Ha ha O'Reilly OWNED!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,418
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
What rather did was unexucsable trying to change a presidential race. Hes a liberal who tries to smear and point everything in the left on his damn news show. He has no credibility now. I'm glad CBS news is lowest rated, they should be for a reason.
Oreilly>Rather
Oreilly>Rather
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Yeah, everyone, GW Bush is a gaddamn saint. He is the best thing to ever happen tot he world, never makes mistakes, and is smarter than everyone in the whole wide world. He is perfect, infallible, omniscient, magical, and kind. There is nothing that he has done that wasn't the absolute best thing in the whole world to do, and anyone who says different is a goddamn Commie who's opinion doesn't matter anyways and ought to be shot for even thinking they deserve to vote in American elections :/
Please. The fact is, Republican policy causes poor people to get poorer, and rich people to get richer, and middle class to shrink. Anyone who believes budget allocations and tax law have no effect on the economy is a fool. And anyone who thinks a Republican President has nothing to do with the laws a Republican Congress passes is also a fool. Foreign policy has a profound effect on the American economy, and the President is directly responsible for that. And this whole "two years" waiting period for the economy to be affected by policy changes is BS. When you raise taxes on middle income to poor people, that effect is felt immediately, same as with tax cuts. When you provide incentives to lower labor costs by degrading wages, that effect is immediate. The confidence Americans have in their leader affects their spending habits, which affects the economy immediately.
There is a reason that the tech bubble collapsed, but that has little to do with the President, and more to do with the expiration of patience. The Enron/Anderson/Tyco/etc. things were a result of economic policy that took shape under Clinton, but was a non-partisan judgement failure. Presidents make mistakes, and it is not logical to suggest they don't. President Bush ahs made numerous choices I disagree with, and some of them are most likely mistakes, while others are just advancing causes I disagree with. Something needed to happen with Iraq, Saddam was funding terrorism all over the world, including in his own country. I don't think this administration was remotely prepared to go to war when they did - it was a reckless move by people that didn't have the slightest grasp of the implications, hiding behind intelligence reports that just told them what they wanted to hear. That said, Someone needed to act, and since the UN was paralyzed by France, Germany, and Russian interests, it fell to the US to act - hardly an ideal situation, no matter how you look at it.
What I find funny is the fact that the administration put together a presentation for the UN documenting Iraq WMD programs, with detailed maps and photographs that apparently showed everything, but when all was said and done, it turned out that presentation was based on conjecture and prejudicial guesswork instead of verifiable fact. Why couldn't we take the pictures and maps Colin Powell used in his presentation and drive right up and find these weapons if the proof was so concrete and self-evident?
John Kerry is kind of a dumb-ass for talking about the war the way he is - if the war is such a mistake, wtf are you gonna do if you win? Now that there are troops in Iraq, a much better strategy would be to discuss how to resolve the situation, and stop talking about yesterdays news. What's done is done, and pointing out the fact that there was more than one way to handle Saddam at the time is pretty lame. We all know a certain part of the population likes war for war's sake, regardless of who we fight or where, and a certain segment hates war regardless of the circumstances. The bulk of the people in this country, however, understand that diplomacy is a far greater weapon than a gun, but GW Bush and his gang just wanted a war after 9/11. There is no way in hell Bush would get re-elected if he hadn't gone after Al Qaida in Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq was a necessary next step. But I don't like voting for a party that thinks lying and misrepresenting facts during an election campaign is acceptable. If GW Bush and the Republicans really are a better choice, why is it necessary to make up lies about the Democratic candidate?
Please. The fact is, Republican policy causes poor people to get poorer, and rich people to get richer, and middle class to shrink. Anyone who believes budget allocations and tax law have no effect on the economy is a fool. And anyone who thinks a Republican President has nothing to do with the laws a Republican Congress passes is also a fool. Foreign policy has a profound effect on the American economy, and the President is directly responsible for that. And this whole "two years" waiting period for the economy to be affected by policy changes is BS. When you raise taxes on middle income to poor people, that effect is felt immediately, same as with tax cuts. When you provide incentives to lower labor costs by degrading wages, that effect is immediate. The confidence Americans have in their leader affects their spending habits, which affects the economy immediately.
