EPTI mean wtf, do you guys really think Bush isnt TRYING? LOL? He is, and, just like Clinton, he FAILED in reaching SOME of his goals. This guys commentary is still running and I'm getting angrier hearing his bullshit rhetoric, wtf im gonna turn this off gg
Clinton speaking on Chavez - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
I mean wtf, do you guys really think Bush isnt TRYING? LOL? He is, and, just like Clinton, he FAILED in reaching SOME of his goals. This guys commentary is still running and I'm getting angrier hearing his bullshit rhetoric, wtf im gonna turn this off gg | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
O god John Stewart is too fucking good. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 26 2006 17:50 fig_newbie wrote: -_- I really dont think clinton should be so glorified for that interview. Sure he chewed out that ridiculous sham of a reporter and he certainly spoke his own side of the issue (quite well I might add), but Obermann's commentary is itself also a complete disgrace to journalism. Clinton is not infallible and theres certainly two sides of the issue, I just wish this shit would stop its really frustrating to see media who we as the public sadly depend on to disseminate unbiased facts succumb to blatant tabloid journalism. I mean wtf, do you guys really think Bush isnt TRYING? LOL? He is, and, just like Clinton, he FAILED in reaching SOME of his goals. This guys commentary is still running and I'm getting angrier hearing his bullshit rhetoric, wtf im gonna turn this off gg Well, what did Clinton say that was inaccurate? He was very vigourly persuing anti-terrorism in his tenure. Up until 9/11, Bush is reported to have been sitting on his ass by Richard Clarke, the republican anti-terrorism chief, or w/e his title was, for Bush. What Obermann said was also correct. If you have a specific complaint, please make it and there will be a specific explanation for it. I don't want to read too much into your comment, but I notice a trend for moderate people to assume that anything in support of the left is left bias and the truth has to be in the middle. So many people think the middle is best, no matter what. And as a side note I think fox and right wingers uses this by going far to the right than any left wing goes, making the perceived middle really in the right. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:07 Zooey wrote: hahaha oh god my prof always said to go with the printed press, saying tv news is garbage. can he be more right Why is print so much better? They pander to the same crowd, just in different ways, imo. Journalism is likely to go more in depth for a specific view point (potentially anyway, lots of people are scared to go on a limb). TV can show more at once with a variety of methods. | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
If you go to Keith Oberrman or Bill O Reilly in Media Matters, you will see the amount of lies Oberrman says (nil) vs O Reilly... lol ~_~ As for if it is awful or not, that's for a viewer to decide, afterall, it is editorials and shown as one. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On September 25 2006 09:38 lil.sis wrote: im a fiscal conservative (ie republican) but i still love bill clinton, and dont really like george bush that much :[ I dont think fiscal conservative = republican any more  On September 25 2006 15:32 hasuprotoss wrote: On the thing of everybody else saying that FOX is a politically-right propoganda machine, I won't argue much with you on it, but the left CLEARLY has the same thing with other channels. This is shown in both Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg. Unfortunately, he doesn't delve into the conservative ideologues of FOX, but he clearly puts up good points as to why CNN; and more drastically, ABC, NBC, and CBS are guilty of liberal propaganda motives. I don't think its quite to the same level hasu...actually its not at the same level at all....How many times do you hear pull our troops out of iraq, "should Bush be impeached?"... The mainstream media is guilty of being stupid and sensationalizing, but they mostly just try to get viewers, whereas fox doesnt really care if their stance loses them viewers, as long as the can convince people to vote republican. On September 26 2006 18:08 Servolisk wrote: I don't want to read too much into your comment, but I notice a trend for moderate people to assume that anything in support of the left is left bias and the truth has to be in the middle. So many people think the middle is best, no matter what. And as a side note I think fox and right wingers uses this by going far to the right than any left wing goes, making the perceived middle really in the right. All I can say is wow...This is actually a new technique that was created by a republican think-tank....I f I can find the originals, I will post... and to cap it off: rofl at 1:18 in...reporter looks so shaken by the answer. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
do you guys really think Bush isnt TRYING Trying? yes. Tried? No. The Bush administration had a clear agenda going into office(one that he did not share during his first campaign) to take out Saddam. Bush and his crews interpretation of geo-politics is fairly well known(PNAC, 20+ years of politics). The problem is that the Bush administration was so stuck within there world view, and so confident in it, that they failed to perceive a reality outside of it. 9-11 was not the first time Al-Queda had stuck the US. We were struck on Clinton's watch and Clinton could react to Osama without looking through the fog of neo-conservatism. BushCo's inability to work outside a rather stringent but conceptual viewpoint is proven by the fact that we went to war with Iraq in the first place. Osama, terrorism, 9-11 - all issues very different from Iraq, but Bush's solution to these problems is to take out Saddam? The very plan he had before 9-11? Rather than re-evaluate our security concerns and possible international power struggles, BushCo attempted to completely integrate the reaction to 9-11 into there pre-concieved notion about the Iraq. I believe this is one of the points Kieth was trying to drive home. An issue that really boils down to the wisdom and open mindedness of a relatively small number of men. Obermann's attack on Fox news was probably equally as important as his attack on the Bush administration. Maybe we can expect such a thing from competing news organizations, but the degree and tone that the attack was launched was outside the typical box of news anchor jibber. Essentially calling Fox Bush's goons is something blog junkies call every day business and hard core liberals call fact, but for a mainstream news anchor to come out and say it in such a manner is upping the anty on pushing the frustrations of most Americans into the lap of a real debate. I've never really liked Kieth Obermann, but he gets my respect for that. What he did was a bold move, something that a lot of journalist, especially in mainstream media, our unfamiliar with. And my hats off to Clinton. Surely he knew exactly what he was walking into taking an interview with Fox news. He came prepared, pistol loaded, and ready to shoot. I couldn't help but feel nostalgic watching a president speak with intelligence, and genuinely know what he is talking about. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
amazing how things change: EDIT: Fixed. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4668 Posts
I don't think its quite to the same level hasu...actually its not at the same level at all....How many times do you hear pull our troops out of iraq, "should Bush be impeached?"... The mainstream media is guilty of being stupid and sensationalizing, but they mostly just try to get viewers, whereas fox doesnt really care if their stance loses them viewers, as long as the can convince people to vote republican. I completely disagree, but that might just be my stance on thinking the media is run by some whackjobs on both sides. There is a reason the O'Reilly Factor is the highest cable news show in America. Whether it's because there is no other conservative mainstream media shows (your belief) or people are just tired of mass media and liberalism running hand in hand (my belief) is entirely a debate worth having; however, egos and other influences would probably distroy the argument. I personally agree with MOST of what Bill O'Reilly says, and for people who believe that he goes to hard on people who oppose his stance, then watch the interview he had with Bill Maher and see that O'Reilly didn't really do the whole yelling thing he is prone to do. The evangelical Christain women who followed up even pointed that out to O'Reilly. Of course there are differences in belief in why FOX news has been so sucessful, one can make a point for each side and seem intelligent to their peers and a complete pile of dung to their opposition. | ||
|
Koldblooded
United States661 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:13 fusionsdf wrote: [removed quote within quote] I dont think fiscal conservative = republican any more I don't think its quite to the same level hasu...actually its not at the same level at all....How many times do you hear pull our troops out of iraq, "should Bush be impeached?"... The mainstream media is guilty of being stupid and sensationalizing, but they mostly just try to get viewers, whereas fox doesnt really care if their stance loses them viewers, as long as the can convince people to vote republican. All I can say is wow...This is actually a new technique that was created by a republican think-tank....I f I can find the originals, I will post... and to cap it off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AqaIa6wmMY rofl at 1:18 in...reporter looks so shaken by the answer. ....... That last video can't be serious.. NO ONE that stupid could possibly be elected president -_- | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:36 fusionsdf wrote: amazing how things change: Didn't work, "malformed video ID" | ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:08 Servolisk wrote: Well, what did Clinton say that was inaccurate? He was very vigourly persuing anti-terrorism in his tenure. Up until 9/11, Bush is reported to have been sitting on his ass by Richard Clarke, the republican anti-terrorism chief, or w/e his title was, for Bush. What Obermann said was also correct. I agreed with everything Clinton said. I admired his response