# OT- Dubya: Part time comedian



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

At the recent dinner for the Radio and Television News Correspondents, Dubya decided to debut his stand up comedy act. 

Dubya showed a series of photos of Dubya himself looking for WMD's inside the oval office. Looking under the desk. "Nope, no weapons of mass destruction here." Looking in a file cabinet. "They must be around here somwehere!"

LOL! That's good stuff!

Wait...500+ American kids are dead and buried in the cold hard ground because of the search for those non existant weapons of mass destruction. 

I guess if you can't laugh at dead kids and unjustified miltary actions...what can you laugh at? 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.wmd.jokes.ap/index.html


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

What a douche.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Bush is doing a good job of getting himself defeated in the next election.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

"non-existant weapons", lol.


ok mr arms inspector expert.


no wonder you don't think its funny, he's laughing at people like you that didn't flinch when Clinton and Kerry said from 1998 through 2001 that Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man, Iraq posessed WMD, and even went so far as to lob missiles into Iraq, go on national TV and explain for 15 minutes how dangerous a man Saddam was (mentioning, by the way, nuclear capability) and even passed a Senate resolution against Saddam and his WMD, of course Kerry voted for and spoke ardently for said resolution. 



Clinton 



> The resolution condemned "in the strongest possible terms" Iraq's continued threat to international peace and security, and urged then-President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs."
> 
> Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and *John Kerry of Massachusetts.
> *


*
* 



> MR. KERRY: Mr. President, there are two subjects that I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention this afternoon. First, I want to talk about an issue of enormous international consequence--the situation with respect to Iraq. For the last 2 months, as we know, Saddam Hussein has been testing, yet again, the full measure of the international community's resolve to force Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. That has been the fundamental goal of our policy toward Iraq since the end of the gulf war and is reflected in the U.N. agreements reached in the aftermath of the war.
> 
> Two months ago, on August 5, Saddam Hussein, formally adopting a recommendation that had been made by the Iraqi parliament 2 days earlier, announced that Iraq would no longer permit U.N. weapons inspectors to conduct random searches in defiance of its obligations under those U.N. resolutions that were adopted at the end of the war, and also in violation, I might add, of its agreement last February with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, to give UNSCOM teams, accompanied by diplomatic overseers, unconditional access to all sites where UNSCOM believed that Iraq may be stockpiling weapons or agents to make those weapons.
> 
> Let's understand very clearly that ever since the end of the war, it has been the clear, declared, accepted, and implemented policy of the United States of America and its allies to prevent Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction. And as part of that agreed-upon policy, we were to be permitted unlimited, unfettered, unconditional, immediate access to the sites that we needed to inspect in order to be able to make that policy real.


Kerry talks on Senate floor  



after the endless hypocrisy, its no wonder you don't have a clue the President is mocking you


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Someone should the footage of that to the families of soldiers that died in Iraq. I am sure they would find it hilarious


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

Goes to prove that the Dems will do anything they can to get the guy out of office, even if it means spinning something as minor as this into something major. 

But, hey Howard Dean didn't get a fair shake did he? (Which I do believe his scream was what dug his grave, unjustly)


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jvanbusk</b>!
> Goes to prove that the Dems will do anything they can to get the guy out of office, even if it means spinning something as minor as this into something major.
> 
> But, hey Howard Dean didn't get a fair shake did he? (Which I do believe his scream was what dug his grave, unjustly)


Is that what it goes to prove? 

What would the reaction be if this had been John Kerry making light of the futile search for WMD's? I guarantee Repubs would be up in arms saying Kerry is not a patriot and that he's 'with the enemy' for making light of such a serious issue.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> "non-existant weapons", lol.
> 
> ok mr arms inspector expert.


So...what are you saying Tommyboy? That there ARE WMD's? I'll go with Hans Blix as MY weapons inspector expert. He believes the WMD's were destroyed in Iraq about 10 years ago. 



> no wonder you don't think its funny, he's laughing at people like you that didn't flinch when Clinton and Kerry said from 1998 through 2001 that Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man, Iraq posessed WMD, and even went so far as to lob missiles into Iraq, go on national TV and explain for 15 minutes how dangerous a man Saddam was (mentioning, by the way, nuclear capability) and even passed a Senate resolution against Saddam and his WMD, of course Kerry voted for and spoke ardently for said resolution.


You know what? This has nothing to do with John Kerry. It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with me.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Dubya rushing us into a war with a made up reason, adding a heaping side order of scare tactics and then making jokes about that war that has cost 500+ American lives. 

"I guess there were no WMD's after all...hahahahaha! Maybe we shoulda made up a different reason to go to war! Hahahahahahaha!"

That's not funny.


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that what it goes to prove?
> ...


Of course they would. It's an opportunity for you to put a dent in the armor of your opponent. The thing is most people that don't have a particular bias and agenda to get him out, get him out, get him out will look at this "news item" and realize that it's taken out of context and blown totally out of proportion. This type of humor by the president is the norm at this specific dinner.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jvanbusk</b>!
> Of course they would. It's an opportunity for you to put a dent in the armor of your opponent. The thing is most people that don't have a particular bias and agenda to get him out, get him out, get him out will look at this "news item" and realize that it's taken out of context and blown totally out of proportion. This type of humor by the president is the norm at this specific dinner.


So I'm one of those swing type voters when it comes to the presidencial election. Key demographic and all that. I definitely don't vote along party lines as I'm a libertarian more then anything else... but I'm not privy to knowing that this particular dinner is some sort of exempt from respectful/stand up hour. Personally I could see how it could be seen in very poor taste to make light of this situation no matter whats the norm at a particular public dinner. If parents of soldiers who have died in this cause might find it in poor taste, isn't that enough to avoid making light of it? 