There is a reason that the tech bubble collapsed, but that has little to do with the President, and more to do with the expiration of patience. The Enron/Anderson/Tyco/etc. things were a result of economic policy that took shape under Clinton, but was a non-partisan judgement failure. Presidents make mistakes, and it is not logical to suggest they don't. President Bush ahs made numerous choices I disagree with, and some of them are most likely mistakes, while others are just advancing causes I disagree with. Something needed to happen with Iraq, Saddam was funding terrorism all over the world, including in his own country. I don't think this administration was remotely prepared to go to war when they did - it was a reckless move by people that didn't have the slightest grasp of the implications, hiding behind intelligence reports that just told them what they wanted to hear. That said, Someone needed to act, and since the UN was paralyzed by France, Germany, and Russian interests, it fell to the US to act - hardly an ideal situation, no matter how you look at it.
What I find funny is the fact that the administration put together a presentation for the UN documenting Iraq WMD programs, with detailed maps and photographs that apparently showed everything, but when all was said and done, it turned out that presentation was based on conjecture and prejudicial guesswork instead of verifiable fact. Why couldn't we take the pictures and maps Colin Powell used in his presentation and drive right up and find these weapons if the proof was so concrete and self-evident?
John Kerry is kind of a dumb-ass for talking about the war the way he is - if the war is such a mistake, wtf are you gonna do if you win? Now that there are troops in Iraq, a much better strategy would be to discuss how to resolve the situation, and stop talking about yesterdays news. What's done is done, and pointing out the fact that there was more than one way to handle Saddam at the time is pretty lame. We all know a certain part of the population likes war for war's sake, regardless of who we fight or where, and a certain segment hates war regardless of the circumstances. The bulk of the people in this country, however, understand that diplomacy is a far greater weapon than a gun, but GW Bush and his gang just wanted a war after 9/11. There is no way in hell Bush would get re-elected if he hadn't gone after Al Qaida in Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq was a necessary next step. But I don't like voting for a party that thinks lying and misrepresenting facts during an election campaign is acceptable. If GW Bush and the Republicans really are a better choice, why is it necessary to make up lies about the Democratic candidate?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: The Empire State
Originally Posted by no_really,Oct 8 2004, 12:04 AM
Just post links to the Fox News issues that bothered you, and let us make our own decision.
An Article About the story (cant post the story, Foxnews has pulled it)
Second story is about a website "Communists for Kerry" which was made up by some right wing guys, in jest. Fox news reported that Kerry had the communist vote (poking fun at him) and only later did fact checking (which wasn't hard, they only had to hit the "about us" button on the website to find out it was a lie, but thats too hard for "true reporters")
This is worse than what Rather did, because Rather actually did some fact checking before posting the story on Bushs military history, bad fact checking but at least he and his colleagues tried to do it.
Link to the "Communist" Website
Click on their Fox News Lies link for more info, then click on the "About Us" link for some terribly time consuming "fact checking"
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: The Empire State
Found the complete text.... But for the sake of being "fair and balanced" I cannot for sure say that this was not edited, but I do believe it is the correct text as I have checked several other sites, as well as having read the original before it was taken down.
quote: Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.
With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.
Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.
"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.
Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.
"I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.
A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.
With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.
Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.
"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.
Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.
"I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.
A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Originally Posted by hellothere,Oct 8 2004, 12:18 PM
What are you talking about regarding the taxes????
This administration LOWERED taxes across the board. Kerry has stated that he now wants to INCREASE TAXES. Thats not how you revive a slow economy.
And what lies are you talking about specifically? I can't stand all these people accusing the President of "lies" without naming a single one. The fact is, George Bush did not lie about a single thing regarding the war. Until anyone comes up to the plate and states a single LIE, you have no right to fling accusations.
This administration LOWERED taxes across the board. Kerry has stated that he now wants to INCREASE TAXES. Thats not how you revive a slow economy.
And what lies are you talking about specifically? I can't stand all these people accusing the President of "lies" without naming a single one. The fact is, George Bush did not lie about a single thing regarding the war. Until anyone comes up to the plate and states a single LIE, you have no right to fling accusations.
Um, where did my post say anything about lies? However, if you don't remember the number of speeches prior to going to war in which GW Bush clearly stated, over and over, that Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction," you might want to either go back and read his transcripts, or turn in your voter registration, because your mental faculties are obviously not up to the task :/ I personally cannot stand people who cannot read and comprehend, or hear and remember, but insist on taking people to task over things that only occurred in their head. At thias point, either highlight the parts of my previous post where I used the word lies, or STFU.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Originally Posted by ninethreeeleven,Oct 8 2004, 12:03 PM
First of all this is not the type of story that merits ones opinion, it is a story that was completely made up. The true problem is that not many know about it, but still believe Foxnews is "Fair and unbiased"
An Article About the story (cant post the story, Foxnews has pulled it)
Second story is about a website "Communists for Kerry" which was made up by some right wing guys, in jest. Fox news reported that Kerry had the communist vote (poking fun at him) and only later did fact checking (which wasn't hard, they only had to hit the "about us" button on the website to find out it was a lie, but thats too hard for "true reporters")
This is worse than what Rather did, because Rather actually did some fact checking before posting the story on Bushs military history, bad fact checking but at least he and his colleagues tried to do it.
Link to the "Communist" Website
Click on their Fox News Lies link for more info, then click on the "About Us" link for some terribly time consuming "fact checking"
An Article About the story (cant post the story, Foxnews has pulled it)
Second story is about a website "Communists for Kerry" which was made up by some right wing guys, in jest. Fox news reported that Kerry had the communist vote (poking fun at him) and only later did fact checking (which wasn't hard, they only had to hit the "about us" button on the website to find out it was a lie, but thats too hard for "true reporters")
This is worse than what Rather did, because Rather actually did some fact checking before posting the story on Bushs military history, bad fact checking but at least he and his colleagues tried to do it.
Link to the "Communist" Website
Click on their Fox News Lies link for more info, then click on the "About Us" link for some terribly time consuming "fact checking"
Dan Rather has a much larger viewership than Fox News, their story was a fabrication about a sitting President running for re-election, and it concerned articles of substantial importance to a large number of people. Dereliction of duty is somewhat greater in the scheme of things than the endorsement of make-believe Communists or some reporter's childish scribblings. Fox News is a joke, more or less, due to their well-known bias, while CBS News and Dan Rather himself are respected in the world for their standards and morals. That is why the forged memos are a bigger deal than the juvenile crap pulled by Fox News. Anyone who saw the Fox News BS already thinks a certain way, while CBS is not nearly as partisan, so gets a wider audience who might be unfairly influenced by the errors or omissions of CBS News broadcasts. The very fact that CBS News came clean with the facts, while Fox News pretends it never happened, demonstrates why Fox News is a joke, and CBS News is respected.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Originally Posted by hellothere,Oct 8 2004, 12:34 PM
Q: Um, where did my post say anything about lies?
A: How about your last two sentences?? Not once but twice. Here ya go in case you forgot your own words:
John Kerry is kind of a dumb-ass for talking about the war the way he is - if the war is such a mistake, wtf are you gonna do if you win? Now that there are troops in Iraq, a much better strategy would be to discuss how to resolve the situation, and stop talking about yesterdays news. What's done is done, and pointing out the fact that there was more than one way to handle Saddam at the time is pretty lame. We all know a certain part of the population likes war for war's sake, regardless of who we fight or where, and a certain segment hates war regardless of the circumstances. The bulk of the people in this country, however, understand that diplomacy is a far greater weapon than a gun, but GW Bush and his gang just wanted a war after 9/11. There is no way in hell Bush would get re-elected if he hadn't gone after Al Qaida in Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq was a necessary next step. But I don't like voting for a party that thinks lying and misrepresenting facts during an election campaign is acceptable. If GW Bush and the Republicans really are a better choice, why is it necessary to make up lies about the Democratic candidate?
A: How about your last two sentences?? Not once but twice. Here ya go in case you forgot your own words:
John Kerry is kind of a dumb-ass for talking about the war the way he is - if the war is such a mistake, wtf are you gonna do if you win? Now that there are troops in Iraq, a much better strategy would be to discuss how to resolve the situation, and stop talking about yesterdays news. What's done is done, and pointing out the fact that there was more than one way to handle Saddam at the time is pretty lame. We all know a certain part of the population likes war for war's sake, regardless of who we fight or where, and a certain segment hates war regardless of the circumstances. The bulk of the people in this country, however, understand that diplomacy is a far greater weapon than a gun, but GW Bush and his gang just wanted a war after 9/11. There is no way in hell Bush would get re-elected if he hadn't gone after Al Qaida in Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq was a necessary next step. But I don't like voting for a party that thinks lying and misrepresenting facts during an election campaign is acceptable. If GW Bush and the Republicans really are a better choice, why is it necessary to make up lies about the Democratic candidate?
You were accusing me of talking about Bush lies, and I never mentioned Bush lies. Unbunch your panties.