Hearings

[Chadman]

LMAO yea and if press would have pursued the Jones and Jennifer Flowers story against clinton like they did against Nixon

Yeah, great point. The press didn't pursue these two stories very much, did they?



Good God, man, do you really believe some of the stuff you type?!? How many links would I have to post on these two stories before you'd realize how wrong that comment is?

 

[smurphy]

Thing about Jones and Flowers is people really didn't care. And they wouldn't have cared about Lewisnky either if he didn't lie about it in front of the country the way he did.

Hey - how about that mistress of Gary Hart's back in '88? Wasn't he the overwhelming favorite for President before the media got all over it?

Really getting tired of all this "mainstream media", "elite media", "liberal left media" rhetoric. What do you guys do, just repeat all the buzzwords you hear from Hannity and Limbaugh? It's old and really doesn't even make sense overall.

 

[ctownguy]

CHADMAN/SMURPHY,

There's no point arguing this point with you. Your side will never see the bias because it always went your way for over 40 years.

I don't care if your tired of hearing it too bad, I know by living through it before Rush before Fox there has always been a big left wing/democrat/liberal slant to the mainstream news.

Get over it, it's just the way it is. Why do you think you and your side is soo pissed off about Fox and Rush and Hannity o'reilly, BECAUSE THEY ARE FINALLY REPORTING WHAT THE MSM WOULDN'T FOR ALL THOSE YEARS.

No other reason for them to be so outraged and if you can honestly tell me the NY Times and it's editorial staff are not left wing loonies, then your not reading the same paper I am or used to, not anymore.

We can disagree on alot of things but for you to stay there is no bias is pure unadulterated horeshit........

 

[smurphy]

Everyone has a bias in some way. I never said otherwise. I think it is very much exaggerated by all the neocon talking head clones. Overblown to the point of attempting to completely discredit what are overall very ethical and FOR THE MOST PART balanced. You only point out what you want and completely ignore elements that you don't like. You paint the picture of the media that you want to. Just like Weasel when he ignores his hypocracy that I point out for bashing the Times about not showing the cartoons, when his very own beloved Fox also didnt.

Face it, you see what you want and that's as far as it goes. But that's fine, we have choices and we can all watch/read news that suits us.

You say "my side" is pissed off about Fox and Rush and friends. Well, why don't you count how many irate threads have been started on the subject of Fox or neocon talking heads compared to just the New York Times alone. Then come back and tell us who the whining crybabies are. Seems to me that "my side" is far more accepting of reality of the many choices in media and the fact that the media is basically in it for the money above all else. I mean the bitching about the Times and "msm" and "elite media" is just completely pathetic.

 

[ctownguy]

No what is pathetic is listening to your so called defense of the elite msm and that will never change from the left.

I understand it has been hell for your side to stomach loosing Congress to all those terrible Republicans esp after having control of it for so long, all those years of running it like a "plantation" and now to have it shoved back in your face. I can see how you would try and hang on to your beliefs and defend the diminishing elite news media.

I know it's tough being on your side, but thank goodness your there and not me. So I'll try and remember that when we have a discussion and try and show some compassion for you.

 

[smurphy]

Have you taken a thread count recently? Oh that's right. you are only picking out the lines of text you want to.

It's funny, I was never on a "side" until Bush forced everyone to extremes. I've got no problem with the political pendulum swinging. I was never labeled anything until I began to speak my mind about the many questionable decisions of this administration. Some of my favorite and most respected political figures are on "your side".

Really, I laugh at the whole thing - the recent outrage over newly invented buzzwords like "elite media" and "Hollywood's liberal agenda". Have at it - go crazy, my man. If it makes you feel good and satisfied to think that the lack of balance in congress and a miserable president makes me outraged - if that's what gives you pleasure - then just have all the fun you want. Continue to only read lines of text that serve your purpose and good luck to you and yours.

 

[Chadman]

It's funny how you make shite up and say its the way people think and feel. You spend so much time telling everyone that you are right and EVERYBODY agrees with you that I almost think I'm reading a post from George Bush.

I'm not pissed that Hannity and Rush have talk shows. I think that is fine. I listen to both of them sometimes, and I do gain a different perspective on some issues. I find myself agreeing with Mike Church on Sirius on many issues, some that I had another opinion about before listening and challenging myself.

I think issues should be discussed more about what is good for the individual, and not what one side stands for all the time. There are liberal ideas, columnists and shows that are wrong in my opinion. I agree there is bias in the media. Maybe more liberal in the past, but definitely not now.

I make one short comment about your rant, and you say there is no point arguing with me. You bring up how the "liberal" media didn't pursue the Flowers and Jones situations as much as Nixon. I don't think these issues are anywhere near the same level of importance to our country (The President authorizing a break-in and Clinton having a fling) but I guess you hate democrats so much it's comparable or worse. Maybe you weren't watching the media over the pre-during-and post Clinton years, but Flowers and Jones were lead stories many days. All over the news, all papers, all channels. And they still go on to this day. You can't argue with me about that...that's cool. Embarrassing for you, but cool with me.

You have no objectivity, and are nothing but a negative bashing namecaller. I am proud to be on "my side." It's not hard at all. At least my side can allow for another opinion to possibly have some merit. That is kind of a democratic thing, and what this country is based on. Diverse opinions, open free speech discussions about issues, good for all, not just a select few.

How very Nixon-like of you.

 

[ctownguy]

I'll let all your rightenous go, as it evidently makes you feel better to describe thinks your way and say my way is wrong or namecalling bias etc. Doesn't matter.

As far as the Flowers/Jones scandals I never said the didn't report them, I said pursued them like other scandals IE Clarence Thomas President Nixon etc.

It's one thing to report it, it's another whole ball of wax when they go the extra mile make that 100 miles pursuing the story to get someone and keep at it and at it ..........

NO WAY DID THE PRESS PURSUE IT. Now by the way you have been posting, I once again will say it, whether you like it or not, your coming from the side that thinks what they did was so great, that makes you on that side, not by what you say but what you believe and if you believe they treated these scandals the same YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. So tell me now what I said or didn't say and oh yea since I'm a namecaller, That's my opinion numbnuts.

 

[StevieD]

They had a special prosecuter on Clintons case 24 hours a day! And the most they could catch the guy on was lying about a bj. :violin: :violin:

 

[shamrock]

Hey stevei we have had 2 elections that prove your statement wrong about the country.

Of course living in your little liberal lala land you wouldn't realize that.

Yes, i'm a Bush lover, Thank God he was in office and not the lunatic Gore or Kerry.

Get over it, most of this country is smart enough to know that we need to be protected from these modern day animals and the party that will protect them and make them feel safe is not the one with your pal kennedy in it.

c Town-you need a party to protect you and make you feel safe?? Lol, what else make warm milk & tuck you in?? Wtf

 

[ctownguy]

They had a special prosecuter on Clintons case 24 hours a day! And the most they could catch the guy on was lying about a bj. :violin: :violin:

stevie get your time line right, flowers/jones scandal came out before the election you dumbass, what happened after was just as bad, but if the press would have been inclined to pursue it like I stated before he would not have even won the nomination and we would not have spent millions on his lying adulterous ass later.

 

[ctownguy]

c Town-you need a party to protect you and make you feel safe?? Lol, what else make warm milk & tuck you in?? Wtf

I'll address your lame attempt also dickhead. In our form of gov't you really only have two choices if you want your vote to count Republican or democrat and yes I feel A HEELVA ALOT SAFER WITH MY PARTY THAN YOURS YOU LEFT WING BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL

 

[StevieD]

I understand when the press broke the Flowers/Jones story you idiot. That is like saying if the press spent more time on Bush's drinking we wouldn't be in the messes we are now. Get your act and some facts together before I draw a cartoon of Bush and send you over the edge.

 

[Chadman]

As far as the Flowers/Jones scandals I never said the didn't report them, I said pursued them like other scandals IE Clarence Thomas President Nixon etc.

It's one thing to report it, it's another whole ball of wax when they go the extra mile make that 100 miles pursuing the story to get someone and keep at it and at it ..........

NO WAY DID THE PRESS PURSUE IT. So tell me now what I said or didn't say and oh yea since I'm a namecaller, That's my opinion numbnuts.