I don't think this is that serious of an incident and I'm sure that potencially offended parties will have thick enough skin to carry on with their lives, but it is concerning that the Pres didn't know this would not be an OK issue to joke about.

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> I don't think this is that serious of an incident and I'm sure that potencially offended parties will have thick enough skin to carry on with their lives, but it is concerning that the Pres didn't know this would not be an OK issue to joke about.
> 
> STOMP


That's pretty much how I feel. These jokes are not that serious...until you consider the incredible level of stupidity/ arrogance/cluelessness that it takes to say these things. 

He can't possibly be this stupid, can he?

I should have learned...never underestimate Dubya.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> Someone should the footage of that to the families of soldiers that died in Iraq. I am sure they would find it hilarious


Hey somebody should footage of the hussein regime brutally murdering there own people. I live near what is considered to be one of the largest population of middle easterners (I don't know if that is the correct wording) living in the united states. Suprise suprise A vast majority of those people were for the war. They knew there would be causalties but they also knew that there lives would never improve while the hussein regime was in power. Here are some good links 



> For many of us, Iraq is half a world away. But for Iraqi-Americans, the war news is very close to home.
> 
> Ghanem Aljilihawi is from Iraq and though it hurts him to see his homeland attacked by United States forces, he sees it as the only way to free the Iraqi people from a ruthless leader.
> 
> ...


http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2057097/detail.html



> About 500 Arab men marched around the McNamara Federal Building Wednesday to voice their anger at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and to show their support for the United States. Many in the group have family in Iraq and are calling for Hussein's ouster, Local 4 reported. The demonstrators favored U.S. military action against Iraq to put an end to the current regime, according to the station.


http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1674332/detail.html



> "On behalf of all the mothers, sisters, wives and daughters in Iraq, Saddam Hussein must go," said Miad Konja, of Franklin Village, who is majoring in math at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. "The media is showing scenes of Iraqi people rallying and asking for long life for Saddam, but this is not true. These people have been paid money. They do not really want him in power. He has killed his own people and he must go."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/760550/posts



> ''Non-Iraqi Arabs, friends of ours, they are surprised that we are so much in favor'' of war, said Ali Alhaddad, of suburban Moreland Hills. ''They say, 'Iraqis are going to die.' Well, heck, Iraqis are dying every day. They have not had a decent human life in 30 years. Enough is enough.''


http://www.oweb.com/state/story/0292003_sta04.asp


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Thanks, I have seen the news or read a newspaper in the past year or so therefor I wouldn't know about any of those things  

Thousands of lives have been lost because of this war that was supposedly about WMD's even though Bush and his administration had intelligence that they where destroyed 10 years ago. Hell the best evidence Bush & Co had going into the war where obviously forged documents from Nigeria. So now he's making jokes about not finding weapons that 500+ young americans died looking for.

Real ****ing classy Bush.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> Hey somebody should footage of the hussein regime brutally murdering there own people. I live near what is considered to be one of the largest population of middle easterners (I don't know if that is the correct wording) living in the united states. Suprise suprise A vast majority of those people were for the war. They knew there would be causalties but they also knew that there lives would never improve while the hussein regime was in power.


Saddam Hussein was a brutal *******, no doubt about that. But there are two points you're missing:

A: Dubya didn't use Hussein's brutal murder of Iraqis as justification for war, he used non existant weapons of mass destruction as justification. And, more importantly, he KNEW those weapons weren't there. 

B: No matter what Hussein did, it doesn't mean that Dubya's jokes were appropriate or acceptable.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Anyone who thought WMDs inside of Iraq were the only, or even primary, reason for invading Iraq was smoking something.

I'm surprised that there were no WMDs there, but the fact remains that Iraq (a) was out of compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMDs, (b) had a history of producing WMDs, and (c) had shown a relatively recent willingness to international aggression as well as domestic cleansing.

I don't find the joke that funny, but I don't see how many people could be offended by it unless they already had a chip on their shoulder about Bush.

Ed O.


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Anyone who thought WMDs inside of Iraq were the only, or even primary, reason for invading Iraq was smoking something.
> 
> I'm surprised that there were no WMDs there, but the fact remains that Iraq (a) was out of compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMDs, (b) had a history of producing WMDs, and (c) had shown a relatively recent willingness to international aggression as well as domestic cleansing.
> ...


You pretty much sum up my opinion.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Over-reacting a little Fork? Please, dude. How do you know there are no weapons? Been there? Just pipe down with the "holier than thou act" and support your president....ummmm yes he is "your" president. There's enough devil to go around right now without you playing one on the internet.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Saddam Hussein was a brutal *******, no doubt about that. But there are two points you're missing:
> ...


I don't disagree that he shouldn't be joking about WMD but your first point I have a hard time believing. I doubt he would have invaded Iraq using the WMD as the major reason if he was 100% certain that they had none. He could have used tons of angles to justify the war.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> making jokes about that war that has cost 500+ American lives.


I find it interesting that the same people who complain about the "great loss of life" in Iraq often defend abortion. Thousands if not millions of innocent lives are lost in this country every year due to that heinous practice, and that's no problem. But let a few soldiers die fighting to liberate a country from oppression and it's unacceptable.

FACT: The total number of U.S. casualties so far is only 2 percent of the troops we lost in the Korean War. I repeat: 2 percent.

And that number is much less than those killed in car wrecks every year due to drunk driving. In 2002, more than 17,000 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes on U.S. highways. That's a death every 30 minutes, which equals 40 deaths a day. Nobody is screaming about the great waste of life due to drunk driving, but let 500 soldiers die defending freedom and they're up in arms.

Go figure.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Aug 2001 President George W Bush declares: "[Hussein's] been a menace forever, and...he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

Nov 2001 Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."

