I suppose some of you took the time to read about Cyndi Sheehan in u.s.a today; especially considering she's picketing outside Bushes ranch. Of course that wasn't the case a few months ago when Bush took the time to meet with her and thank her for her sons service. And she graciously accepted his condolences. That's not as much the issue as the fact that usa today and cnn neglected to mention that even though anyone who takes the time to use nexus lexus would have known that.
Varus
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More from the Liberal media
More from the Liberal mediaFollow
who did what with a baseball bat?
I didn't think that was possible?
Hmmm...apparently among his plethora of other failings, Virus can't use the URL button.
Nor can he read. The article very clearly mentions Bush met with her and some other families of fallen soldiers.
+1 literacy
Nor can he read. The article very clearly mentions Bush met with her and some other families of fallen soldiers.
Quote:
Bush met with the Sheehan family and other families of fallen troops in June 2004 at Fort Lewis near Seattle. Cindy Sheehan has said she didn't get across to Bush how misguided she believes his policies are, so she decided to act against him.
+1 literacy
Last I checked, Varrus didnt sign up to go to Iraq and neither did any of his kids?
#7REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 09 2005 at 1:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) First I don't have any kids...secondly that's why we have a volunteer military. By your logic over 90% of the male population shouldn't have a say in how the govnernment uses its military because they havn't served. Ever think of reading aloud before you post? Perhaps you should apply the saying it's better to remain silent and have everyone think you're a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
It doesn't matter, Virus.
Your accusation was that the "liberal media" didn't mention her meeting with Bush before. Yet the article very clearly DOES mention that meeting.
Your attempt to change the focus of your accusation does not alter the fact that you were simply wrong.
If you feel her praise for Bush is actually contradictory to her present stance, maybe you would like to provide some links or quotes that demonstrate the contradictory nature of that praise. Without them, I have to assume your claims of her "praise" are as factual as your claims regarding the content of the article itself.
Which is to say, not at all.
Your accusation was that the "liberal media" didn't mention her meeting with Bush before. Yet the article very clearly DOES mention that meeting.
Your attempt to change the focus of your accusation does not alter the fact that you were simply wrong.
If you feel her praise for Bush is actually contradictory to her present stance, maybe you would like to provide some links or quotes that demonstrate the contradictory nature of that praise. Without them, I have to assume your claims of her "praise" are as factual as your claims regarding the content of the article itself.
Which is to say, not at all.
So some Mom loses her son and she's against the war. WOW huge news story there. She's against something that took the life of her child? She wouldnt be biased in anyway would she?
Im really not sure what my parents view on the war is but I know for sure they were not happy about me or my brother going over there to fight it. Neither was my aunt about my cousin being over there. It had little to do with politics or whether or not they thought the war was justified.
So she's mad about her son dieing. I feel for her. I empathize with her. But the fact that she is activly against something that killed her son isnt really that shocking.
Edited, Tue Aug 9 14:29:37 2005 by DamthebiTch
Apparently the media isn't liberal enough, since I'm not seeing this news reported anywhere.
Funny how she and the other demonstrators have been there for days, and only now are considered a "threat to national security."
Edited, Tue Aug 9 17:55:30 2005 by Ambrya
Funny how she and the other demonstrators have been there for days, and only now are considered a "threat to national security."
Edited, Tue Aug 9 17:55:30 2005 by Ambrya
#11REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 09 2005 at 4:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Her stance isn't the issue...
First I don't have any kids
THANK
GOD
THANK
GOD
Virus wrote:
Read: when I was shown that I was wrong in claiming the so-called "liberal media" hadn't mentioned her former meeting with Bush, I tried to change the subject, but now that I can't provide any proof of my new claims, I'm trying to change it again.
The liberal medias obvious disregard for the prior meeting in pushing this story is the issue.
Varus
What "obvious disregard"? The previous meeting was mentioned. They are under no obligation to provide detailed minutes of that meeting. They mentioned the previous meeting (which, again, you claimed they didn't) to explain why she now feels the need to protest. She didn't get her point across the first time. Unless you can provide some sort of textual evidence, i.e. links or quotes, that show the content of that meeting deserves anything more than a simple acknowledgment of its having happened, then your entire point about this "liberal media," which is the raison d'etre of the OP, is just so much *********
Quote:
Her stance isn't the issue...
Read: when I was shown that I was wrong in claiming the so-called "liberal media" hadn't mentioned her former meeting with Bush, I tried to change the subject, but now that I can't provide any proof of my new claims, I'm trying to change it again.
Quote:
The liberal medias obvious disregard for the prior meeting in pushing this story is the issue.
Varus
What "obvious disregard"? The previous meeting was mentioned. They are under no obligation to provide detailed minutes of that meeting. They mentioned the previous meeting (which, again, you claimed they didn't) to explain why she now feels the need to protest. She didn't get her point across the first time. Unless you can provide some sort of textual evidence, i.e. links or quotes, that show the content of that meeting deserves anything more than a simple acknowledgment of its having happened, then your entire point about this "liberal media," which is the raison d'etre of the OP, is just so much *********
Bush is such a sorry sack-o-shi[/u]t president, why do you defend him so much?
#16REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 11 2005 at 12:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A better question might be to ask why you guys hate him so much. He's doing what he thinks is best to keep another 911 from happening. He's doing what Clinton should have done after the bombing of the cole. Bush is a great leader and a nice guy to boot; and yes i've seen him speak more than once and the connection he has with those that have the ability to listen generally like him even if they disagree with his approach to dealing with the issues.
Link to your source, please, so those of us who wish to can inspect it for ourselves.
Regardless, nothing you have posted in any way demonstrates an obligation on the part of the media to go into details about the previous meeting. It may be that Sheehan has changed her mind, but that may not be relevent to the focus of a story when there is a limited amount of space available for the story (newspapers frequently have limits to the amount of space everything except their "feature" stories can occupy.)
That's not biased reporting, that is choosing what information is more pertinent to the issue and focusing on that.
Your entire "liberal media" argument still doesn't wash. You say all the "Bush hatred" is annoyance over the loss of Democratic control. I say all this "liberal media" hatred is rationalization for the fact that Bush repeatedly makes himself look like an ***, and you need someone else to blame for that.
Regardless, nothing you have posted in any way demonstrates an obligation on the part of the media to go into details about the previous meeting. It may be that Sheehan has changed her mind, but that may not be relevent to the focus of a story when there is a limited amount of space available for the story (newspapers frequently have limits to the amount of space everything except their "feature" stories can occupy.)
That's not biased reporting, that is choosing what information is more pertinent to the issue and focusing on that.
Your entire "liberal media" argument still doesn't wash. You say all the "Bush hatred" is annoyance over the loss of Democratic control. I say all this "liberal media" hatred is rationalization for the fact that Bush repeatedly makes himself look like an ***, and you need someone else to blame for that.
I hate Democrats. They are spineless and are forced to incoherency because their values do not reflect the average Americans. They are the PR department of American politics.
The real problem I have with Bush isn't what he did in Afghanistan, but everything he did after it. Iraq has set back our strategic interests in ways that can barely be fathomed in the present-day. We have lost so much credibility as a leading super power because we are stuck playing in a sand-box for oil whilst Iran openly seeks nuclear technologies. We are powerless to do so because we already played our hand in Iraq.
We are also losing momentum to China economically, because our dependency on foreign fossil feuls is not curtailed in any way, shape, or form by our energy policy. There really isn't any kind of spearhead approach towards energy reform. All we can do is stress a burgeoning deficit even more by providing relief and paybacks for energy companies to keep cost of production as low as possible. That is hardly what I would call a long-term plan of improvement. So, Bush is a failure when it comes to Middle-East policy and energy which are the two most critical issues of the day.
While we're at it... Did you know he is on a six week vacation? What kind of consciounable man takes a six week vacation while troops he sent to foriegn soil are fighting and dying? He hardly does a thing to preserve the integrity of the office of President... Unless you want to say "He's better than Clinton" to which I reply that having a limb blown off by a claymore mine is better than losing your dic[/u]k, but it's still nothing close to being a good thing.
The real problem I have with Bush isn't what he did in Afghanistan, but everything he did after it. Iraq has set back our strategic interests in ways that can barely be fathomed in the present-day. We have lost so much credibility as a leading super power because we are stuck playing in a sand-box for oil whilst Iran openly seeks nuclear technologies. We are powerless to do so because we already played our hand in Iraq.
We are also losing momentum to China economically, because our dependency on foreign fossil feuls is not curtailed in any way, shape, or form by our energy policy. There really isn't any kind of spearhead approach towards energy reform. All we can do is stress a burgeoning deficit even more by providing relief and paybacks for energy companies to keep cost of production as low as possible. That is hardly what I would call a long-term plan of improvement. So, Bush is a failure when it comes to Middle-East policy and energy which are the two most critical issues of the day.
While we're at it... Did you know he is on a six week vacation? What kind of consciounable man takes a six week vacation while troops he sent to foriegn soil are fighting and dying? He hardly does a thing to preserve the integrity of the office of President... Unless you want to say "He's better than Clinton" to which I reply that having a limb blown off by a claymore mine is better than losing your dic[/u]k, but it's still nothing close to being a good thing.
varrussword wrote:
Quote:
Bush is such a sorry *********** president, why do you defend him so much?
A better question might be to ask why you guys hate him so much. He's doing what he thinks is best to keep another 911 from happening. He's doing what Clinton should have done after the bombing of the cole. Bush is a great leader and a nice guy to boot; and yes i've seen him speak more than once and the connection he has with those that have the ability to listen generally like him even if they disagree with his approach to dealing with the issues.
So where's bin Laden again? Oh, that's right, he's...uhh...in Saddam Hussein's pocket? Or up his butt? You'd think an Army physical would have found him there by now.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I think what v is actually trying to get across is support for government-run and regulated media.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
What I think is that "Conservativism" is the EXTREME marketing buzz-word of the Republican party, when in fact, the Constitutional Congress is turning in their graves every time Bush speaks on TV.
varrussword wrote:
Ambrya,
So you don't think the the media should be reporting the whole story only what they think is important? Apparently the fact that Sheehan has completely flip-flopped from her earlier stance isn't newsworthy to the stories reporting her crusade now. This is exactly what i'm talking about. If this hadn't been a blurb on Drudge a week ago I would never have known the whole story. Just like the major media refused to cover Lewinsky until it became to big for them to hide a few weeks after Drudge initially broke the story.
So you don't think the the media should be reporting the whole story only what they think is important? Apparently the fact that Sheehan has completely flip-flopped from her earlier stance isn't newsworthy to the stories reporting her crusade now. This is exactly what i'm talking about. If this hadn't been a blurb on Drudge a week ago I would never have known the whole story. Just like the major media refused to cover Lewinsky until it became to big for them to hide a few weeks after Drudge initially broke the story.
And who should be regulating what is and is not said in the media? The government?
Your true color is starting to show. I don't think it's much coincidence that communism is red, too.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
We should get a government run news agency to make sure the real turth gets out. That would be the only conservative thing to do.
Recent Visitors: 194
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (194)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More from the Liberal media
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC