How Slimy Can They Get?

OldRegular · Aug 13, 2005

Daisy

Actually Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction. The dozens of mass graves that have been found are proof of that.

OldRegular · Aug 13, 2005

Just a reminder for everyone. The OP was:

Supreme Court nominee Roberts and his wife have two adopted children. Court records on these adoptions are sealed as they should be. Yet the slimy liberal New York Times has made inquiries about unsealing these records. A new low in slimy politics even for the liberal/leftists.

mioque · Aug 14, 2005

"In 2000, it is suspected that Rove masterminded a push poll during the South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement."
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
I'd say that attacking adsopted children is a standard practice in American politics.

Daisy · Aug 14, 2005

Originally posted by Scott J:
Daisy, Where is the unending media coverage of this?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/11/211201.shtml

An event attended by high ranking Democrats included comparisons of the Bush administration and Hitler's Nazism and that isn't news?

Compare this to Trent Lott's media treatment for being nice to an old man.

Compare the treatment of a sitting Senator's remarks to that of an old Calypso singer's? It's directly proportional to their political importance.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Daisy

Actually Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction. The dozens of mass graves that have been found are proof of that.

As tragic as that was for the Iraqi people, he was no threat to the US or Great Britain - except for his plan to switch from petrodollars to petroeuros.

As for the OP, merely looking into something is actually what they are supposed to do - it's what they try to do with the info that will determine sliminess.

OldRegular · Aug 14, 2005

Originally posted by Daisy:

Originally posted by OldRegular:
[qb] Daisy

As for the OP, merely looking into something is actually what they are supposed to do - it's what they try to do with the info that will determine sliminess.

Click to expand...

As the proud father of two adopted children I can tell you that what they were trying to do goes well beyond slime. I just could not think of a more appropriate word.

OldRegular · Aug 14, 2005

Originally posted by mioque:
"In 2000, it is suspected that Rove masterminded a push poll during the South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement."
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
I'd say that attacking adsopted children is a standard practice in American politics.

You are incorrect in your premise and wrong in your conclusion!

mioque · Aug 14, 2005

OldRegular.
IMDO you [attack snipped].
Mudslinging and low blows is all there is to politics in the US.
It has been that way for decades.

[ August 16, 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

Baptist in Richmond · Aug 15, 2005

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Yeah, and we all no how objective David Brock is.

Perhaps you have forgotten the simple fact that David Brock used to be a right-wing hit man for the American Spectator and readily admits what he has done in the past. Perhaps you have not read the book Blinded By The Right, or The Republican Noise Machine. Perhaps you are not an avid reader of mediamatters.org. David Brock knows more about this subject than ANY of us on this board.

MediaMatters takes on BOTH sides, and that CANNOT be denied. It's that simple: it CANNOT be denied. To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Here is a link to an article challenging the New York Times.

If the NY Times is so fair and balanced, why haven't they apologized for their fishing expedition on Judge Roberts. Why do you suppose that the overwhelming majority of their so called news items are negative toward anything conservative?

Why did Sean Hannity neglect to make a correction when Dr. Hammesfahr clearly was NOT a Nobel Prize nominee? Can you show me a retraction for a patently FALSE claim that was stated ad nauseum? A fishing expedition on Judge Roberts is not comparable to a completely false statement.

As to the Hannity & Colmes show, another red herring. I was not comparing the Times to anyone but papers of the same ilk. By the way, the last time I checked, Colmes is an admitted Liberal. That makes one Liberal and one Conservative. That seems to be fair and balanced to me.

Are you really going to claim that the show is "fair and balanced?"

Try the "stopwatch test," and find out who gets more airtime on that show?

What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times

Are you talking about the reporters, or the editorial board? I can use that precise argument about the "fair and balanced" FoxNews........

Regards,
BiR

Baptist in Richmond · Aug 15, 2005

How about this article on the AP, CNN, and the Los AngelesTimes?

Here is another article on the New York Times.

Scott J · Aug 15, 2005

Originally posted by Daisy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Daisy, Where is the unending media coverage of this?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/11/211201.shtml

An event attended by high ranking Democrats included comparisons of the Bush administration and Hitler's Nazism and that isn't news?

Compare this to Trent Lott's media treatment for being nice to an old man.

Compare the treatment of a sitting Senator's remarks to that of an old Calypso singer's? It's directly proportional to their political importance. [/QUOTE]Not when high ranking Dem officials were there.

Also, what he said was much, much more offensive than what Lott said. Lott was brutalized because his comments might have been perceived as insensitive by some people not because he actually said anything directly.