It's amazing that in 2-3 months time, much of which was occupied with dealing with the direct aftermath of 9-11, we discovered with certainty that they had WMD's.

Dubya tried other tactics to convince the American people that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with. But we the people didn't buy it. So he had to come with that old chestnut...weapons of mass destruction. 

Fascinating quote by Paul Wolfowitz: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Great reason to throw a war, huh?


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

> He can't possibly be this stupid, can he?


Liberals continue to make this serious mistake. They seem to think he's some mindless hick, and he continues to defeat them. The way he routed the Democrats during the midterm elections in 2002 was simply unheard of for a sitting President. They continue to underestimate him by nominating such a weak liberal as John Kerry to run against him.

If he's as stupid as liberals would have us believe, then what does that say about them?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O.</b>! Anyone who thought WMDs inside of Iraq were...even the primary, reason for invading Iraq was smoking something.


"The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, *the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won't tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction...* 

--President George W Bush

So what was Dubya smoking?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> "The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, *the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won't tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction...*
> 
> ...


It's *obvious* that Bush was talking about the DEVELOPMENT of WMDs, not POSSESSION of WMDs.

The fact that Saddam hasn't been shown to currently have WMDs doesn't mean he wasn't developing them. Lack of evidence at this point that Iraq was developing WMDs doesn't erase that Iraq was out of compliance with UN resolutions.

Of course, the mere fact that Saddam and Iraq were not in compliance with UN resolutions doesn't mean that they were developing them, either. 

If Saddam would have jumped through the hoops that the UN required of him, rather than acting like he could hide forever behind the skirts of France and Germany, his compliance could have proven that he not only did not possess WMDs but that his regime was no longer developing them. (Assuming, of course, that he actually did not possess WMDs and that his regime was not longer developing them...)

It's POSSIBLE, I guess, that the United States (led by Bush) would have still found some other reason to invade... and if they would have, with the information I have at this point I probably would not have supported the action. That's just speculation, though.

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

I'm not sure but I couldn't find anything in the article showing him making fun of our fallen troops.

To me, it's actually more insulting to see people making the stretch from Bush laughing at himself for not being able to find WMDs that the vast majority of experts thought existed to Bush making fun of dead soldiers.

I'm not a huge Bush supporter but I really do find it tiring talking to friends who can't admit that Bush has done anything that has benefitted us.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RipCity9</b>!
> 
> 
> Liberals continue to make this serious mistake. They seem to think he's some mindless hick, and he continues to defeat them. The way he routed the Democrats during the midterm elections in 2002 was simply unheard of for a sitting President. They continue to underestimate him by nominating such a weak liberal as John Kerry to run against him.
> ...


I hate to say this, but what it *really* says is that this is not a particularly bright country. More correctly: It's a country that lets blind nationalism block brain function.

When a decorated war veteran who lost limbs in the war, like Max Cleeland, loses an election because Republicans paint him as traitor and morph his face into Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's in television commercials, because he opposed the President on certain issues...it doesn't speak to the brilliance of Republicans for third-grade tactics.

It points to the stupidity of voters.

Democrats are foolish for overestimating the American public. A famous quote, appropriate here: "No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

It's a shame. It can be a country of intelligent, savvy people who are capable of critical thinking. But as soon as an administration can point to something outside the country and whip up a nationalistic fervor, clear thinking goes out the window. Not for everyone, but seemingly for a majority. The Max Cleeland situation illustrated that.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I find it interesting that the same people who complain about the "great loss of life" in Iraq often defend abortion. Thousands if not millions of innocent lives are lost in this country every year due to that heinous practice, and that's no problem.


This a completely different OT thread, man ... and you know it.

As it stands, from a medical standpoint right now, a fetus is NOT a life. It is a conglomeration of cells. It is no more a life then the cells of sperm that die in male testicals every day or the egg a woman discharges every month. 

You can defend the concept of whether or not a fetus is a life, but there is NO proof.

The comparison is void. 

The only grounds to debate this topic is "moral"-istic at this point ... and as such you cannot compare the death of actual life to the removal of cells. 

Start an OT thread if you want to further debate this point.



> But let a few soldiers die fighting to liberate a country from oppression and it's unacceptable.


First, 500-1000 (you should always double estimates) dead soldiers is NOT a small number.

Second, no, it is not unacceptable. The problem is - we weren't there to liberate a country from oppression. We were there to stop "terror". We were there in an unconstitutional war not declared by Congress. 

Third, we ARE NOT the world's policeman. 



> FACT: The total number of U.S. casualties so far is only 2 percent of the troops we lost in the Korean War. I repeat: 2 percent


So? Does this make it okay?



> Nobody is screaming about the great waste of life due to drunk driving,


They aren't? What alternate universe do you live in, bub? 



> but let 500 soldiers die defending freedom and they're up in arms.


500 soldiers were not DEFENDING freedom ... they were ATTACKING another country with little justification.



> Go figure.


Yea, go figure.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> Just pipe down with the "holier than thou act" and support your president....ummmm yes he is "your" president. There's enough devil to go around right now without you playing one on the internet.


How very UN-AMERICAN! 

Come one, come all - blindly support your president. Don't ask questions. Don't - it's just - unpatriotic!

It is our right and our charge as American citizens to question the government's actions. Everything about how this country was founded and the comments they stated in the constitution and while forming the constitution express this fundamental concept.

I will support "my" president on things I agree on ... and voice my disagreement on issues that I do not. 

As it stands, you probably ought to be considered up for treason, as should anyone that supports the "war" as it is BLATANTLY unconstitutional for a war to be declared without Congress.

I know that's a harsh statement, and said slightly in jest, but I will NEVER support a president or a government that threatens the very fabric of the constitution at every turn.