to the ridiculous question posted to him. If you have a specific complaint, please make it and there will be a specific explanation for it. Yea I apologize for my mindless bitching. My beef was not with Clinton or even Bush, but the way lack of non-partisan reporting. I felt that Obermann's attack on Bush and his adminsitration was way overboard and his idolation of Clinton was bordering on lunacy. I mean wtf, as "minor" as the "witch hunt" Lewinsky thing was, it does reflect something about Clinton's character, whether or not Obermann acknowledges it. I've calmed down after watching the whole thing and upon reading your response I guess the left and right winged media have a tendancy to cancel each other out anyways. Its up to us, Joe Public, to make the decisions =\ | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:45 hasuprotoss wrote: I completely disagree, but that might just be my stance on thinking the media is run by some whackjobs on both sides. There is a reason the O'Reilly Factor is the highest cable news show in America. Whether it's because there is no other conservative mainstream media shows (your belief) or people are just tired of mass media and liberalism running hand in hand (my belief) is entirely a debate worth having; however, egos and other influences would probably distroy the argument. I personally agree with MOST of what Bill O'Reilly says, and for people who believe that he goes to hard on people who oppose his stance, then watch the interview he had with Bill Maher and see that O'Reilly didn't really do the whole yelling thing he is prone to do. The evangelical Christain women who followed up even pointed that out to O'Reilly. Of course there are differences in belief in why FOX news has been so sucessful, one can make a point for each side and seem intelligent to their peers and a complete pile of dung to their opposition. Go watch the 'shut up' video again. Realize two things: O'Reily cant help but lie. Most of the people he yells shut up are kids. Go O'Reilly! And please dont ever call fox fair and balanced, which is what you seem to be aiming at. That has already been proved beyond a doubt to be false. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4668 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:56 fusionsdf wrote: [removed quote within quote] I completely disagree, but that might just be my stance on thinking the media is run by some whackjobs on both sides. There is a reason the O'Reilly Factor is the highest cable news show in America. Whether it's because there is no other conservative mainstream media shows (your belief) or people are just tired of mass media and liberalism running hand in hand (my belief) is entirely a debate worth having; however, egos and other influences would probably distroy the argument. I personally agree with MOST of what Bill O'Reilly says, and for people who believe that he goes to hard on people who oppose his stance, then watch the interview he had with Bill Maher and see that O'Reilly didn't really do the whole yelling thing he is prone to do. The evangelical Christain women who followed up even pointed that out to O'Reilly. Of course there are differences in belief in why FOX news has been so sucessful, one can make a point for each side and seem intelligent to their peers and a complete pile of dung to their opposition. Go watch the 'shut up' video again. Realize two things: O'Reily cant help but lie. Most of the people he yells shut up are kids. Go O'Reilly! And please dont ever call fox fair and balanced, which is what you seem to be aiming at. That has already been proved beyond a doubt to be false.[/QUOTE] Is that the video where that guy comes on the show, O'Reilly gives him his time of day, tries to make a statement and then the lunatic keeps interrupting HIM?? Becuase, then we see the difference in opinions on how the situation was handled. About your second comment, I have already stated in my previous quote that FOX was leaning towards the right to the same extent the network news lean to the left. You seem to take me for an idiotic rightist, yet me beliefs would be that a nonpartisan news network would be the best thing for America (besides a key with all the ways to fix things and make the world completely correct, of course), yet it is something that neither of the following will ever achieve: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, nor FOX. I fail to see your point. To the person saying it's up to the Average Joe, you are absolutely correct. However, if a nonpartisan media network actually existed, then it wouldn't be up to Mr. Joe to decide which news network he agrees with most; he would instead be deciding which points brought up he agreed with more. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On September 26 2006 18:01 eG)HeavenS wrote: sorry double post it was an awsome double post ;P | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 26 2006 19:04 hasuprotoss wrote: About your second comment, I have already stated in my previous quote that FOX was leaning towards the right to the same extent the network news lean to the left. To say that any of the other news networks are as far to the left as Fox News is to the right is a total fallacy. | ||
| ||