However, he isn't the only Dem saying outrageous things with very little pressure from the press to stop. Look at Howard Dean... or Durbin. Or even look at the completely and totally baseless charges by leading liberals that the GOP was trying to "suppress" the black vote. The funny thing is that this suppression was basically sending out poll watchers to stop funny business... like the 5000 or so dead people who voted in the city of Atlanta a few years back (reported by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal- itself a very liberal paper).

Scott J · Aug 15, 2005

Originally posted by Daisy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by Daisy:
[qb]I have a problem with pretty much every "news" organization that reports casualty counts and enemy successes without reporting things like this:

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML

Click to expand...

Ok, but there is a difference between reporting facts and celebrating heros. Reuters does the first, but not the second because the second really isn't uninterpreted news. It is just the opposite.

Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmme Ouuuuuut!!!!!

Since when is a guy risking his life to PREVENT one of those daily body count stories NOT NEWS?

Make the medal stuff secondary... but what he did to deserve the medals is every bit as newsworthy as what terrorists do when they successfully pull off one of these ambushes.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have a problem with not balancing stories about our failures with stories about our successes.

What failures? Not finding the WMDs? Not finding something not there is not exactly a failure. Abu Graib? How did the coverage of that compare with that of the capture of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi elections?[/QUOTE] Poor... and very poor compared to the coverage of the discovery of mass graves.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How many of the enemy are dying each day in such engagements?

The Americans and Brittish military officially do not keep count or release "bodycounts" as a sign of success since they were caught releasing bogus numbers from Vietnam. [/QUOTE] Casualty counts are newsworthy and I am sure the information is available.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The one thing that people with family over there say repeatedly is that the soldiers don't think the press is presenting an accurate picture. They feel that the good they are doing is being ignored specifically for political reasons.

Bad news does get precedence over good in the news - always has and always will. Well, except in the old Commie propaganda papers - no one took them seriously.[/QUOTE] Problem is when the bad news is presented with such complete imbalance that it directly impacts public perceptions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I tend to agree and yes I think it is a matter of political bias.

Are the right-wing papers full of glory & good news? I think it's a matter of human nature.[/QUOTE] Name a "right wing" paper. The WSJ is conservative on business matters and editorials but it is pretty neutral regarding the news and often follows the agenda set by others.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Look, if you miss everything else, just latch on to this... both the terrorists and the media KNOW how Vietnam was lost. It was lost by the media accentuating casualties and failures... It was lost by the media telling the American people that the war was unwinnable.

That is pure rightwing nonsense. It was lost because we couldn't make the South Vietnamese win and we didn't want to take over Vietnam ourselves. [/QUOTE] No it isn't.

It is history. The war was run miserably by Johnson... but it most certainly was not "unwinnable". In fact, had the US used Grant's strategy for winning the US Civil War, the North Vietnamese would have sued for peace within months.

In case you don't know: The Union chased Lee around for about 4 years letting him choose the field of battle. An army that seldom had 50% of the strength of its opposition not only survived but repeatedly beat the enemy.

Grant, a notable drinker, was the only Union general sober minded enough to realize that a deliberate seige of Richmond would force Lee to put his army in front of his own. The war ended in only a few months.... but could have ended at least 2 years sooner.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />IF the media is not biased then their reporting of the war should be more "objective" by presenting an accurate picture... which is many, many more successes than failures.

What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were?[/QUOTE] Historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

The threat of Saddam has been removed and Iraq no longer exists as a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps.

Saddam is not in a nuclear arms race with Iran as he surely would have been had we not acted.

Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program nor the means to start one.

A lot of the problem is what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld told us before this all started and then fed us along the way - which just doesn't jibe with objective reality.

The frightening part is that the UN said that there were weapons in Iraq.... which still haven't been found. Never mind the ones we thought Saddam was lying about.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The lesson of Vietnam cannot possibly be lost on them.

Obviously, not everyone has learned the same lesson.[/QUOTE] Yes. I am sure that libs would like to dismiss the effects of media on public morale during war... but one only has to look at WWII to see that a nation can endure much worse than Iraq if the media gives a positive impression of the effort.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The only other alternative is that they are doing what they are doing to advance their own political beliefs.

Or their political beliefs are shaped by what they see and experience. [/QUOTE]Yes... like Cronkite said.... and their reporting of what they see and experience is shaped by the political beliefs and ambition to change the world.

Scott J · Aug 15, 2005

BiR, You know that Hannity and Colmes is an opinion show... not a news show.

Baptist in Richmond · Aug 16, 2005

Is it really represented that way? Do you really believe that the average viewer perceives it as nothing more than "an opinion show?" Listen to some of the callers on Sean's radio program and see if they regard it as nothing more than "an opinion show" when they mention the television program.

BTW, that still does not change the fact that Hammesfahr was NOT a Nobel Prize nominee, does it? Did Hannity, who said it over and over, ever retract that claim?

