How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Does anybody take responsibility anymore?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


175 posted 06-19-2004 10:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Not only wouldn't Kennedy recognize the Democratic party, I don't think our founding fathers would recognize the U.S., this land with 8% of the world's population and 90% of the world's lawyers. They would probably say the same thing Toerag's parents said in the delivery room - we created THAT!?!?!
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


176 posted 06-19-2004 11:02 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102608/

quote:
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
—President Bush, in an exchange with reporters, June 17, 2004



[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Italics Chatterbox's.*]
—President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003


I suppose you could certainly read this in the way Fred Kaplan reads it. Sneaky, but technically not a lie.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102589/




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


177 posted 06-19-2004 11:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

you mean like fellatio is not technically sex, Brad?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


178 posted 06-19-2004 11:11 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Cheney pointed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, still in Iraq today, who, he points out, "is an al-Qaida associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq."


From the worldnetdaily article. More on this later by the way.

quote:
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.


--from the NY times editorial "The Plain Truth"

C'mon guys, you know I love doin' this. 0
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


179 posted 06-20-2004 01:02 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What gives the Bush camp any credibility Denise?  You pointed out earlier the State Department (Colin Powell) hates Bush.  Let's assume this is true just for argument's sake.  Why would Colin Powell hate his boss?  Would you take a job from a boss you hated?  Probably not.  We can assume Powell didn't hate Bush going into the relationship.  Why would he hate him now -- assuming he does?

I don't base my opinions on my opinions.  I make decisions based on data.  And while Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) can be a logical fallacy if one, for example, says -- Tiger Woods drives a Buick -- therefore they must be good cars -- it wouldn't be a logical fallacy to say Tiger Woods drives a Titelist -- therefore they must be good clubs/balls.

It is unprecedented for the Diplomatic Corps to get involved in politics in this manner.  This is a subject on which they have authority.  Taken by itself it is not a slight matter.  Added to the volumes of information that is becoming available it is weighty.  

Does this mean that America is bad?  Of course not.  And I'm growing weary of the charge as is any American.  There is a word Americans use -- and some others as well -- that isn't generally found in other countries -- Un-American.   When CEO's in Germany screw the workforce you won't hear Germans saying that's Un-German.  

In reference to the specific thread subject it was Joe Lieberman who characterized the problem the best -- how do we say that America isn't the same as the terrorists?  Because unlike those who are beheading their captives we're investigating, and prosecuting the perpetrators of Abu Ghrab.  (paraphrased -- I don't have the direct quote in front of me.)  We have to hold our elected officials to the same, if not higher, standard.  

Bill Clinton lied to the American people about an incident with Monica Lewinski.  The Republican-led house and Senate called him to testify under oath about it.  Is Mr. Bush, I wonder, going to ever testify under oath about what he posed to the American people and the world through Colin Powell as truth that has directly led to the deaths of American Sons and Daughters?

And you want to talk about vituperant attacks -- take a look at what the Worldnet Daily News which you cite  is doing here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38433   Calling the Democratic party the 'Enemy within' and 'The Party of Treason'.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-20-2004 01:48 AM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


180 posted 06-20-2004 02:26 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise:
(from an earlier response)
quote:
Go back and re-read the State of the Union Address, Raph. The confusion and denials centered around the discredited source, not the British source, which was the source that Bush cited. Bush and Blair both stated from the beginning that they stood behind the British intelligence


quote:
And as far as your statement about Bush having lied: you believe your sources and I believe mine.


State Of The Union Adress:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear-weapons production."


THIS evidence (the African uranium) was brought forth by Powell to the UN investigators and found to be forged. The White House then admitted the African uranium claim was false and should not have been in the president's address.

Furthermore in the administration's presentation against Iraq Powell stated (regarding the aluminum tubes):

"There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium" Powell said.

However Greg Thielmann, who was part of Powell's investigative bureau, and analysts from Oak Ridge National Laboratory(who enrich uranium for the United States)had informed the administration, beforehand, that the tubes could not be used for this purpose and were shocked to see that the information was used anyway.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


181 posted 06-20-2004 02:32 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ah man, I was going to jump on the WND. You got there first. But as soon as I have the time, I'll try to so that they've been it longer than the last four years.

By the way, I don't have any problems with posting biased essays. I don't see anyway around it. I do wonder why Michael loves to stick the ad hom tag to just about everything I post and completely ignores when Denise throws out another WDN circularly referenced work.

By the way, did you know that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Oklahoma city massacre?