Democrat, republican, libertarian, green, etc, etc. ... I would support none of them if they acted this way. None.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I hate to say this, but what it really says is that this is not a particularly bright country. More correctly: It's a country that lets blind nationalism block brain function.


Yeah, right. It's a dumb country when it supports a Republican president, but it's a brilliant country when it twice elects a sleezebag like Bill Clinton, right?

Democrats always like to paint Republicans as "dumb." They did it to Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II. One of the problems Democrats have is they think they're better than everyone else. We're all just rubes and hicks to those clever Democrats, don't you know?

As for blind "nationalism," lots of folks would call it patriotism and self-preservation. I give folks credit for seeing how Bush has defended the country. If Clinton were in office, or Gore (God help us), we never would have done a damn thing about 9/11. Just look at what the Clinton administration did in response to the Khobar Towers boming, the attack on the U.S. Embasssy, the attack on the USS Cole, and the first WTC attack. NOTHING. I repeat, NOTHING!!

I thank God every day that a Republican was in the White House on 9/11. The terrorists got a huge wake-up call soon thereafter, and now we're hunting them down all over the world. They have discovered that the Bush White House, unlike the Clinton one, has a backbone and will fight back.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> I doubt he would have invaded Iraq using the WMD as the major reason if he was 100% certain that they had none. He could have used tons of angles to justify the war.


No, he didn't actually have tons of reasons.

He needed a reason that would whip the rest of the world into a panic. He needed to draw a connection between terrorists, our safety and his continued existence.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Yeah, right. It's a dumb country when it supports a Republican president, but it's a brilliant country when it twice elects a sleezebag like Bill Clinton, right?


Bill Clinton is a moron, too. 

The only president with any far reaching intelligence that I can remember (in my lifetime) was Reagan. 



> We're all just rubes and hicks to those clever Democrats, don't you know?


Yes, and the moment anyone here questions any one of the people that support Bush (you included) you pull out this Liberal/Democrat speech. 

Don't you understand that it doesn't always encircle a party here? I think the dissention has fallen on all sides of the pie.



> As for blind "nationalism," lots of folks would call it patriotism and self-preservation. I give folks credit for seeing how Bush has defended the country.


And those people would be the biggest threat to our nation. 

Again - I point to the famous qoute by Ben Franklin:
<i>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"</i>

Our founding fathers were full of quotes against BLIND patriotism .. but this quote, which we all heard after 9/11 holds true ... as the blind followers are allowing our government to dupe us. 



> If Clinton were in office, or Gore (God help us), we never would have done a damn thing about 9/11. Just look at what the Clinton administration did in response to the Khobar Towers boming, the attack on the U.S. Embasssy, the attack on the USS Cole, and the first WTC attack. NOTHING. I repeat, NOTHING!!


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure "doing something" accomplishes ANYTHING. You cannot combat terrorism with head-on brute force. 

They aren't an army. There is no central core. 

But, attacking Saddam does little to prevent terrorist attacks - as there has been little proven connection between terrorism and Saddam. 



> I thank God every day that a Republican was in the White House on 9/11. The terrorists got a huge wake-up call soon thereafter, and now we're hunting them down all over the world. They have discovered that the Bush White House, unlike the Clinton one, has a backbone and will fight back.


See, here you are with Republican and Democrat. 

Your "republican" president is in just as much hot water as Clinton right now ... as he blatantly said about terrorism: "It doesn't concern me, it didn't happen during my watch." (paraphrased)

Play.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

*My two cents*

I am undecided on who I'm going to vote for - Bush or Kerry. Leaning towards Kerry.

But maybe one of you fellow diehard Republicans (Talkhard?) could help explain one fact.

Before 9/11, Bush spent 42% of his time in office, traveling to/being on/returning from vacation.

That fact just blows me away.

Has Bush worked hard since 9/11? You betacha! But I want a President who's going to hard for me ALL the time. Not just because a national crisis happened.

So one simple question: Please explain to me why President Bush would take so much vacation time after being elected to office?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, right. It's a dumb country when it supports a Republican president, but it's a brilliant country when it twice elects a sleezebag like Bill Clinton, right?


Party affiliation is *your* obsession. Perhaps you, as usual, didn't bother to read what I *actually* wrote:

_It's a shame. It can be a country of intelligent, savvy people who are capable of critical thinking. *But as soon as an administration can point to something outside the country and whip up a nationalistic fervor, clear thinking goes out the window.*_

Now, read that as many times as you like before answering this question: Did I say "Republican administration," "Democratic administration" or did I merely say "administration," which would mean any sort of administration?

The correct answer is the last one. If a Democrat were in power and he was whipping up a blind nationalistic fervor, the country would be equally foolish when it came to politics.

It's not right or wrong based on the party in the White House. It's wrong and foolish (for the country) no matter who does it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> If Clinton were in office, or Gore (God help us), we never would have done a damn thing about 9/11.


Clinton and Gore had begun anti-terrorism initiatives after the USS Cole attack, which wouldn't be completed before the end of their term, so they made sure to hand them off properly to the Bush administration. The Bush administration promptly killed them and did nothing in place of them except to create an Anti-Terrorism Task Force that Dick Cheney headed up.

The purpose of this task force was to investigate possible future terrorist attacks and to have meetings to discuss actions to take, with those meetings chaired by Bush.

Want to take a guess how many times the task force met, chaired by Bush? Zero.

Try guessing how many times that task force met, *without* Bush present? Zero.

Hey, good looking out, fellas. Any more hard work might have cut into all that vacation time of Bush's.



> Just look at what the Clinton administration did in response to the Khobar Towers boming, the attack on the U.S. Embasssy, the attack on the USS Cole, and the first WTC attack. NOTHING. I repeat, NOTHING!!