Regards to you,

BiR

Daisy · Aug 17, 2005

Originally posted by Scott J:
However, he isn't the only Dem saying outrageous things with very little pressure from the press to stop. Look at Howard Dean... or Durbin.

The press raked them over the coals.

Or even look at the completely and totally baseless charges by leading liberals that the GOP was trying to "suppress" the black vote.

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?

The funny thing is that this suppression was basically sending out poll watchers to stop funny business... like the 5000 or so dead people who voted in the city of Atlanta a few years back (reported by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal- itself a very liberal paper).

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmme Ouuuuuut!!!!!

Since when is a guy risking his life to PREVENT one of those daily body count stories NOT NEWS?

<big sigh> It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.

Make the medal stuff secondary... but what he did to deserve the medals is every bit as newsworthy as what terrorists do when they successfully pull off one of these ambushes.

You're right. Unfortunately, the only such stories to hit the big time were the bogus Jessica and Tillman stories.

Even the local papers don't carry much about what the people from here are doing there - I don't know why, but I really doubt "liberal bias" has much to do with it because these are our friends, our friends' kids, our neighbors, our own. What happened to the "embedded" journalists? Why don't we hear from them what the units are doing? This silence is really kind of weird.

Poor... and very poor compared to the coverage of the discovery of mass graves.

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?

Casualty counts are newsworthy and I am sure the information is available.

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.

Problem is when the bad news is presented with such complete imbalance that it directly impacts public perceptions.

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?

Name a "right wing" paper. The WSJ is conservative on business matters and editorials but it is pretty neutral regarding the news and often follows the agenda set by others.

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.

It is history. The war was run miserably by Johnson... but it most certainly was not "unwinnable".

Johnson got us into the war, Nixon got us out.

In fact, had the US used Grant's strategy for winning the US Civil War, the North Vietnamese would have sued for peace within months.

Nixon had many years to win it, but did not. It was not because of protesters at home, but because of the high-command decision/deception that South Vietnam, not America, was going to fight and win the war. The lesson many of us learned was that you cannot fight someone else's war for them.

What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were?
Historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. You're refering to Coalition casualities, rather than Iraqi casualities or both?

The threat of Saddam has been removed and Iraq no longer exists as a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps.

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.

Saddam's removal did make the headlines for many days.

Saddam is not in a nuclear arms race with Iran as he surely would have been had we not acted.

Bit of a joke, that. Iraq was effectively disabled from pursuing any nuclear arms program.

Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program nor the means to start one.

That was true since '91.

The frightening part is that the UN said that there were weapons in Iraq.... which still haven't been found.

Reference?

Yes. I am sure that libs would like to dismiss the effects of media on public morale during war... but one only has to look at WWII to see that a nation can endure much worse than Iraq if the media gives a positive impression of the effort.

We shouldn't be "enduring" Iraq at all. The media is not supposed to be the President's rah-rah boys.

Yes... like Cronkite said.... and their reporting of what they see and experience is shaped by the political beliefs and ambition to change the world.

Ok.

Daisy · Aug 17, 2005

Originally posted by Scott J:
However, he isn't the only Dem saying outrageous things with very little pressure from the press to stop. Look at Howard Dean... or Durbin.

The press raked them over the coals.

Or even look at the completely and totally baseless charges by leading liberals that the GOP was trying to "suppress" the black vote.

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?

The funny thing is that this suppression was basically sending out poll watchers to stop funny business... like the 5000 or so dead people who voted in the city of Atlanta a few years back (reported by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal- itself a very liberal paper).

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmme Ouuuuuut!!!!!

Since when is a guy risking his life to PREVENT one of those daily body count stories NOT NEWS?

<big sigh> It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.

Make the medal stuff secondary... but what he did to deserve the medals is every bit as newsworthy as what terrorists do when they successfully pull off one of these ambushes.

You're right. Unfortunately, the only such stories to hit the big time were the bogus Jessica and Tillman stories.

Even the local papers don't carry much about what the people from here are doing there - I don't know why, but I really doubt "liberal bias" has much to do with it because these are our friends, our friends' kids, our neighbors, our own. What happened to the "embedded" journalists? Why don't we hear from them what the units are doing? This silence is really kind of weird.

Poor... and very poor compared to the coverage of the discovery of mass graves.

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?

Casualty counts are newsworthy and I am sure the information is available.

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.

Problem is when the bad news is presented with such complete imbalance that it directly impacts public perceptions.

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?

Name a "right wing" paper. The WSJ is conservative on business matters and editorials but it is pretty neutral regarding the news and often follows the agenda set by others.

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.

It is history. The war was run miserably by Johnson... but it most certainly was not "unwinnable".

Johnson got us into the war, Nixon got us out.

In fact, had the US used Grant's strategy for winning the US Civil War, the North Vietnamese would have sued for peace within months.

