slanted journalism

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bourbonbreath, Jun 26, 2004.

  1. bourbonbreath macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #1
    Greetings. From the looks of things here a different perspective could be appreciated. Maybe not but here it is anyway.
    this is mainly for those of you who parade on the street corner with the various signs: "hate bush" "plant a bush in texas", "jail bush" and on and on.
    They are acting on bad info. Maybe not bad people but "plant a bush in texas" Do they really know what they are saying?
    They are acting on contrived information that has only one purpose.


    "Now, those same people are implying that the president of the United States may be a torturer because of reading material he probably never even saw, much less read. And they have not the slightest concern about the chilling effect this will have on presidents asking for, and policymakers providing, advice about issues that affect national security. I guess DOJ should forget about all this "top secret" classification jazz and just file its memos at the library."






    http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406250856.asp
     
  2. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #2
    Are you looking for honest discussion or wanting more the partisan rhetoric from both sides?

    As much as there is hatred is some signs towards the Bush administration. There are signs from the counter-demostration groups that can be considered just has hateful. Hate seems to have not hold on one political party.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Exactly what I accuse this Administration of doing.
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    Maybe the president's policymakers shouldn't be suggesting torture is a viable option.

    And the president is the man in charge. He sets the tone. He may have never said "go torture me some Iraqis", but he may have said "go do whatever it takes, i don't care" and his boot-scrape lieutenants crossed the line. He is still responsible for their conduct, just like any commander in the armed forces. After all, he's so proud of being a "war" president. Never mind that he started the war.
     
  5. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #5
    The memo does'nt advocate torture. Bybee set out to define in clinical detail what the boundaries of torture are.
    What the Times does is twist this and claim the Bush administration advocates torture, which is false.
    The result is you have sheep parading on street corners with signs advocating the death of the president.

    There are other contraversial points which get similar media twisting: Such as the widely bantered idea that Bush willfully lied regarding WMD's to satisfy a personal agenda. So far I have only seem clear evidence that points to facts that it was widely acknowledged by Clinton/Gore/Kerry and many others that the WMD's where known to exist and were a threat. That the terrorists were seeking to obtain these nasty things and made it clear they would use them.
    We already witnessed Iraq use WMD's on Iran and the Kurds in thier own country. Would it be reasonable to suppose Saddam was not a threat?
    While there is no concrete evidence showing that Saddam had any direct involment with 9/11. The 9/11 commission plainly lays out that Alqueada/Iraq connections did and do exist. (another case where the Times played twisty with the story)
    After 9/11 there really should not be any doubt that these terrorists wish to do us harm, is there?

    I hear it said that the US is even worse than the terrorists. I have yet to see the US use civilian airliners full of people to target skyscrapers full of more people.

    I see our military taking great pains to minimize civilian casualitie's as a contrast. Our military certainly has the capability to turn the whole country to rubble if they chose to. I'm observing some very restrained behavior, correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    Perhpas widening your sources for news will give you a better idea of what exactly Bush etc. have been lying about and where the evidence is. Somewhere around here there is a link showing some of Cheney's baldface lying. He doesn't cover his tracks very well. I'd find it but I have to go get ice cream with a 10 year old :D
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    wow, excellent straw man argument. now please tell me who here is "advocating the death of the president." i cannot recall anyone doing so.

    i mean, bush's crimes pale in comparison to those of, say, the Dixie Chicks. i do remember a few people calling for their heads.
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    Can you get me something with coconut? :D

    bourbonbreath's comments have s small ring of truth. There may have been WMD during the Clinton years. But by the time Bush decided to avenge his Daddy and the efforts of the UN too effect, Saddam has either destroyed or moved them to place we will never find. The issue is that Bush wanted to rush to war. The world was saying wait.

    Now Bush has created two new generations of terrorists that will be an even greater threat to this nations security. AFAIK almost everyone else had to testify under oath during the 9-11 Commission. Why did Bush and Cheney hold out for so long? And only agreed after they could appear together (how convenient). What is Bush and Cheney hiding by not showing the Energy Policy meeting with Big Oil. Were there discussions of our war efforts in the Middle East?
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    Why does it not scare you that the administration asked for a clinical, legal definition of torture? Wouldn't this imply that they wanted to use techniques that would be considered out of bounds? Why didn't they side-step the whole issue? All they had to do was not torture prisoners. Seems to me that it would be fairly easy to not toruture prisoners. Even easy to not do things that could be construed as torture. But they did, they approved, and now Bush is in hot water over it. He allowed his subordinates to go buck wild, and now he's paying the political price. Sucks for him, great for us.

