Text 13266, 327 rader
Skriven 2008-03-20 10:54:06 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13235 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
======================================
19 Mar 08 22:43, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> JB> I used to watch CBS evening news actually, until Katie Couric
RW>> took
RW>> JB> it over.
RW>> I did too, since it was the least tainted of liberal propaganda.
RW>> That isn't saying much, as they're all far left liberals.
JB> Some actually accuse CBS as one of the more heavily biased. I
JB> thought you might be one, but you've surprised me again.
That was before I got FoxNews.
RW>> I agree with Andrew Heyward, they shouldn't have used that material
RW>> without proof that they were authentic. Doing so is piss poor
RW>> journalism.
JB> I also agree that they should have had more backing for such a major
JB> accusation, just to prevent this very sort of thing.
RW>> Mary Mapes, who along with Rather had been investigating for several
RW>> years
RW>> the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to
RW>> the National Guard, was "by her own account [aware that] many in the
RW>> press considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot,' his credibility in
RW>> question."
RW>> Mapes was fired too and deservedly so, IMO.
JB> Journalists make mistakes, and while that one was a big mistake, it
JB> was lame of CBS to cave to Republican pressure like they did.
They had no choice. They were shown to the general public to be wrong.
JB> Had the story been completely wrong and proven false, the firing
JB> might have been justified.
There's nothing to prove about it, they went on the notion that the person
providing the material was a whacko. Without the originals to back them
up, they had no reason to produce that report. It was their bias toward
Bush that got them in trouble.
JB> Though of course I've heard many Republicans who wholeheartedly
JB> believe that every aspect of it was proven false, and refuse to
JB> believe otherwise. I know a couple of them, in fact.
I'm still looking for a reason to believe it...The person who would have
been able to prove it is dead. He didn't testify to it before he died. And
the person who provided the papers is known as a kook making his word
worthless.
JB> I honestly hope one day they are proven one way or another, because
JB> it's something important that should be known about Bush.
Why? It shouldn't be anything that would affect his future. It would just
part of his history that was a part of his youth. People change over time
and Bush is no different.
RW>> JB> Then apparently you've missed all the times he's done so.
RW>> O'Reilly
RW>> JB> is a bully.
RW>> You've watched him perhaps, once or twice, or you're repeating
RW>> hearsay.
JB> I don't have to sit through a whole episode to see him be a jerk to
JB> people.
I sit through a lot of them and havn't seen that happen. I guess you're
more biased than I am.
RW>> JB> When somebody says something he doesn't agree with, he tells
RW>> them to
RW>> JB> shut up (literally).
RW>> No he doesn't. Never has.
JB> Yes he has, several times, as you would have seen had you watched the
JB> clips I sent.
Since many clips are taken out of context, I'd be skeptical of them in any
case.
RW>> JB> He cuts mics.
RW>> No he doesn't.
JB> Yes he has, several times, as you would have seen had you watched the
JB> clips I sent.
Context...although I doubt your source can be anything but biased against
the man.
RW>> JB> He yells at guests.
RW>> Yeah, to those who are too stupid to live. e.g. a Democratic
RW>> knucklehead who comes on the show and won't stop talking. All they
RW>> want to do is get their ignorant statements aired and couldn't care
RW>> less about the truth. I've shut them off (remote mute button) long
RW>> before Bill does.
JB> Bill interrupts the people he disagrees with and sometimes tries to
JB> put words into their mouths or generalize what they're saying,
That's all part of any political discussion. It's no different on CNN's
Larry King show.
JB> so I don't blame most of his guests for interrupting him.
Nahhhh, they're usually to engrossed in getting their tainted views across
to the audience. Most of them are as whacko as they come.
JB> If he doesn't want them to air their opinions, why does he bring them
JB> on?
To discuss their positions...giving them the air time to make fools of
themselves far outweighs what Bill has to say.
JB> So that he can berate them, of course.
Of course, or agree with them if they agree. Many of those you think are
berated are actually too stupid to live.
RW>> JB> He tells outright falsehoods
RW>> Name one.
JB> I did, and provided video proof.
Not good enough. Anything taken out of context isn't proof.
RW>> JB> and incorrect information
RW>> Spell it out.
JB> Did so.
See above.
RW>> JB> and refuses to admit it later even when called out on it by
RW>> viewers.
RW>> You mean the 'pinheads'? That's why they're called pinheads.
JB> I'm actually referring to loyal viewers.
I've seen him take viewer opinion, actually agree with it and correct
himself. You see, constructive criticism goes a long way. Biased criticism
doesn't. And that works for everybody.
RW>> JB> They rewrite transcripts to remove things that make them look
RW>> wrong.
RW>> JB> I'm not just making this up to make him look bad. I wish I
RW>> were!
RW>> You must be, as I've never seen any of this on the show.
JB> Or you chose not to see it.
Only if I were indisposed would I miss it...
RW>> JB> Just some examples of bullying + "shut up" + mic cuts, if you're
RW>> JB> interested in seeing it:
RW>> Ahh, you tube...yeah, like I'd believe anything coming from that
RW>> liberal website.
JB> Yeah, because a website that allows anyone to post anything is
JB> obviously liberal. No Republicans allowed!
It's been proven to gather liberals, while conservatives stay away.
RW>> Clips, which take the entire conversation out of
RW>> context...Olbermann's opinions aren't worth listening to.
JB> You didn't even watch the Olberman clip, apparently.
I did...it was the usual Olberman biased bullshit he's always been known
for.
JB> There's no way the things O'Reilly said about Malmedy could ever
JB> possibly be taken out of context in any way whatsoever.
Without that entire program segment, it is taken out of context...yes sir.
JB> I honestly don't know why you're so opposed to accepting that
JB> O'Reilly might have done those things.
Because he's more honest than any liberal I've ever met.
RW>> JB> I would in fact look at anything you could provide to show the
RW>> same
RW>> JB> sort of documented bias with networks like CNN as there's been
RW>> with
RW>> JB> Fox.
RW>> LOL! You just made my point by outing MSNBC and Olbermann. That's
RW>> all the proof you should need.
JB> Olbermann, like O'Reilly, shouldn't be used to represent what the
JB> station's general bias is.
There's a difference that only a seasoned person can see. I don't give any
credence to the likes of the Olbermanns in the world.
RW>> JB> I don't actually watch it, I just feel like the degree of
RW>> magnitude
RW>> JB> between the programs they air is something to notice in cases
RW>> when
RW>> JB> bias is accused.
RW>> Then don't bother quoting it or providing links to youtube...
JB> How exactly does me not watching all of a particular program affect
JB> its relevence to the discussion?
Entire program 'segment'...
JB> I don't read all of the newspaper, but that doesn't mean the things
JB> I did read aren't still useful.
Yes...like everything printed in the NY Times...everything is useful for
liberal pundants.
JB> As
JB> I mentioned before, I watch interesting bits from Olbermann on
JB> Youtube or wherever, because I have no interest in watching his
JB> entire show no more than I do to watch all of O'Reilly. Which,
JB> believe it or not, I do watch clips from as well. Once in while he
JB> actually says something I agree with, regardless of my opinion of
JB> him. Other times I watch just to see what sort of shenanigans he's
JB> been up to against his guests.
OTH, there is nothing interesting or useful about Olbermann.
RW>> JB> As for polls in general, you can get pretty much whatever answer
RW>> you
RW>> JB> want depending on how you ask, as this pretty much sums up my
RW>> JB> opinion of:
RW>> Of course you can...and there are other polls taken that prove that.
RW>> JB> http://youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c
RW>> No thanks...I don't watch liberal propaganda.
JB> The "liberal propaganda" in that video tells about the notorious
JB> pollster Frank Luntz. A man who admits openly that you can get any
JB> answer you want by phrasing things a particular way. A man who even
JB> demonstrated this on the street himself. A man who has been
JB> reprimanded and censured in the past for his actions regarding such
JB> work. And a man who Fox News uses for political polls.
"If we break this contract, throw us out." - Frank Luntz, c1994
RW>> JB> He deserved just as much time as anyone else.
RW>> No he didn't. He needed to have more support than he was getting in
RW>> order to stay in the running. If every person running for president
RW>> were given equal time, we'd never be able to hold an election. A
RW>> line has to be drawn in the sand.
JB> By your line of thinking, the only candidates who we'd ever see are
JB> the ones who have a ton of money to get the support in the first
JB> place.
Like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John McCain and Mike Huckebee. Then
there are the 'also ran' candidates, Thompson, Kucinich, Paul and a host
of others whose names I forget becaue they were so underfunded.
Sort of like the words of Simon Cowell on American Idol. 'Your singing is
like old wallpaper, you notice it, but you can't remember what it looks
like.'
JB> Which unfortunately is how it ends up anyway, since only one
JB> or two candidates get all the air time everywhere, and so those
JB> become the names everyone remembers.
Yeup, because they have the money to buy that airtime.
JB> Nobody wants to put their money on the horse last out of the gate.
JB> Even if that one might really be the fastest runner.
Especially when their 'track record' shows them not to be. Pun intended.
RW>> Not to mention that what Ron Paul was saying was whacko...as in
RW>> mentally ill whacko.
JB> He still had equal right to say it, even if you or I didn't agree
JB> with all of it. I'd support your right to run for president just the
JB> same.
I didn't say he didn't have the right to say what he wants to, I just
thought it sounded rather whacko for a person running for President.
RW>> JB> Just like Mike Gravel and Kucinich on the other side. The way
RW>> all
RW>> JB> media (debates in particular) focused on certain candidates is
RW>> dirty
RW>> JB> pool.
RW>> I don't think so. When a candidate talks about seeing flying
RW>> saucers, that has what to do with a political debate?
JB> Nothing, just like a lot of other stuff that's brought up in
JB> interviews.
And Presidential debates...
RW>> JB> I've seen it myself, combined with all the claims from others,
RW>> JB> documentaries like "Outfoxed", etc, which all reinforces my
RW>> opinion.
RW>> Oh well. I'll just keep you in the 'lost soul' list...
JB> I'm pleased to make it into anyone's lists!
:o) I'm at the top of many shit lists.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|