I know what you said, numbnuts. Since you can't seem to communicate without calling people names (a tactic used in debate when losing and having nothing intelligent to say), I'll match your abilities.

Again, I would sure as hell hope the press would pursue the Nixon incident far more than Clinton's reported indiscretions...it certainly would warrant that - a felony compared to infidelity. Lot's of people, including Presidents, have had affairs and questionable sexual escapades. Very few have been documented ordering a felonious break in of law offices. If those things are the same value to you, so be it. I think that makes you a biased idiot, and would think most would agree with ME, and not you, and I know that drives you crazy.

BUT, at the same time, I think the Flowers/Jones scandals WERE pursued aggressively, and were given more press time than necessary considering national importance. Newsworthy? Certainly. Compared to Nixon? No frikkin' way.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that part of the equation. If it weren't Clinton, and it were a Republican, I doubt you would feel the same BS bias that you do now.

 

[ctownguy]

The only thing that drives me crazy is that there are 2 idiots like you (chadman) and stevied out there.

But like I have always said, our American freedom of speech and expression gives you every right to show your stupidity and you are doing an excellent job.

As far as saying more would agree with you, once again get a reality check. Since Clinton the Republicans took over Congress, the House first time in over 40 some years and also the Senate and White House.

Yep that really proves your point. Typical liberal jerk off :fingerc:

 

[Chadman]

What does the fact that Bush won an election with less than a majority of American voters have to do with people agreeing whether Nixon's offenses were more worthy of media attention than Clinton's indescretions?

Typical Conservative convoluted jackass. moon1

 

[ctownguy]

Don't forget Congress, you seem to pick out just what you want to make your point.

I didn't think I had to explain this, but I'm dealing with a closed minded left wing wacko.

The elite media/MSM is just another arm of the democratic party and since they look for every excuse not too bring down one of their own they did as little as possible to bring him down, but fortunately for OUR SIDE he was at least impeached and how often do you here that when anyone refers to clinton and his legacy. Typical.

Also if this meant nothing back then what was the great MSM doing trying to fabricate a scandal for Bush Sr about a affair he had, which was unfounded and lame.

But I understand your freedom to be stupid, and that your answer to all will be just the ravings of a right winger, so be it.

Just live in your little liberal lala land and BE HAPPY.

 

[shamrock]

honest of God c Town, does anything you say ever make sense? Reading your posts is like solving puzzles, from Nixon to Flowers, does anything ever make sense?? and call me libera or whatever, but I have voted Republican in my State last 20 years.

Comparing Nixon and Clinton is ridiculous, getting blown is some huge discretion to those Holyier than thou like yourself. did you realize the Republicans you worship, Washington Jefferson etc. fuked and fuked often?? Even slaves shhhh, Hell they even died of vd.

 

[ctownguy]

liberal, Republican take your pick I guess, but why when I say scandal all clinton defenders just go to the blowjob scandal.

We had whitewater, filegate, people dying unexpected all thru his 2 years, secret chinese meetings and election contributions, renting out Lincoln bedroom, sitting president lying under oath, I don't care about what. It goes on and on and on.

Also you don't think all and I mean all the charges of rape from women that were democrats were well founded then it;s you and chadman and stevie with their heads in the sand.

And where were the great now gang when all this was going on, I"ll tell you, they are only for the rights of liberal women against republican offenders. Same as the naalcp (national assoc for the advancement of liberal colored people.

Like I said on and on adn on.

 

[shamrock]

to me, bringing up Clinton makes absolutely no sense, that was years ago, its over, Same as Reagan Ford Nixon Washington over does nothing to discuss any of that, nothing possibly can be done to change shit that happened 10, 20, 100 years ago, its over.

If you honestly can look yourself in the mirror and say Bush is doing a great job, than I can't help you. Question is simple, is Bush doing a good job? Now you don't answer saying "Clinton did", see this has nothing to do with Clinton, that's over. I think Bush sucks, he has accomplished 0, with the House & Senate all in his favor as you correctly stated in another thread. Zero, that's what he has gotten accomplished 0, and he or any other Republican probably won't get that chance again, because people have observed total Republican dominance in every phase of government and 0 has been accomplished.