying. Glad I don't belong to a party.

Imo Fox News tries to be more fair than CNBC. They both have their bias and agendas but I have seen commentators on Fox News attack repubs more than I have seen CNBC attack dems.

[StorminNorman]

Msnbc*

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I would have quoted you if it was meant to directly be against you. There is a double standard for Obama right now and it is annoying. Glad I don't belong to a party.

right.

So? Why shouldn't he be criticized for lying just because he isn't the worlds first liar?

If someone kills someone, is "Like he's the first :whatever:" a credible defense?

If someone rapes someone, is "Like he's the first :rolleyes: a valid response?

If someone this nation discriminates against a group of minorities, is "Like it's the first time" an acceptable comeback?


No.

But your acting like it's the first.

By all means, go ahead an rail on him.

But, try to do understand that ALL politicians are like that. If you don't, you'll be let down every single time, man.

You claimed that we have been doing what I proposed.

If that was the case, this would not be an issue.


I don't I claimed we were doing anything.

That would be enough to be in Gitmo. While in Gitmo, those whose legitimacy is questionable - like this what if scenario - it would be to the militaries benefit to continue to try to link this hypothetical detainee to a terrorist group. If, after a set time, more evidence cannot be found - release him.


yeah. Agreed.

7 years is too long. If the occasional innocent detainee leaves Gitmo and then joins Al Queda - fine, the next time we fine him we can keep him for good.

I'd be fine with that, to go along with the suspcion thing.

I agree.

I just think politicians don't.

Especially Obama, which is why he's calling for this absurd, ****ing sci-fi Minority Report future crime detainment thing.

Absurd is what it is, man.

I don't think foreign terrorist suspects should enjoy the full benefits of America's great democracy.

Then we, America, are sorta hypocrites about the law.

I mean, cops on the streets probably wish they could do the same to someone they KNOW has molested children or murdered someone.

I worry, that once we start down this road...it can seep into the rest of the system, if all you have to do is label someone a terrorist.

Foreign would be one thing, but nobody wants any kind of terrorist to be given rights it seems...which is where this debate seems headed in washington.

Obama must think so, after all - he can't find any place better yet.

C'mon, be fair Norm. He's being left out in the cold by his party on this issue.

He's going to close it, because he said he would, and since he looks weak enough on this issue as you say he can't stand to lose anymore ground on it, and because it's a political mess.

[chaseter]

So do you disagree that there is no double standard in the media in favor of Obama?

[chaseter]

Msnbc*
HAHA oops...I am watching CNBC:woot:

[StorminNorman]

No.

But your acting like it's the first.

By all means, go ahead an rail on him.

But, try to do understand that ALL politicians are like that. If you don't, you'll be let down every single time, man.

Few politicians make CHANGING WASHINGTON the entire backbone of their campaign. I expect any politician to act out their biggest policy point - few politicians so boldly contradict the largest part of their platform, especially this early in their career.

Not since Thomas Jefferson, really, has a President so entirely different from his Candidate.

I don't I claimed we were doing anything.

Okay. :huh:

See, the problem with that stuff you want...and by all means, it's a nice list that I rather like. Is what's already been done before.

I agree.

I just think politicians don't.

Especially Obama, which is why he's calling for this absurd, ****ing sci-fi Minority Report future crime detainment thing.

Absurd is what it is, man.

Agreed.

Then we, America, are sorta hypocrites about the law.

I mean, cops on the streets probably wish they could do the same to someone they KNOW has molested children or murdered someone.

I worry, that once we start down this road...it can seep into the rest of the system, if all you have to do is label someone a terrorist.

Foreign would be one thing, but nobody wants any kind of terrorist to be given rights it seems...which is where this debate seems headed in washington.

I don't think you can fight a war the same way you fight crime.

C'mon, be fair Norm. He's being left out in the cold by his party on this issue.

He's going to close it, because he said he would, and since he looks weak enough on this issue as you say he can't stand to lose anymore ground on it, and because it's a political mess.

No, he is being left out by his own stupidity. Again, if he wanted to close Gitmo - fine, just make a plan! Any plan! And until you have a plan, don't close it.

If I don't like my car and want to get a new one...and I sell my old car on that premise...without having the means to buy a new one...I can't really complain about being without a car, can I?

It's the same thing here. Again - Obama leaped before he looked because he assumed that he could convince Democrats to do whatever he wanted. I don't blame Congressional Democrats for wanting a plan before authorizing funds. That should be common sense.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/oreilly-rages-against-joa_n_215157.html

O'Reily debates...sorta...Joan Walsh.

Ya know, I've tried looking at that video twice with a cold perspective on facts and what they're presenting...and O'Reily just looks bad throughout.

Anyone think he puts a good case foward? Cause, I'm not seeing one.

[StorminNorman]

I watched that interview live.

I think O'Reilly won as soon as he started breaking out the expert testimony and video of a former Tiller client.

O'Reilly came ready and loaded to ambush Joan Walsh, and deservingly so. He did just that.

Now anyone who dislikes O'Reilly is going to look at that and say "O'Reilly such's a _____", but honestly he shut down the points Walsh made and Walsh trying to blame Tiller's death on O'Reilly is simply ridiculous.

[Grievous]

I watch Fox News because unlike CNN, they will say bads things on Obama unlike CNN who thinks he is perfect.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, she didn't make that point until he laid the "blood" on her.

But...testimony from an expert?

That just seemed flimsy from what I watched. I thought he'd have more than that, with what he was claiming.

He seemed angry from the get go too.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I watch Fox News because unlike CNN, they will say bads things on Obama unlike CNN who thinks he is perfect.


Don't they have conservatives on that network talk all the time though?

The...entire network thinks he's perfect????

Like...everyone and everything associated with CNN??