And the first bombing of the World Trade towers? I gotta get more information on this stuff.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


182 posted 06-20-2004 03:39 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I don't base my opinions on my opinions.  I make decisions based on data.  And while Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) can be a logical fallacy if one, for example, says -- Tiger Woods drives a Buick -- therefore they must be good cars -- it wouldn't be a logical fallacy to say Tiger Woods drives a Titelist -- therefore they must be good clubs/balls.


LR, I understand the point, but since I gave Opeth such a hard time over stuff like this, I have to point out that an argument from authority is still argument from authority anyway you wash it (and therefore not logical in any strict sense of the word).
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


183 posted 06-20-2004 10:14 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The appeal to authority is only a fallacy Brad when it is either an appeal to a false authority as I demonstrated, or if there is no consensus among experts.  

We rely on medical doctors for medical treatment, an auto-mechanic for auto repairs, but we don't go to plumbers for dental work.

There are areas where we don't have access to the information, or we just don't have the time or expertise ourselves to be able to evaluate the data.

We don't need an expert to calculate the sqaure root of four -- unless we're four years old.  

Our data has to come from somewhere.  To determine its' veracity we always must question the source and what else the source does and says.  The Diplomats for Change statement wouldn't carry any credibility if it was composed of all, say, Carter appointments.  But it is an unprecedented act from an imposing cross section of OFFICIALS.  

I'd like to see more discussion from the signatories because the statement does have some generalizations that should be explored.

I will agree though that it is a weaker argument than perhaps an opinion from Ron Carnell on how to administer a message board site since there are both military commanders and diplomats who might disagree with the statement.  But, since the President's own Diplomat and Military commander -- Colin Powell -- hate's the President  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


184 posted 06-20-2004 12:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I do believe that the attacks are personal and unprecedented because he is a Republican, and that they would do the same to any Republican. I don't believe that a Democrat attacking a Republican or vice-versa is unprecedented, but I believe that the level of hatred that we see today behind the attacks is unprecedented. And I believe that the hatred is due more to the fact that the Democrats are not in power and calling the shots than disagreement over Bush's policies. I have never in my entire short life     heard a politician of either party insinuate that the President is a traitor and a tyrant until this year. It's absolutely shameful, in my opinion, at any time, but especially during a time of war.

And I agree, where there is smoke it is always wise to investigate. But sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes it's just smoke & mirrors.

I agree, Michael. The founders would never recognize today's America.

L.R., I didn't say that Colin Powell hated Bush, I said that the State Department is flamingly anti-Bush. They would probably be "anti" any Republican President since they are infamously liberal in their ideology, and Republicans tend to be conservative in their ideology.

Next month WND will be having an expose on the Republican Party. They aren't for either pary. They just call it like they see it. I don't agree with every opinion from their multitude of commentators, of course, but I read the pros and cons on a given issue from various sources and then make up my own mind as to whom I think is giving a more balanced view of an issue. I've read this month's expose on today's Democratic Party, and I can tell you, I found it credible and frightening. I think it's time for those capable in that party, like the Joe Liebermans, to reclaim it, and again make it the Party that it used to be before it was influenced by those of a more socialist persuasion, like Kennedy and Clinton.

As for Bill Clinton, didn't he first lie under oath before the Grand Jury investigating a case of sexual harassment against him by Gennifer Flowers? My memory could be wrong, but didn't that come before any Republican led action seeking his impeachment?

And just something to think about: Why did our 'coservative' media never miss a chance to refer to Nixon as "our disgraced ex-President" because of Watergate and his subsequent resignation to avoid impeachement, and yet the media never refers to Clinton as "our disgraced ex-President" when he actually was impeached for his admitted perjury?

Brad, no matter how you slice it, I don't think there can be any doubt that there were terrorist ties to Iraq. Perhaps without verifiable ties to Saddam directly, but definitely operating freely in Iraq under the knowledge of and with connections to members of his government and surely with his knowledge, unless he didn't know what was going on in his own country, by his own ministers.

Raph, the intelligence in question was not confirmed to have been a forgery until well after the Address. Some thought it credible and others didn't prior to that. That doesn't make it a lie to have used it, although it probably shouldn't have been used if they were not 100% sure of its credibility. It certainly wasn't necessary to use it to make a case against Saddam. And the British intelligence has not been discredited, it was the CIA intel that was in question, to my understanding.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


185 posted 06-20-2004 12:44 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Denise, you and I have contact, a relationship, ties.  But what does it mean?  The 9/11 commission report is a staff report and therefore in progress.. it isn't a final conclusion -- but the commissioners are pretty clear they are seeing things differently from the way the Bush administration has characterized this -- particularly Cheney.  Isn't Kerry the one that's supposed to be the master of taking three sides to every issue?  

What is the State Department Denise?  Who is in control of it?

Who said the media is conservative? Worldnet Daily is... but, as for the rest of it -- if you think ABC, CBS, and NBC are liberal and liberals think they're conservative -- what do you suppose they are?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


186 posted 06-20-2004 12:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, and no.  Clinton never faced anyone except Hillary and Barbara Walters over Flowers.  He was called to testify about Lewinsky and faced impeachment for purjuring himself and suborning purjury over the matter.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


187 posted 06-20-2004 04:54 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Well Denise, while the uranium information was officially discredited by the UN after the state of the union address, the CIA had clearly warned the admin months earlier not to rely on what they considered shaky evidence. After the address the information was used again in Powell's presentation. Deplorable, but fine we won't call it a lie.

The information regarding aluminum tubes, however, was analyzed before both speech and UN presentation by Powell's people and by Oak Ridges. Despite their conclusions the information was presented as evidence. Which is undoubtedly a lie.

When you're comparing Bush's ethics to Clinton's, citing the latter's lies, you shouldn't forget Bush's repeated denial of a DUI conviction to critics and press, that is until court documents were revealed proving otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-20-2004 06:22 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


188 posted 06-20-2004 07:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"if you think ABC, CBS, and NBC are liberal and liberals think they're conservative -- what do you suppose they are? "

Reb, perhaps you didn't see my question before about asking for a reason all of the three major stations refused to broadcast Bush's State of Iraq news conference, which was broadcast by other stations and, indeed, stations all over the world. It was certainly a newsworthy event, one in which the AMerican public, to say the least, was very interested in. If there is another reason besides prejudice I'd be very interested in hearing it....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


189 posted 06-20-2004 07:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

L.R., but if I allowed you to come into my home, provided you with sanctuary from the legal authorities and also allowed you to plot illegal activities while there and did nothing to kick you out, or at least attempt to stop you in your endeavors, but looked the other way while others in my home aided and assisted you, I would be held legally accountable for your activities. Or are we to believe that Saddam had no idea who was in his country and what they were up to? I find that awfully hard to believe. I don't think too much got past him.

I think you may be seeing differences where none exist. The Commission didn't say that there weren't ties to Al Qaeda in a general overall sense, but that they didn't find any credible evidence that Saddam was involved operationally with the 9/11 attacks, specifically, which is what they were commissioned to investigate, only those things actually pertaining to the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge neither Bush nor Cheyney said Saddam was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. What they did say was that Saddam was a threat because he gave terrorists safe-haven in Iraq and that there was evidence that terrorists had training camps in Iraq and that there were meetings between folks in Saddam's government and known terrorists.

Powell, of course, is currently heading up the State Department, appointed by Bush. But he isn't the State Department, the organization, which is noted for its left leanings.

Memory can be unreliable at times. I could have sworn that he perjured himself before a Grand Jury as well. I'm glad I didn't put money on that one!

It's been stated around here that the press in the U.S. is conservative. I don't see how anyone can see ABC, CBS, and NBC as anything but liberal in their presentation of 'news' and in their commentary. I'd really like to hear a liberal's perspective on why they view them as conservative, if they do. I can't even imagine what those arguments could possibly be.

Raph, I think that they still may have considered it credible intelligence despite the CIA's misgivings. But even at that, they shouldn't have used it in the Address if it was in dispute. They certainly didn't need it to bolster their case against Saddam.

I wasn't comparing Bush's ethics with Clinton's. I was comparing the similar situations between Nixon and Clinton regarding the threat of impeachment and impeachment, respectively, and how they were treated very differently by the media in the aftermath. Why is Nixon touted as 'disgraced' and yet Clinton is not?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


190 posted 06-20-2004 10:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

btw, Denise, Clinton's testimony over Monica that landed him in hot water occured during the Jennifer Flowers trial...that may have been the confusing part (hard to keep track of them)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


191 posted 06-20-2004 11:21 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

He did have to testify before the grand jury -- Ken Starr's grand jury -- but not over Flowers -- there was never a Flowers trial -- I believe you both are confusing her with Paula Jones.  

I'll be back in a bit...
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


192 posted 06-20-2004 11:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ok Deer.. let's take a look at your argument...

You basically say the media is liberal because the networks didn't carry a speech by the (conservative) President in prime time.  This was true for ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox.  Fox News, however, did carry the broadcast as did CSPAN, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC.  I don't imagine though that you feel CNN is conservative or objective because it DID carry the speech.  Why then would you infer the converse?

Not every speech or press conference by the President is made to pre-empt network broadcast programming during prime time... especially during May sweeps.  Denise says the networks are liberal, the liberals here say they are conservative -- if both sides feel alienated by the overall coverage of the major news outlets (excepting for the 'fair and balanced' Fox News which conservatives find objective and liberals find conservative) then -- what is the inference?

I find the networks neither liberal or conservative -- and objective isn't exactly the word I would use either.  I find them -- commercial.

Well Denise -- They're in Saudi Arabia too.  And Egypt.  And Syria.  And ... shall I continue?  Is the Bush Administration planning any bombing runs there?  You give Saddam far more credit than he deserves to say not much got past him.  His entire system got past him.  He's most likely been duped by all his senior advisors for years regarding his military capabilities as well as WMD status.

And I assure you -- what I saw on 'This Week' this morning was a clear disdain for the Bush / Cheney representations by the Chairman of the 9/11 commission -- even though he was careful to stress the scope of his work was strictly 9/11 and that the report is strictly a Staff report.  I've also listened to the commission in progress live on the radio throughout the process and heard the testimony first hand (yes -- we all know broadcasting raw live feeds is a liberal tactic of NPR to confuse us into thinking we can make up our own minds )

Are we far enough from the topic now?  Or shall we chase red herrings some more?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


193 posted 06-21-2004 12:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Not every speech or press conference by the President is made to pre-empt network broadcast programming during prime time... especially during May sweeps."

That's your response, Reb? At a time when everyone is concerned about the war in Iraq, at a time everyone is questioning the President about what's happening there and what are future plans, at a time that Iraq occupies every waking minute of every day for every reporter, not to mention, citizens....to have Bush schedule a prime-time press conference to discuss his thoughts and America's course of action there.....you are saying THAT or something equally incredible about May sweeps??? For a man of your intelligence that's a little unworthy of you, LR. Is it so hard to acknowledge it for what it was?

Ok, then, we'll leave it at that...what's the difference? It is what it is...
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


194 posted 06-21-2004 01:43 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Nope.

This was my reply;
quote:

You basically say the media is liberal because the networks didn't carry a speech by the (conservative) President in prime time.  This was true for ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox.  Fox News, however, did carry the broadcast as did CSPAN, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC.  I don't imagine though that you feel CNN is conservative or objective because it DID carry the speech.  Why then would you infer the converse?

Not every speech or press conference by the President is made to pre-empt network broadcast programming during prime time... especially during May sweeps.  Denise says the networks are liberal, the liberals here say they are conservative -- if both sides feel alienated by the overall coverage of the major news outlets (excepting for the 'fair and balanced' Fox News which conservatives find objective and liberals find conservative) then -- what is the inference?



And you didn't answer the question.

You're making some sweeping assumptions that simply don't have any basis.  It is not uncommon at all for the networks to not carry a speech that has basically no news in it and is largely political.  Similarly - they don't cover every speech made by his opponents.  

Your evidence is simply not compelling.  The speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html wasn't either.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


195 posted 06-21-2004 08:33 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Denise- if people are calling him a tyrant because of the war, then why is it even more inappropriate to call him that during wartime? It seems to me that it makes it more appropriate.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


196 posted 06-21-2004 08:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A speech touted to discuss the Iraq situation with the country and the world, to outline the steps to be taken by the US and the new Iraqi government  has no news in it? It's just a political ploy, unworthy of air time? I doubt there's enough Viagra in the world to make that stand up, reb.

However you happen to feel about the speech has no relevance. It was the decision not to broadcast it, without the contents even being known that is the point of my question. In reality, the speech was actually important to some, since Russia, Germany, France and the UN security council applauded it. They must have found a non-major network somewhere to view it.

My opinion is that it was shunned and even the revues downplayed because it actually contained some optimistic views and some good news of what's happening there. The major networks have proven that they lean much more heavily on showing and exploiting the negative....why give Bush a prime-time opportunity to state differently?

Not that it really matters that much but there was one member of a famous rock band that went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to visit some of the wounded soldiers and he stated he was absolutely amazed at the good that has been done there. He stated that the American people do not see that side...he is right. Of course, one may say he was a Bush plant being told to say that from the CIA who is holding his guitar, wife and kids hostage but he's not the first civilian to say that, after going over there. The major networks will not carry news that is not negative concerning Iraq, a fact they have proven over and over.