    As late as July of 2000, Condi Rice went on television to say that Saddam had no weapons, couldn't make any, and was no threat to the US. Colin Powell had said the same thing a few months earlier. I sincerely doubt that any new "revelations" came after 9-11, except that there was now the opportunity to sucker the nation.

    Iraq/al Qeada connections revealed to the public consist of one meeting like seven years ago. Big ****in' deal. Iraq didn't help with 9-11. Rove's greatest masterpiece has been the marriage of Osama to Saddam. It's both amazing and sad how many people still buy this story.

    As for the US being worse than the terrorists, we had 3000 civilian deaths on 9-11. Iraq has had 10,000 civilian deaths since the invasion and they had nothing to do with 9-11! They didn't attack us, their government didn't attack us, and yet they are the ones paying the price. This isn't even counting the damage done to their country in terms of physical damage to infrastructure and homes. So, terrorists kill 3000 innocent Americans. Americans kill 10,000 innocent Iraqis. Who's worse?

    You're not wrong. The military *is* trying to minimize civilian deaths. But you forget that civilian deaths were completely unnecessary to begin with. Seen from the Iraqis' point of view, and from a good portion of the rest of the world, we are invading occupiers who have taken over a country that was not a threat, did not threaten us, and we have killed countless (because we refuse to count them) ciivlians in an unjustified war. What more can I say?
     
  10. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #10
    First I think that you need to look at the word "plant".

    the dictionary says:

    I understand that you feel that use of "plant" meaning to bury one body. Dictionary.com did not have that meaning listed. To be honest my "definition" did not include the popular uses. I thought more long the lines of putting Bush back in Texas where he could do little harm as the "disposed" "elder-statesman" (though for me Bush and the word "statesman" seems to be an oxymoron - please no jokes about the second syllable). :D

    For if we are able to transplant this "bush" back to it's native Texas, it might not take over our Nations Capital like kudzu.

    For the non-southerner among us:

    And weed defined in my favorite terms:

    So see, Bush is a plant that is a weed that is undesirable. But if some like him, he should be "planted" where he can do the least harm. (My sincerest apologies to my friends in Texas - I did spend a year down there, and wish i could have stayed longer. Fortunately I left before Bush gained the Governors office).
     
  11. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #11
    My favorite was the almond and cocunut at Baskin Robbins. But this was a McDonald's trip.
     
  12. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #12
    I can see we have some real masters of equivocation at work here. Kudos!

    The point that I'm making which has not been refuted is the media is taking information out of context, twisting and feeding it back to you in a form that suits thier agenda.

    In other words you are being lied to by the NYT.

    Where is the outrage?

    Keep it simple all those definitions about plants get me confused. :confused:


    This one is good: "So, terrorists kill 3000 innocent Americans"

    yea "so" indeed. who cares about 3000 american killed? So what!!!! :rolleyes:



    "Americans kill 10,000 innocent Iraqis"

    The difference is we do care about that. The terrorists dont seem to care how many Iraqi bystanders get killed.

    If the aim of the US was to kill the max number of Iraqis the results would be quite different.

    Again the point is the media is slanting what you are hearing about Iraq to acheive a certain purpose.

    I can see how very successfull they have been in here.

    You dont hear many stories about how we are rebuilding school, restoring power and water throughout much of the country.

    Many of our casualities are being taken while engaged in these works.

    Why is'nt Al jazeera and the NYT reporting about these things? Instead they harp on and on about Abu Ghraib.

    Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and the contrators cut up in Falluja did'nt get anywhere near the media coverage all put together.

    Where is the outrage?
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    nice unproveable assertion. first define what it means for a newpaper to lie.

    was "school" (singular) intentional?

    i read a story about how halliburton charged the US gov't some tens of thousands of dollars to slap some paint on a couple rooms and declare the school "open," sans textbooks, sufficient number of desks, repaired windows, supplies, etc. is that the type of story you lament not hearing?
     
  14. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    [D]oes'nt? Totally off topic, but what is it with the misuse of the apostrophe in contractions lately? Is it just one new conservative poster who likes to use different names or is this a disease spreading from conservative web sites?
     
  15. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    So lets see your sister smack you. You smack your sister. Your dad smacks you. And then you smack your sister. the cycle of violence has to stop.

    You also are buying into what most of the world and now many Americans are, is that Saddam and iraq were no direct threat to the US.

    The difference on these poor souls is that the government has decided that this war is to be won by the highest bidder. Daniel Pearl was a journalist. Any journalist going into a war zone realizes there are great risks to the safety. Nick Berg seems to have been an optimist and a opportunist. He had not legal sanction from what I had read to be in Iraq. He should have known and accepted the risks in going into a war zone on his own free will. The same with Paul Johnson. Helicopter maintenance in a war zone should be up to military staff, not won under lowest bidder or maybe even no-bid contracts.

    The manner of their deaths disturbs me. The fact they died disturbs me. But yet each made the free will choice to go in to a war zone. Not like the men and women of the military that have to act without question to their Commander in Chief, President Bush.
     
  16. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #16
    Picky, petty and insulting. You may respond how you wish. Dont you think that says something about one's heart and soul, that is if you believe in that kind of rubbish.

    That was schools plural as if you did'nt know.

    Definition of a "lie". Humm is kind of like what is the definition of "sex"
    Am I having a vision of Bill Clinton?
    If you dont know what a lie is I can see that the american education system has failed you in a significant way. Of course you know what a lie is you think you are being clever like Bill Clinton, and he is a very clever fellow without a doubt. I admit that was clever. Still not a valid sidesteping of the issue.
     
  17. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #17
    Chip that last one was'nt aimed at you, you seem to have the grace and decency not to be insulting.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    please explain to me what "did'nt" is a contraction of. you're the one going on about the public school system. i notice you had no comment about halliburton's record of school "repairs." if you're relying on faith, i'm relying on evidence.

    it was a valid question. it may surprise you to know that i do indeed know what a lie is, though your definition may be different than mine. you could say, "the NY times lies," and i could say either, "no they don't" or "every newspaper lies," and where would that leave us?

    a discussion cannot occur if the two parties are using different defintions of the same word. but i suspect you're (the contraction of "you" and "are") not here to have a discussion. methinks you're simply here to troll. am i wrong?
     
  19. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #19
    A lie is something that is not true.
    When the NTY says something like GWB advocates torture, well that is not true. Hence the NYT is telling a "lie". Perhaps that is to simplistic for you. I mean we could get into a "who's on first" discussion as well.
    I'm not claiming to be a perfect spell checker. In most forum arenas' a certain amount of latitude and courtesy is extended. It still is not a valid sidesteping of the point I was making. Is it really all that interesting to just have discussions with only people that agree with you? Why suggest that I'm just a troll? To somehow discount the point?
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    It's all about punctuation...

    I especially like this quote from the article posted:

    Oh, for a couple of commas! :D
     
  21. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    As the poster who brought it up, let me say that I don't care about your spelling skills. I just find it interesting that in the last few days new conservative posters, with different names, are making the same kind of unusual errors. That does smell like trolling to me, and that is something I do care about. If you're not posting under different names (a violation of this forum's rules,) then you have my apology for even bringing it up. I hope you are here for a real discussion of views and not to start flame wars. I would recommend the use of Safari and the spell check under the "Edit" pull down menu. It helps me catch my own spelling errors.
     
  22. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #22
    Excuss me Saddam was suppose to prove he destroyed them not destroy them in hiding. And if he gave them to someone else or hid them that most deffinitely is a just cause for war.

    As far as Bush rushing off to war I don't call wasting 12 months trying to get the French behind us as rushing. I call it a waste of time. It is not like we needed their 1/2 of one aircraft carrier that is their contribution to the UN military force.
     
  23. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #23
    I am not posting under any other name than Voltron. I guess the implication and the seriousness of the unsubstantiated accusation is more important than my actuall innocence or guilt.
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    le no duh. if that's the definition, then every single media outlet ever is a "liar", because they all print things that are factually untrue. often, upon discovery, they're retracted.

    is that the definition of lying you're going with? or does it have to do w/ editing? please define lying in such a way that proves the NYT lies and other outlets do not. i wish you luck.

    i need to see a link and a quote that the NTY (sic) said that.


    what's w/ the condescending attitude, anyway?

    no, i'm trying to address your point, starting w/ the "NYT lie" thing. you've gotten sidetracked on clinton, et. al.

    i ask if you're a troll because you're displaying troll-like behavior: spewing hateful generalizations, making fun of me, accusing me of things i'm not doing, avoiding an intelligenct, fact-based conversation, then claiming i'm avoiding the issue. if you can discuss things in a reasonable fashion, then bring it. somehow, i doubt you can.
     
  25. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #25
    Thanks yea I am new to safari as this ibook is my first mac.
     

Share This Page