Do double exclamation marks replace facts, in your mind?



> I thank God every day that a Republican was in the White House on 9/11.


I don't care who was in the White House *on* 9/11, but I wish someone competent, who would have done something to try and prevent 9/11, had been in office *until* 9/11 and I wish someone competent, who would have gone after the perpetrators instead of launching an unrelated war, had been in the White House *after* 9/11.

Don't you?


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care who was in the White House *on* 9/11, but I wish someone competent, who would have done something to try and prevent 9/11, had been in office *until* 9/11 Don't you?


So do I. So do I.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

this country is so f'd up. I love it, Minstrel, the blame police coming in here to fix blame on Bush for 9/11, as if who the president was that day, prior to that day or after that day has anything to do with the simple unarguable fact that the truly inconceivable became a reality that morning. 

yeah, I'm sure any liberal prez would have foreseen a bunch of muslim extremists with boxcutters hopping on several planes that morning in a coordinated attack to fly planes into buildings, I'm sure glad you thought that one up Minstrel, jeez if I'd known you were so clairvoyant, I'd have voted for you in 2000  Do you blame FDR for Pearl Harbor? 


I think this country is really stupid. something horrible happened to us, now we are at war with an ideology that wants to destroy us (whether you want to admit that or face it individually is up to you, but it is a fact), and all we do is sit around and play the blame game for years after. The blame is on Al-Queda. The blame is on leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.

Don't forget who the bad guys are while you're sitting around assigning blame.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> this country is so f'd up. I love it, Minstrel, the blame police coming in here to fix blame on Bush for 9/11, as if who the president was that day, prior to that day or after that day has anything to do with the simple unarguable fact that the truly inconceivable became a reality that morning.


It wasn't that inconceivable. Perhaps to you and me, but you know what? Unless you've been holding out on us all, you don't have a worldwide intelligence network.

Read Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," sometime. His book is incredibly well-researched, and he uses quotes made before 9/11 from government officials in the Bush administration about seeing signs of something imminent coming.

(And yes, Franken is obviously partisan, but unlike like other partisan types like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, Franken actually backs up his claims with impeccable sourcing and all from completely mainstream sources, like White House press releases, the NY Times, etc.)

All of this ignores the absurdity of Bush *never* bothering to convene his task force on terrorism. Is your position that because we didn't know box-cutters would be used, we should spend no effort or time at all on trying to sniff out terrorist plots?



> yeah, I'm sure any liberal prez would have foreseen a bunch of muslim extremists with boxcutters hopping on several planes that morning in a coordinated attack to fly planes into buildings, I'm sure glad you thought that one up Minstrel, jeez if I'd known you were so clairvoyant, I'd have voted for you in 2000


Maybe a liberal president would have spent more than zero time on being alert for terrorism. After all, Clinton (not a "liberal prez," but much more liberal than Bush) had started anti-terrorism initiatives that the Bush administration promptly cancelled. Without doing anything in place of them.

I would have spent more time than *no* time.

So yes, you'd have been better off voting for me.



> I think this country is really stupid. something horrible happened to us, now we are at war with an ideology that wants to destroy us (whether you want to admit that or face it individually is up to you, but it is a fact)


There's always an "ideology that wants to destroy" the latest imperial power. Especially when that power destabilizes Democratic governments, funds death squads, etc.



> and all we do is sit around and play the blame game for years after. The blame is on Al-Queda. The blame is on leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.


Of course, neither had any connection to 9/11. I note you didn't even mention Osama bin Laden. Bush's propoganda sure worked out well. Even bright guys like you are more focused on Hussein then the person we *know* was behind it.

And we can blame Bush for doing nothing while *also* blaming Osama bin Laden for perpetrating the attack.

It's not either/or.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "(And yes, Franken is obviously partisan, but unlike like other partisan types like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, Franken actually backs up his claims with impeccable sourcing and all from completely mainstream sources, like White House press releases, the NY Times, etc.)"


Have you read _Slander_ or _Treason_ by Coulter? She exposes the lies of liberals and backs it up with prolific footnoting. I recommend either book. You'll never look at liberals the same way again.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> this country is so f'd up. I love it, Minstrel, the blame police coming in here to fix blame on Bush for 9/11, as if who the president was that day, prior to that day or after that day has anything to do with the simple unarguable fact that the truly inconceivable became a reality that morning.


I don't think you can blame Bush for the actions any more than you can blame American Airlines. 

BUT -- 

That is using the assumption then they had our information. I don't think they did. 

I said I was going to reserve judgement on how much information the government had until I saw how we handled it. Now, with this knowledge in hand, I think we knew something was going to happen, if not the exact knowledge, and I think we might have helped foster it along. 

Our government is a shady business that looks out for itself. 



> Do you blame FDR for Pearl Harbor?


I don't BLAME him for Pearl Harbor ... I blame the men who dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor for the effects of Pearl Harbor.

I blame FDR for knowing, in advance, about the attack and instead of doing anything, he helped baby it along. This is a pretty well known and well documented act. 

I don't really blame him for it either. The American people refused to enter WWII and in order to stir up frenzy - he allowed our soil to be attacked. It was a brilliant move and it worked. 

But the BLAME for Pearl Harbor rests fully on the shoulders of those that dropped the bombs there.



> I think this country is really stupid. something horrible happened to us, now we are at war with an ideology that wants to destroy us (whether you want to admit that or face it individually is up to you, but it is a fact), and all we do is sit around and play the blame game for years after.


If you are at war with an ideology - then you have already lost. The only way to stop an ideology is akin to genocide. 

What I find funny is that all the republicans here seem to want this to be a conservative/liberal issue - and it isn't. Again, I'm pretty freaking conservative, but when the facts ante up to the concept that our government had a hand in it - it isn't a pleasent thought.