So no need to beat this dead horse, too. Obviously you feel that the speech concerning Iraq was pre-judged by you and the networks to be non-newsworthy and strictly political and turned out to be nothing more than a disappointment. Of course, by pre-judging it that way you are stating your view of Bush fairly clearly, which makes your explanation more understandable. The networks are not supposed to be that way......
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


197 posted 06-21-2004 05:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What in the speech (you have the entire text in front of you) was news Micheal?  It's your argument to make.  Not mine.  You have to demonstrate that the reason this speech wasn't broadcast in its entirety on ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox live is because they are liberal.  

All you have is conjecture. (and an ad hom at me -- you have absolutely no grounds to say I pre-judged the speech).

Those networks are commercial enterprises.  They get a heads up before every Presidential speech -- unless it's a breaking news announcement -- to let them know what the speech is about.  They have to decide if it's a more political speech or if it's actually an executive speech.

Everything he talked about in that speech had been in the news at least a month before the speech.  Where was the news?  What was the speech for?

It was a stay the course speech.

Television is broadly segmented now due to cable.  (which is not new).  Over the last decade or so the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the political nominating conventions has faded more and more on the entertainment networks -- probably next month in Boston you'll see even less.

The viability of entertainment network news has been in question for some time now as the cable outlets continue to increase market share.

Now.  Would you give me an answer to MY question? If both sides feel alienated by the overall coverage of the major news outlets  then -- what is the inference?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


198 posted 06-21-2004 09:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

My apologies, reb. You are absolutely right to say I have no reason for claiming you pre-judged the speech. What I was referring to (and badly) was that you made an assumption that the networks did so and that could very well be the reason the conference was not carried.

As far as your question is concerned, what it the inference when both sides say the other is biased? My answer is simple - and, admittedly, biased. When one party is accused of something, it can be a knee-jerk reaction to say, "No, YOU did!!" just like Billy screaming that at Charlie over the question of who ate the crayons or painted the dog green. I believe the media IS biased and one heck of a lot of Americans happen to agree which can be found in the disdain in which the major network's news agencies are viewed, as has been noted in polls. So when the conservatives call them biased, what would you expect them to answer? "Yes, you are right"? Not hardly. They did exactly what little Billy would do - "No, YOU are!!". They had no other defense. I don't understand why you give this question of yours so much important since it was the only path for them to take.

You state that major news networks do not always carry presidential news conferences so let that be the litmus test. Give me one example of any president of the United States giving a prime-time news conference world-wide concerning the US role in ANY international affair that was not carried by the major news networks. I'll make it easy - doesn't need to be about war, doesn't need to be a topic where American lives are being lost daily, doesn't need to be a topic that is on the front page of every major newspaper every day - just give me ANY example of that occuring and I will willingly retract my accusation. If your statement is correct, there must be many...I'll settle for one.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


199 posted 06-21-2004 10:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Hush, I actually said it was shameful behavior, at any time, but especially during a time of war. There was a time when political adversaries kept their disagreements out of the limelight during war time for the sake of the troops, the welfare of the country, and so as not to give the enemy any possible political advantage that they could use against the commander-in-chief, which would have been characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some things are more important than power and politics. But I guess some politicians today don't see it that way anymore.

L.R., I'd have to have a person of the liberal persuasion present their arguments as to why they view the press as conservative before I can actually consider their point of view, and before I can answer your question as to what the press actually is if it is not really liberal or conservative.

As for unanswered questions, I still have a couple of those floating around the forums.

That Michael and I believe that the press is liberal is not a decision made in a vacuum based soley on their not airing a Presidential speech, but see that as just another indicator of it. Their commentators consistently have a liberal spin, which is less of a problem, of course, than the fact that their news "reporters" do the same thing. Why do they only report the tragedies in Iraq? Why don't they occassionally report on the reopened schools filled with kids instead of munitions? Why don't they report on the fully staffed hospitals that are actually able to treat patients adequately for the first time in decades? And the lower unemployment rate? Why don't they report that at least some women are going to school and work again? Why do they characterize Iraq as a quagmire and another Viet Nam? My opinion is that they are trying to advance their own political agenda, which is not their job. Their job is to report the facts, as many of the facts as they can gather, not pick and choose and only present a one-sided view of the sitution.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors