New topic
PrintableI gotta say this thread has the hint of an argument that the story was underreported because now there is a "conservative bias" in the media. IF that's the argument, then, IMO, that's just as sorry as when conservatives argue that there is a liberal bias. Can't win the argument on the merits so you play the victim. How lame 
But that's just my opinion WTF do I know... | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: I gotta say this thread has the hint of an argument that the story was underreported because now there is a "conservative bias" in the media. IF that's the argument, then, IMO, that's just as sorry as when conservatives argue that there is a liberal bias.
The only merits that were argued is that the media is not controlled by the left and the press doesn't want him to look like a bigoted fool right now in view of the political climate. Comprehension is the key. Can't win the argument on the merits so you play the victim. How lame
But that's just my opinion WTF do I know... Well, it seems you can't discern the merits of what exactly was argued. Loosely throwing the word "victim" around at people is silly and usually a lame tactic to get people to shut up. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Aaron said: as Threadbare said, there's more important shit to report (like that war on terror or a strong proclamation fromt he president that we're going on the offensive) than the fact that he's an idiot. that was the story of 2000 and pre-9/11 2001. there's more important stuff to worry about now.
Oh, you mean like how widely his recent one month vacation was reported about in the midst of the "more important things" going on at the same time. AND how widely it was reported that he was drunk, I mean, uhhh, how he "choked on a pretzel" when more important things were going on? I see. "Bush has spent a whopping total of 250 days of his presidency at Camp David (123 days), Kennebunkport (12) and his Texas ranch (115). That means Bush has spent 42 percent of his term so far at one of his three leisure destinations. To date, the president has devoted far more time to golf (15 rounds) than to solo news conferences (six). The numbers also show that Bush, after holding three news conferences in his first four months, has had only three more in the last 15 months -- not counting the 37 Q&A sessions he has had with foreign leaders during his term." 
SuperNova,I'm enjoying your posts on this thread! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bush was drunk when he choked on that pretzel? really? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Universaluv said: I gotta say this thread has the hint of an argument that the story was underreported because now there is a "conservative bias" in the media. IF that's the argument, then, IMO, that's just as sorry as when conservatives argue that there is a liberal bias.
The only merits that were argued is that the media is not controlled by the left and the press doesn't want him to look like a bigoted fool right now in view of the political climate. Comprehension is the key. Can't win the argument on the merits so you play the victim. How lame
But that's just my opinion WTF do I know... Well, it seems you can't discern the merits of what exactly was argued. Loosely throwing the word "victim" around at people is silly and usually a lame tactic to get people to shut up. Bold letters, impressive. I wasn't loosely throwing aroud the word "victim". My point is that I think that underlying this argument that the press wants to put Bush in a favorable light right now is the "hint" of the "conservative bias" argument, which, IF that's the case I disagree with. See? Frankly, I agree with Aaron's previous point that we aren't helpless victims at the mercy of the press, which you also dismissed. Personally, I think it is very relevant to question the possible underlying argument behind a thread. But I guess we can't discuss that issue, sorry. Believe me I am not trying to get anyone to shut up, at least not this time,  . I just don't see much support for the argument that the media is protecting Bush because they didn't report a particular story in the mainstream press. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: Supernova said: Universaluv said: I gotta say this thread has the hint of an argument that the story was underreported because now there is a "conservative bias" in the media. IF that's the argument, then, IMO, that's just as sorry as when conservatives argue that there is a liberal bias.
The only merits that were argued is that the media is not controlled by the left and the press doesn't want him to look like a bigoted fool right now in view of the political climate. Comprehension is the key. Can't win the argument on the merits so you play the victim. How lame
But that's just my opinion WTF do I know... Well, it seems you can't discern the merits of what exactly was argued. Loosely throwing the word "victim" around at people is silly and usually a lame tactic to get people to shut up. Bold letters, impressive. Well, they should be.
If you're saying I only make the letters bold in response to your posts, it's not the case. Lately I've been making most of my posts in bold, they're all there to see. It has nothing to do with emphasis as a response to you. I wasn't loosely throwing aroud the word "victim". My point is that I think that underlying this argument that the press wants to put Bush in a favorable light right now is the "hint" of the "conservative bias" argument, which, IF that's the case I disagree with. See?
Sure, you could disagree with it, but I can only speak for myself when I say that the I don't believe the press is necessarily controlled by the left. BUT, that doesn't automatically and necessarily equate to it being controlled by the right either. I don't think the press in general wants him to look like a fool right now - unless it's because of something stupid he does on the current Iraq/Afghanistan foreign affairs front. Frankly, I agree with Aaron's previous point that we aren't helpless victims at the mercy of the press, which you also dismissed. Personally, I think it is very relevant to question the possible underlying argument behind a thread. But I guess we can't discuss that issue, sorry.
If I dismissed it, it was becuase it was beside the point. The point was, and is; the American press shoves down people's throats WHAT THEY WANT TO, WHEN THEY WANT, whether the issue is relevant or not. Which is why I brought up simple annual check ups (for NO health problems) for presidents being widely reported all the time as one example. In this case, they didn't want to do it. Maybe I misunderstaood your post to begin with. If that's the case, I apologize. On an unrelated note; thanks DavidEye. I feel a retirement from this thread coming soon. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Sure, you could disagree with it, but I can only speak for myself when I say that the I don't believe the press is necessarily controlled by the left. BUT, that doesn't automatically and necessarily equate to it being controlled by the right either. I don't think the press in general wants him to look like a fool right now - unless it's because of something stupid he does on the current Iraq/Afghanistan foreign affairs front. Hmm, looks like we have some areas we actually agree on. Actually, I really didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote the initial post, so, as I think you've confirmed, my post wasn't really directed at you, since your position is not the one I described above. In fact, it may be noones position on this thread, which is why I used words like "IF" and "possible". However, that was the vibe I was getting from some posts so I commented on it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: During Bush's trip to Brazil recently, he naively commented to Fernando Henrique Cardioso (President of Brazil) "Do you have blacks here too?".
The embarassing silence was only broken when Conddoleezza Rice informed George that Brazil had a higher black population of any country outside Africa. Spared the necessity of having to give Bush's dumb question an answer, Cardoso later described the US president as being 'still in training'. Interestingly the incident happened in full view of the press but was not reported in either the US or British media. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Does Dubya have any knowledge of the world outide the way things are done in Texas USA? Trust me, he doesn't even know how things are done in Texas. The thing that really pisses me off is that he's making people think all Texans are like him. Some of us have brains, and we actually use them! George was a moron when he was Governor, I'm not surprised he's a moron now 
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Sr. Moderator
|
mistermaxxx said: Bush known also for having His Crib not sold to a Black Person as part of the Contract back from His Home Area.
False. See: http://www.snopes.com/inb...e/bush.htm Please note: effective March 21, 2010, I've stepped down from my prince.org Moderator position. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatormatt said: mistermaxxx said: Bush known also for having His Crib not sold to a Black Person as part of the Contract back from His Home Area.
False. See: http://www.snopes.com/inb...e/bush.htm I gotta disagree with the essayist on this one. I work in the real estate industry and any addendum to a deed (including platt maps are including *for* the clients personal information)...Either Bush, his real estate agent. escrow officer or his lawyer had to have read the covenant, and did absolutly nothing to have it removed...regarless of the fact that the Supreme Court overruled these types of restrictions you would think one of the before mentioned persons would have objected to its inclussion...If anything, it points out the lazy attitude many people have towards race relations and the total lack of respect for equality..."oh sure, this covenant is old...it doesnt really matter...it doesnt mean anything anymore"...UHHH...for a man who was governer at the time...wouldnt the symbolism behind it be enough to take action and have it removed? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |