[TheRealVille]

Yeah, posting ridiculous garbage like this and then being afraid to defend it certainly makes you look like a genius. But this is my last post on the topic. An article has to have some hint of legitimacy to warrant any of my time. Most of your's don't - but this one is among your worst. What's next Daily Kos diaries?

That's twice in one week you have said you were done posting, and went back on your word. Once in the whole politics forum, and once in this thread. Is your willpower getting weak, Hoot? nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

That's twice in one week you have said you were done posting, and went back on your word. Once in the whole politics forum, and once in this thread. Is your willpower getting weak, Hoot? nicker:

I came back in response to popular demand. Note that I responded to people who showed the courage to express an opinion, something that the thread starter lacked.

[RunItUpTheGut]

LOL RIUTG, I love how we're discussing the hotness of media women right in the middle of this heated conversation, lol...

But yeah, Erin Burnett is awesome. The one blonde chick on Fox News from around 12-3 is smokin' as well. I don't even need to describe Robin Meade...she's actually so hot she has haters on her hotness...just crazy.

lol, leave it to us to be naming hot news anchors in the middle of an argument.

Robin Meade is hot as hell. Lets just say shes well endowed in the chest area.
I like that blonde that use to come on fox's red eye all the time.
They always get hot chicks on that show.

Did you see this....
[Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YIhWwQePx78/To...urnett.jpg]

Damn those hands.....

Robin Meade

[Image: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lKe2XK1kSnY/S1...gery-2.jpg]

Rachel Maddow with her "woman"

[Image: http://i29.tinypic.com/2lmkphe.jpg]

She likes em round





LOL, Vundy check out what rachel maddow USED to look like....

[Image: http://www.politifake.org/image/politica...391225.jpg]

[vundy33]

Hahahahha...hadn't seen that Maxim cover. Not even going to comment on the thing standing beside of Maddow, lol.

Red Eye always gets da ladies. The Five does too.

[TheRealVille]

I came back in response to popular demand. Note that I responded to people who showed the courage to express an opinion, something that the thread starter lacked.

The first few post in this thread from responders were talking about the website being a left wing extremist site, without caring whether the article had true statements in it or not. I didn't see a need to respond. Why would I? You started slamming it as a liberal outlet before you even read the article. I would guess that you still haven't read the article. Like orangenow blue said, the conservatives use the "liberal media" as much as the left uses the race card.

[TheRealVille]

So a left wing fringe web site publishes a study showing that says the media is actually biased to the right because of corporate ownership. The fact that more than 80 percent of journalists vote for Democratic presidential candidates pretty much demonstrates the stupidity of FAIR and the people who put any credence in its opinions.

I guess I missed where that was claimed in the article.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess I missed where that was claimed in the article.

I guess you did. BTW, why did you think that a 14-year old survey of DC area journalists was relevant to a Politics and Current Events forum? Can't you find something more relevant to the current state of affairs than an article from the Clinton era?

[TheRealVille]

I guess you did. BTW, why did you think that a 14-year old survey of DC area journalists was relevant to a Politics and Current Events forum? Can't you find something more relevant to the current state of affairs than an article from the Clinton era?

We are in politics. The liberal media claim was just as big in the Clinton days as it is now. Nothing has changed much in the liberal media argument since then. The article is relevant.

[Hoot Gibson]

We are in politics. The liberal media claim was just as big in the Clinton days as it is now. Nothing has changed much in the liberal media argument since then. The article is relevant.

So you posted a 14-year old article, refused to say whether you agreed with its conclusions, and now say that neither the country nor the media has changed since the Clinton era? Interesting opinion...

[TheRealVille]

So you posted a 14-year old article, refused to say whether you agreed with its conclusions, and now say that neither the country nor the media has changed since the Clinton era? Interesting opinion...

That's a total out right lie. I never said any such.

We are in politics. The liberal media claim was just as big in the Clinton days as it is now. Nothing has changed much in the liberal media argument since then. The article is relevant.

[Hoot Gibson]

That's a total out right lie. I never said any such.

The article that you posted reached the conclusion that journalists reflected the general population in 1998. You said nothing much has changed since then. There is some lying going on here but I am not the one doing it. I doubt that you even read the article or realized that it was 14 years old when you posted it. Now you are just trying to direct the attention away from your latest blunder by calling me a liar. Typical RV post. Get back on topic.

[TheRealVille]

The article that you posted reached the conclusion that journalists reflected the general population in 1998. You said nothing much has changed since then. There is some lying going on here but I am not the one doing it. I doubt that you even read the article or realized that it was 14 years old when you posted it. Now you are just trying to direct the attention away from your latest blunder by calling me a liar. Typical RV post. Get back on topic.

My exact words were that "the [B]liberal media claim was just as big in the Clinton days as it is now[/B]" and "nothing has changed much in the liberal media argument since then.

If the words liberal media are in the posts, I'm on topic.

[TheRealVille]

The article that [B]you posted reached the conclusion that journalists reflected the general population in 1998.[/B] You said nothing much has changed since then. There is some lying going on here but I am not the one doing it. I doubt that you even read the article or realized that it was 14 years old when you posted it. Now you are just trying to direct the attention away from your latest blunder by calling me a liar. Typical RV post. Get back on topic.

No, here's what they say the findings of the study are.

The findings include:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, here's what they say the findings of the study are.

You obviously either did not read or did not understand the study, which, in any event was not representative of the country as a whole - even in 1998. You might as well have posted a link to an old online survey. The country has changed in the past 14 years and the media has also changed during that period. Even if the conclusions of this left wing study were correct in 1998 - which, in my opinion they were not valid because it was an unscientific study that was not representative of the U.S. as a whole- they are not valid in 2012.

What do you want to discuss next, how representative the Washington media was in the Lincoln era? :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

So you posted a 14-year old article, refused to say whether you agreed with its conclusions, and now say that neither the country nor the media has changed since the Clinton era? Interesting opinion...

I would add the following; fourteen years ago when Clinton was being impeached, the media didn't take the point on his defense. John Conyers (D) Mich., Shelia Jackson Lee (D) Tx., Rep Maxine Waters (D) Cal., Patrick Leahy (D) Ver., and Ted Kennedy (D) Mass., led the big guns in defense of Clinton. Speaking publicly everyday in his defense, and pioneering the once novel though now accepted notion, that one's personal life is somehow different from his public life. Many of the newscasters of that day found the notion laughable back then. The leader of the free world, lied to the world, with a straight face, by redefining what moral behavior was according to his very relative priciples. Thereby diminishing forever, the power, and the honor, of the office of President of The United States of America. Clinton's famous quote: "It depends on what your defintition of is, is." more succinctly characterizes his mindset. Simply put, a few Democratic leaders were willing to put party ahead of country, and we have been in a death spiral of compromise since that day. It was then that we Americans became willing to consider right and wrong in relative terms. The Clinton legacy is one of disgrace, by the standard of that era. Step by step, we continue to this day to lose our grip on integrity due to compromise which, is the magic elixer of the liberal.

If the judiciary committee'd had a movie in HD of the whole matter it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to these guys. They circled the wagons because they knew how much damage an admission of guilt would have caused the Dems. In spite of it all, the once cocky, smurking, president Bill Clinton's head now hung in shame as a result of world exposure and threats by Hillary that it was over between them.

He would have gotten a pass by today's media. However, the media of that time sensationalized the stain on the blue dress, veiled references made about the famous cigar that became somewhat hard to light and clips of Lewinski with Clinton at White House functions aired nightly.

The way in which Mr Clinton is lauded as a presidential titan in our time is evidence of how short most Americans memories are.

[TheRealVille]

I would add the following; fourteen years ago when Clinton was being impeached, the media didn't take the point on his defense. John Conyers (D) Mich., Shelia Jackson Lee (D) Tx., Rep Maxine Waters (D) Cal., Patrick Leahy (D) Ver., and Ted Kennedy (D) Mass., led the big guns in defense of Clinton. Speaking publicly everyday in his defense, and pioneering the once novel though now accepted notion, that one's personal life is somehow different from his public life. Many of the newscasters of that day found the notion laughable back then. The leader of the free world, lied to the world, with a straight face, by redefining what moral behavior was according to his very relative priciples. Thereby diminishing forever, the power, and the honor, of the office of President of The United States of America. Clinton's famous quote: "It depends on what your defintition of is, is." more succinctly characterizes his mindset. Simply put, a few Democratic leaders were willing to put party ahead of country, and we have been in a death spiral of compromise since that day. It was then that we Americans became willing to consider right and wrong in relative terms. The Clinton legacy is one of disgrace, by the standard of that era. Step by step, we continue to this day to lose our grip on integrity due to compromise which, is the magic elixer of the liberal.

If the judiciary committee'd had a movie in HD of the whole matter it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to these guys. They circled the wagons because they knew how much damage an admission of guilt would have caused the Dems. In spite of it all, the once cocky, smurking, president Bill Clinton's head now hung in shame as a result of world exposure and threats by Hillary that it was over between them.

He would have gotten a pass by today's media. However, the media of that time sensationalized the stain on the blue dress, veiled references made about the famous cigar that became somewhat hard to light and clips of Lewinski with Clinton at White House functions aired nightly.

The way in which Mr Clinton is lauded as a presidential titan in our time is evidence of how short most Americans memories are.

I remember the last republican President standing before America straight faced and lying also.


In the economic sense of the word, Clinton was a titan.

[TheRealThing]

If you want to sidestep everything else I said that suits me. Clinton rode Reagan's coat tails of economic success. Even a genius couldn't have messed up following his eight years of sound fiscal policies.

[TheRealVille]

If you want to sidestep everything else I said that suits me. Clinton rode Reagan's coat tails of economic success. Even a genius couldn't have messed up following his eight years of sound fiscal policies.

Classic republican response. Did Reagan follow Jimmy Carter's coat tail?

[TheRealThing]

Classic republican response. Did Reagan follow Jimmy Carter's coat tail?

Changing the subject again RV? Okay, I'll play. Carter's dismal economic numbers were of double digit inflation, AND interest rates. Even, James Carville won't try to defend Jimmy Carter's pathetic lack of legacy. America suffered the first economic downturn since the great depression during his tenure. It sure did get hard to find someone willing to admit he voted for Carter in 1978 & 79, in fact, the joke going around the whole country towards the end of the "Jimmy Carter Era" was that no one would admit to having voted for Carter. Johnny Carson got a lot of mileage out of that one. Seriously, what has become Classically typical in the way of response has been the continual jockeying by the Dems to claim Reaganesque style policies across the board. Even your hero Obama, tries to say he's like Reagan. Trying to justify his liberal agenda by the standards of success Reagan established, saying "I'm just doing what Reagan did" :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

I remember the last republican President standing before America straight faced and lying also.

In the economic sense of the word, Clinton was a titan.

Please enlighten us, exactly what did he lie about? I remember the judge ssaying this about Bill Clinton,


Contempt of court citation

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:


"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.


did the lie you say Geo W is guilty of read anything like ^ this?

[TheRealVille]

Please enlighten us, exactly what did he lie about? I remember the judge ssaying this about Bill Clinton,


Contempt of court citation

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:


"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.


did the lie you say Geo W is guilty of read anything like ^ this?

No, I concede, it was nothing as bad as the above. Bush's lie only got thousands of people killed.

[TheRealThing]

No, I concede, it was nothing as bad as the above. Bush's lie only got thousands of people killed.

Is that lunch table wisdom, or do you have the first shred of proof? There was also the charge made that George W was "in bed with big oil" sounds like both charges came from the same place, out of the blue. I quoted the Judge who presided over Clinton's court case. If there was any chance at all he was innocent, they'd still be duking it out in court. He was guilty, or he'd never have folded his tients.

[TheRealVille]

Is that lunch table wisdom, or do you have the first shred of proof? There was also the charge made that George W was "in bed with big oil" sounds like both charges came from the same place, out of the blue. I quoted the Judge who presided over Clinton's court case. If there was any chance at all he was innocent, they'd still be duking it out in court. He was guilty, or he'd never have folded his tients.

Bush said Iraq had WMD's, as a reason to go into a "sovereign nation" as you people say, and got thousands of our kids killed in the process. All the while, no WMD's. Yea, Clinton's lie was worse.

[TheRealThing]

Bush said Iraq had WMD's, as a reason to go into a "sovereign nation" as you people say, and got thousands of our kids killed in the process. All the while, no WMD's. Yea, Clinton's lie was worse.

Let me get this straight. Bush, not the CIA or any of the intelligence community, briefed himself in the oval office. And he told himself there were WMD's in Iraq. Then he went to the Senate and tricked 77 senators into voting for the resolution to invade Iraq, 29 of whom were Democrats voting to support the Iraq Resolution. Among these yes voters, and being privy to the SAME intel, were Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Now, there is no way to duck this cannon ball. If Bush lied, 29 Democratic Senators lied right along with him.

At least when I cite someone for an untruth I try to have a credible source to back myself up. The only source Bush haters have is their own bias. Albeit, bias fed by DNC generated talking points. Every last one of the Dems listed here were VERY vocal in their support of the resolution and gave a number of speeches to that end.

[TheRealVille]

Let me get this straight. Bush, not the CIA or any of the intelligence community, briefed himself in the oval office. And he told himself there were WMD's in Iraq. Then he went to the Senate and tricked 77 senators into voting for the resolution to invade Iraq, 29 of whom were Democrats voting to support the Iraq Resolution. Among these yes voters, and being privy to the SAME intel, were Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Now, there is no way to duck this cannon ball. If Bush lied, 29 Democratic Senators lied right along with him.

At least when I cite someone for an untruth I try to have a credible source to back myself up. The only source Bush haters have is their own bias. Albeit, bias fed by DNC generated talking points. Every last one of the Dems listed here were VERY vocal in their support of the resolution and gave a number of speeches to that end.

As you all say, "Bush was President", it was his job to know the truth. Bush's lie got thousands killed. Bush said there were WMD's, and there were none. But, on the bright side, he vindicated his daddy.

[TheRealThing]

As you all say, "Bush was President", it was his job to know the truth. Bush's lie got thousands killed. Bush said there were WMD's, and there were none. But, on the bright side, he vindicated his daddy.

Right, Bush was president and he did in fact take responsibility for the botched intelligence and the war. And I realize the best you can do is to make charges supported by nothing more than political bias to support your unfounded claims. EVERY president has to make decisions on matters on national defense based on a combination of military intel, CIA and FBI covert ops and the like. He made a decision that 29 Democrats in the senate agreed with. I remember Hillary and Kerry in particular speaking in impassioned terms in favor of invasion during speeches on the floor of the Senate. BTW, nobody forces a senator to rise in support of resolutions on the floor of the senate, they do so willingly knowing things such as this define their legacy. By today's standards a 48/29 senate majority in favor of anything is phenomenal, in fact, the only senate vote of substance I can remember that had a greater majority agreement was the 100/0 vote rejecting Obama's previous budget proposal. LOL

Unlike the present crybaby-in-chief you find so palatable, Bush--A REAL MAN-- shouldered responsibility without the slightest wiggle. Obama really cannot open his mouth without blaming the previous administration for every ill of which America suffers. Bush wouldn't even cast a pebble of blame against the intelligence community of the day, why? Because, unlike the chinless man sitting the first seat of today, he knew even good men make mistakes. Those who serve in the intelligence gathering community have saved our necks many hundreds of times and Bush knew, as any man of integrity knows, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Obama chose to support the nation building campaign going on in Iraq as he took office. Those of the arab world, who are Islamic Extremists, who in my opinion consttitute the bulk of that religion's adherents in the middle east, want to see America and Israel wipped off the face of the earth. A fact that is unpopular among bleeding heart liberals to admit openly, yet one of which I believe our current president is well aware. As I have mentioned on here in the past. I think the nation building strategy is rediculous. There is no sacrifice we could ever make that would impress the Islamic Extremist enough to have the slightest glimmer of respect for America.

This is the foreign policy I would suggest in lieu of the failed policies of Bush and Obama. Live with the arab countries in peace unless they start to fly jet liners into US buildings or the like. At that time, and here's where I agree whole heartedly with Bush's intitial approach, go over and completely knock the crap out of the country that sponsored the terrorist activity. Then just as suddenly, pull out and leave the place in shambles, and call it the fortunes of war. If we want to maintain one or more bases of occupation as a deterrent, that would be fine, as long as it was HEAVILY fortified and defended with a zero tollerance policy. In that scenario, we could fly in all the support resources we needed and alleviate any losses sustained by all these convoys driving all over the occupied country. I understand in the case of Japan and Germany, our humanitarian efforts showed the masses our true intent was not to harm them. But, in the case of the Islamic Extremist, if everyone of us volunteered to jump into a volcano somewhere until not one American remained on the planet, it wouldn't satisfy their hatred. All they understand is force, so as long as we only respond to any attacks they would make (which, we must do) we would stay in the clear morally.

[vundy33]

President Bush didn't lie about a thing. Those surrounding him were the liars, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and that crew.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Thats what i believe.
People want to make Bush out to be such a horrible Pres.
Fact is, a lot of his problems were people he was surrounded by, albeit he chose some of those people, but how many presidents would have really faltered putting up with the things he did.