Nixon had many years to win it, but did not. It was not because of protesters at home, but because of the high-command decision/deception that South Vietnam, not America, was going to fight and win the war. The lesson many of us learned was that you cannot fight someone else's war for them.

What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were?
Historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. You're refering to Coalition casualities, rather than Iraqi casualities or both?

The threat of Saddam has been removed and Iraq no longer exists as a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps.

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.

Saddam's removal did make the headlines for many days.

Saddam is not in a nuclear arms race with Iran as he surely would have been had we not acted.

Bit of a joke, that. Iraq was effectively disabled from pursuing any nuclear arms program.

Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program nor the means to start one.

That was true since '91.

The frightening part is that the UN said that there were weapons in Iraq.... which still haven't been found.

Reference?

Yes. I am sure that libs would like to dismiss the effects of media on public morale during war... but one only has to look at WWII to see that a nation can endure much worse than Iraq if the media gives a positive impression of the effort.

We shouldn't be "enduring" Iraq at all. The media is not supposed to be the President's rah-rah boys.

Yes... like Cronkite said.... and their reporting of what they see and experience is shaped by the political beliefs and ambition to change the world.

Ok.

Dragoon68 · Aug 17, 2005

Originally posted by OldRegular:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
How can the NY Times be slimy liberal leftist
when they have Judith Miller on board..does not
make sense and she wrote in support of Chalibi
(you know the guy with Laura at the State of the
Union address)
Judith Miller is in jail basically protecting her
sources which is probably Scotter Libby..so Old
Reg is Judy Miller okay ..she is NY TIMES.

Your response is irrelevant! [/QUOTE]Amen!

The point was the action of the newspaper seeking to unseal the adoption records.

What purpose is intended or would be served by such an action?

SeekingTruth · Aug 17, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Yeah, and we all no how objective David Brock is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you have forgotten the simple fact that David Brock used to be a right-wing hit man for the American Spectator and readily admits what he has done in the past. Perhaps you have not read the book Blinded By The Right, or The Republican Noise Machine. Perhaps you are not an avid reader of mediamatters.org. David Brock knows more about this subject than ANY of us on this board.

MediaMatters takes on BOTH sides, and that CANNOT be denied. It's that simple: it CANNOT be denied. To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Here is a link to an article challenging the New York Times.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the NY Times is so fair and balanced, why haven't they apologized for their fishing expedition on Judge Roberts. Why do you suppose that the overwhelming majority of their so called news items are negative toward anything conservative?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did Sean Hannity neglect to make a correction when Dr. Hammesfahr clearly was NOT a Nobel Prize nominee? Can you show me a retraction for a patently FALSE claim that was stated ad nauseum? A fishing expedition on Judge Roberts is not comparable to a completely false statement.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the Hannity & Colmes show, another red herring. I was not comparing the Times to anyone but papers of the same ilk. By the way, the last time I checked, Colmes is an admitted Liberal. That makes one Liberal and one Conservative. That seems to be fair and balanced to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you really going to claim that the show is "fair and balanced?" Try the "stopwatch test," and find out who gets more airtime on that show?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you talking about the reporters, or the editorial board? I can use that precise argument about the "fair and balanced" FoxNews........

Regards,
BiR

SeekingTruth · Aug 17, 2005

Sorry about my previous message. I hit the add reply before I was finished.

BiR, I don't time any show, especially talk shows whose format is debate and controversy. If Colmes gets less time, or if liberals get less time they have no one to blame but themselves. It appears to me the producers do a pretty good job of keeping the time even.

ASLANSPAL · Aug 17, 2005

To set the record straight from the frustrated
people who want to skew like a drudge.

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
How can the NY Times be slimy liberal leftist
when they have Judith Miller on board..does not
make sense and she wrote in support of Chalibi
(you know the guy with Laura at the State of the
Union address)
Judith Miller is in jail basically protecting her
sources which is probably Scotter Libby..so Old
Reg is Judy Miller okay ..she is NY TIMES.

Your response is irrelevant! [/QUOTE]Amen!

The point was the action of the newspaper seeking to unseal the adoption records.

What purpose is intended or would be served by such an action? [/QUOTE]Judith Miller is a bush/cheney/chalabi defender ..New York Times
is defending her to the hilt..so the relevant point is that it is not a leftist/liberal conspiracy with black helicopters swooping down

Dragoon68 · Aug 17, 2005

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... so the relevant point is that it is not a leftist/liberal conspiracy ...

The relevant question is what do the adoption records have to do with the qualifications of this person for the office they're being appointed to fill and what is the intended purpose of having these records unsealed.

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... black helicopters ...

It looks brown to me, ASLANSPAL!

How Slimy Can They Get?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

Member

New Member

Active Member