I mean, do you really believe half the stuff you are fed? Let's Roll? Please.



> The blame is on Al-Queda. The blame is on leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.


No - it isn't. The blame is on the men who flew those planes into buildings and the men that orchestrated it. 

Unfortunately, I think that Bin Laden is a puppet. 

But there is no concrete evidence that would hold up in ANY court that Hussein fostered it or Kim Jong or Al-Queda -- or even my beliefs of what happened. 



> Don't forget who the bad guys are while you're sitting around assigning blame.


Bad and good are completely subjective. Do you think that your "bad" guys sit around in caves thinking up ways to demonstrate how "bad" they are? 

I'm not saying what these men do daily is a "good" thing, but painting them as "bad guys" is so -- cold war-ish.

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Have you read _Slander_ or _Treason_ by Coulter? She exposes the lies of liberals and backs it up with prolific footnoting. I recommend either book. You'll never look at liberals the same way again.


Except that Coulter's quotes are deceptive or outright lies and her footnoting is bogus.

Franken's book covers Coulter's book. He investigates her footnotes and discovers that many are outright fabrication. In cases where they aren't fabrications, she changed the actual quote. Why would she do this? Because msot people don't actually bother to follow up footnotes.

Of course, when Franken puts out a book that investigates others' footnotes and finds them to be lies, you'd expect that others would immediately follow up Franken's sources. No one has yet claimed that Franken's sources are anything but on the up-and-up.

I don't expect that you'll actually read it, but if you do read his book (borrow it from a library if you don't wish to enrich Franken), you'll discover how many lies and bad logic the conservatives use to frame the debate the way they want it (liberals are wicked and traitorous) and how much hypocrisy the Bush administration has used in blaming Clinton (as the previous adminsitration) or crediting themselves when, in the past, they've been on the record as saying credit in such cases should go to the previous adminitration.

One example: After the war in Iraq, the Bush administration congratulated itself loudly on what a polished, impressive military machine they had.

In the previous Persian Gulf War, Cheney told a reporter that a military's readiness and ability is a function of how the *previous administration* handled the military, because a couple of years is not enough time to ramp up an inherited poorly-maintained military. Cheney wrapped up the quote saying that the first thing he did after the Persian Gulf War was place a call to California to thank Ronald Reagan. (You can get the exact quote in the book, I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the book in front of me.)

So, did the Bush administration place a call to Clinton, to thank him for having maintained such a great fighting force? Nope, the Bush administration, and Republicans in general, have spent three years trashing Clinton's maintaining of the military, going so far as to say he "decimated" it. But, evidently it was polished and awesome when it was used. And credit for that, according to Cheney, himself, should go to the previous administration.

Huh. Strange.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> I don't really blame him for it either. The American people refused to enter WWII and in order to stir up frenzy - he allowed our soil to be attacked. It was a brilliant move and it worked.


I remember that, it was just before Shaggy and Scooby pulled off the mask to reveal it was really just mean ol' Mr. Miller the lighthouse keeper!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> I remember that, it was just before Shaggy and Scooby pulled off the mask to reveal it was really just mean ol' Mr. Miller the lighthouse keeper!


Wow. It's easy to laugh or scoff at something because you get the textbook discussion on it and therefore it's truth. 

Your comment shows a lack of knowledge on the subject and shows the unwillingness to research it. 

It isn't some lame-brained theory. 

The US government, and thus FDR, was warned by at least the governments of Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Peru, Korea and the Soviet Union that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. 

We had broken all important Japanese codes. 

There is no doubt that FDR and Marshall and others knew the attack was coming. Further, they allowed it. Finally, they covered up their knowledge. 

I'm sure you know who Chief of OP-20-G Safford and Friedman of Army SIS are, right? I thought not. I'd think it is pretty darn significant that the ONLY TWO people in the world that knew what we decoded BOTH said that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Yeah, pretty significant.

In November, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor. Why would FDR do this? (See U.S. Naval Institute - Naval History - Advance Warning? The Red Cross Connection)

What about the fact that FDR ordered the ships in and the carriers out. Probably not important either.

Worse yet, Churchill wrote that FDR knew. Churchill wrote that FDR and his top advisers <i>"knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy."</i> (GRAND ALLIANCE p 603) 

Churchill's entire discussion of Pearl Harbor was a justification of treason, e.g.: "A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of (FDR's and advisors') problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united...?"

I'd also find it pretty significant that two (and only two) courts have ever conviened to decide the issue of whether: Washington or the commanders in Hawaii were responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. Both courts found Washington guilty. 

<i>"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..."</i> - Army Board, 1944


Play.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Yeah, you have just about everything about everything covered. What was an uninformed text book reading fool like me thinking?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Yeah, you have just about everything about everything covered.


I normally do. Yes.



> What was an uninformed text book reading fool like me thinking?


We all read textbooks ... it is what we do to research what we have read that seperates people. 

To "poo-poo" my statement like it is a joke shows that you haven't done much research into the subject ... if you even knew the viewpoint existed to begin with.

You've made MANY an intelligent post in the past - but on this statement you did nothing but throw an insult to my belief. You did nothing to back up your joke either. 

So - I responded in kind. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but I am sure you would take offense to someone making a joke of your research ... or maybe you wouldn't. 

Anyhow, if you want to DEBATE the notion, then let's do that ... but don't just come into a serious thread and insult someone or their ideas. Especially with nothing to back up your reason for making light of it. 

Play.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Clinton and Gore had begun anti-terrorism initiatives after the USS Cole attack, which wouldn't be completed before the end of their term, so they made sure to hand them off properly to the Bush administration. The Bush administration promptly killed them and did nothing in place of them except to create an Anti-Terrorism Task Force that Dick Cheney headed up.


I'm not going to get into this debate, which seems to have all the accuracy (on both sides) of a couple of blind drunks flailing in the street, but this one is just completely inaccurate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html recounts an interview given with Dick Clarke back in 2002 that makes pretty clear that the new administration didn't kill anything the old administration was doing. It's a whole transcript, so I don't see how anything could be taken out of context, and as a point of fact on the issue here, Clarke is clear that the Bush administration never STOPPED doing anything the Clinton administration was doing while it formulated its own plans.



> Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
> 
> And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
> 
> ...


So ok, the Clinton administration had a plan, and the Bush administration followed the Clinton plan as the developed their own.

In retrospect, the Clinton plan was pretty clearly underestimated the threat and was inadequate to preventing the attacks and the Bush plan that was implemented after the summer review was at best too little too late and most likely also an inadequate underestimation of the threat.

This much is completely obvious to anyone making the attempt to be objective. There's plenty of blame to go around, and IMO there's very little useful coming out of the bi-partisan mudslinging this "investigation" into the obvious has become.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not going to get into this debate, which seems to have all the accuracy (on both sides) of a couple of blind drunks flailing in the street, but this one is just completely inaccurate.
> ...


Well, that's interesting and all, certainly. But Franken's book has quotes from Bush adminstration people, including Condaleeza Rice, that say that out-going Clinton security experts briefed the incoming administration on what the Clinton adminstration had begun, following the USS Cole attack, and the Bush administration was uninterested in continuing it.

Reading what you quoted, it seems that strategy that existed from 1998 was continued. But according to Franken (and he sources everything in mainstream sources) the Clinton administration started some *new* initiatives following the attack on the USS Cole, which occurred in 2000. Those initiatives would obviously have been more urgent, since they came on the heels of an attack, and those are the initiatives that Franken has quotes from Bush personnel that they chose not to continue.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

al franken is about as credible as rush limbaugh.


if you're going to use highly partisan people to back your position, don't go crying wolf when someone quotes Hannity or Coulter or Limbaugh to refute you.


fact is Al Franken is a diehard ultra left wing radical that hates and mocks the right. Anything he put in his book is slanted through that lens.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> fact is Al Franken is a diehard ultra left wing radical that hates and mocks the right. Anything he put in his book is slanted through that lens.


He's right. (or left ... I don't know ... hehe)

Seriously though, it is easy to quote from media that is biased - but in doing so - it makes all viewpoints credible. 

It is also REALLY hard to find unbiased media. 

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> al franken is about as credible as rush limbaugh.
> 
> 
> if you're going to use highly partisan people to back your position, don't go crying wolf when someone quotes Hannity or Coulter or Limbaugh to refute you.


I addressed that very point earlier:

_(And yes, Franken is obviously partisan, but unlike like other partisan types like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, Franken actually backs up his claims with impeccable sourcing and all from completely mainstream sources, like White House press releases, the NY Times, etc.)_

Rush Limbaugh rants on his radio program with essentially no backing evidence.

Coulter and Hannity use deceptive quotes and sourcing, often outright lying in Coulter's case. Franken has proven it about both of them. No one has proven such a thing about Franken.



> fact is Al Franken is a diehard ultra left wing radical that hates and mocks the right.


Radical? Hardly. The people who think Franken is a "radical" are the people who think Clinton is a "liberal." Clinton is a centrist and Franken is a liberal. The entire political spectrum of the country has been pushed rightward, such that Ted Kennedy went from being a liberal to a "radical" liberal without changing his essential positions. Bush is now considered a non-extremist when he's actually significantly to the right of Richard Nixon who, at the time, was considered a hardcore conservative.

Today, Nixon would be considered a moderate Republican.

But yes, Franken is clearly a liberal and dislikes certain components of the right (the ones that lie), but he still sources his arguments and assertions impeccably. It's possible to be partisan and honest.

But unless you actually borrow the book from a library, you won't know.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Rush Limbaugh rants on his radio program with essentially no backing evidence.


Rush is a shock jock, despite having an "educated" talk show. 



> Coulter and Hannity use deceptive quotes and sourcing, often outright lying in Coulter's case. Franken has proven it about both of them. No one has proven such a thing about Franken.


I can't really comment either way on that one. I haven't really read ANY of these author's works.



> Radical? Hardly. The people who think Franken is a "radical" are the people who think Clinton is a "liberal." Clinton is a centrist and Franken is a liberal. The entire political spectrum of the country has been pushed rightward, such that Ted Kennedy went from being a liberal to a "radical" liberal without changing his essential positions. Bush is now considered a non-extremist when he's actually significantly to the right of Richard Nixon who, at the time, was considered a hardcore conservative.


I tend to agree. 

"Conservatives" have really entrenched themselves in their conservatism. It's really weird. People stand so SOLIDLY on their "party" lines ... there is no middle ground any more. 



> But unless you actually borrow the book from a library, you won't know.


I might have to ... I have being ignorant on something.

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Isn't Al Frankin the dude who Played Stuart Smalley on SNL?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Isn't Al Frankin the dude who Played Stuart Smalley on SNL?


Yup. But he was more involved with SNL as a writer during their great Dana Carvey/Phil Hartman/Mike Meyers era.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

al franken attacked a man at a Howard Dean rally a couple months ago, because the man was shouting down Dean. He tackled the guy then later said he believed in free speech. LOL.
I can only imagine the media backlash against Bush if somebody like say, Rush Limbaugh, tackled a guy at a Bush rally. Oh, but Franken is just an everday liberal! 

that is why Franken, in his book, claims he spoke with God, who told him to write the book to expose the lies of Bush and to get Bush out of office. And that God told him that Gore actually won. Yeah, Al's just your garden variety liberal.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> that is why Franken, in his book, claims he spoke with God, who told him to write the book to expose the lies of Bush and to get Bush out of office. And that God told him that Gore actually won. Yeah, Al's just your garden variety liberal.


Wow, you're almost as good a psuedo-liar as Bush and company. What you left out (purposely, I'm sure, since even a fourth-grader could tell it was meant to be an amusing intro) was that the "God" stuff was humour. Franken, you see, is also a humourist.

The "speaking with God" had an exchange that went something like this:



> Franken: How should I do this?
> 
> God: Use Google.
> 
> ...


Yes, tommyboy...clearly this was a serious part of the book, revealing Franken to be a nutcase who truly believed he talked with God.

Are you even the least bit interested in being honest?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

And now Al Franken is the voice of truth & sanity?....What is this country coming to? Admitting that he is partisan & then REFERENCING his book as "closer to the REAL truth" than one authored by a "right winger" seems a little off base to me.

Blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 is 100%, WITHOUT A DOUBT ridiculous and WRONG IMO. That should be obvious....Could more have been done?....looking back in HINDSIGHT, you can ALWAYS say (and it is much easier to do so, I might add) something more should have been done. That certain signs should have been "jumped on" right away by BOTH administrations. But I fail to see ONE significant sign\reaction that could have prevented 9/11. It was a horrible day, and a sign of things to come IMO, so lets stop the BI-partisan blame game. Blaming Clinton or Bush won't bring back the people who died that day, and it won't make us a safer country. In some ways I think Al-Qaeda is quite satisfied at watching Americans blame each other over 9/11.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

Al Franken is one of the biggest jokes out there. The story of his life basically goes like this

Al rose to fame as part of a comedy team not funny enough to survive on the standup circuit, and he went on to work as part of the same team while writing for Saturday Night Live, proving he was only funny enough to write bad sketches for an unfunny show when he had considerable help. Later, he furthered his legacy of flopdom by making a Stuart Smalley movie which was seen only by Al, Al's mom, the guy who edited the film, and such people as they may have been held hostage by crazed ushers.

To continue his life story he dropped a lot of LSD and coke while writing for the SNL. 

Here is one part of his book I particularly like



> Here, according to "Lies," is the Franken analysis: "The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. . . . ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair."





> But the right-wing media -- Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Journal editorial page, talk radio -- are "biased," the book declares. They have "an agenda." They are "not interested in conveying the truth." They "concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals.


I mean Walter Kronkite admitted that most reporters are liberal and Jayson Blair worked for the NY times right? I agree that the fox leans to the right but for him not to admit that the Clinton News Network doesn't lean to the left is crazy. Personally if I was a dem I would be embarrased by this guy he is a nut case.



> Franken doesn't merely denounce conservatives. He harasses them, provokes them, gets right up in their faces. He once called up National Review Editor Rich Lowry and challenged him to a fight in a parking garage. Lowry declined.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> And now Al Franken is the voice of truth & sanity?....What is this country coming to? Admitting that he is partisan & then REFERENCING his book as "closer to the REAL truth" than one authored by a "right winger" seems a little off base to me.


It's not that he's closer to the truth because he's a "left-winger" while the other author is a "right-winger."

It's because his quotes and references are "real" while many of the other author's are "fabricated."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> Here is one part of his book I particularly like


Providing quotes that label each side without providing his supporting evidence for *why* he used those labels is typically deceptive. The implication is, he just gave random, partisan opinions with *no* support. When, in fact, he provided pages of support that you left out.



> I mean Walter Kronkite admitted that most reporters are liberal and Jayson Blair worked for the NY times right?


And most *owners* of media outlets are admittedly conservative.

And one person who worked for the Times is your big evidence that the media is liberally biased?


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> And one person who worked for the Times is your big evidence that the media is liberally biased?


This is what he said about right wing outlets



> But the right-wing media -- Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Journal editorial page, talk radio -- are "biased," the book declares. They have "an agenda." They are "not interested in conveying the truth." They "concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals.


I brought up Jayson Blair because *he* worked for one of the so called fair papers.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> This is what he said about right wing outlets


Plus a whole lot more, like explaining why he said that.



> I brought up Jayson Blair because *he* worked for one of the so called fair papers.


Yes and *he* is a single person. He hardly represents media outlets for the past forty years or however long they're supposed to have been liberally-biased.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Yes and *he* is a single person. He hardly represents media outlets for the past forty years or however long they're supposed to have been liberally-biased.


Al claimed the NY times was a fair newspaper I just merely brought up the fact that one of there reporters was making stories up. That was in no way a claim that the paper was liberal (which it is but thats another debate for another time).

I have never read the book myself but this is supposed to be a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...rryelder/002-7903355-6506407?v=glance&s=books

EDIT this book too

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...rryelder/002-7903355-6506407?v=glance&s=books


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> 
> Al claimed the NY times was a fair newspaper I just merely brought up the fact that one of there reporters was making stories up.


Well, regardless of what you were trying to show, one person makes a weak argument. If someone on the Wall Street Journal were to commit a crime, would that show that the WSJ is a criminal paper?

Any single person can be a screw-up. How the organization feels about it and handles it shows the character of the organization. Once the Times discovered it, he was fired.

Now, if it were discovered that the Times were *encouraging* (or passively allowing, with their knowledge) making up stories, then they clearly would not be a "fair" paper.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Anyhow, if you want to DEBATE the notion, then let's do that ... but don't just come into a serious thread and insult someone or their ideas. Especially with nothing to back up your reason for making light of it.
> ...


Please refrain from telling me what to do. My reason is that it was ridiculous and that's enough reason for me. And please don't get indignant about insulting someone's ideas.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm closing this thread. If you have to continue it, take it to PM's.

Or go to EBB.


----------

