What do you think of George W. Bush?

Post Reply New Topic

Does that mean it isn't true then? sounds like 'facts straight' from where I'm sitting. since the author was actually there... it is either happened or it didn't, am I right?
Sounds like your doggedly held opinions being questioned, rather than cast iron facts Epimonandas... conservative media never distort the truth do they?

And 'to the left' means 'to the centre' really, as socialists occupy the left, which the American political/mass media arena lacks as a real force - politically Britain is going the same way unfortunately.... The red of Labour is now watered down to a pale designer pink.

Dunc

No, he means to the left. Maybe not in terms of economic issues, but it still has a very noticeable liberal bias on social issues.

Which would be to the centre... liberal = tolerant/progressive in social terms, as opposed to moralising or authoritarian. I suspect genuinely radical social views which are the hallmark of the left don't get much of an airing.

Incidentally, as this is a political issue not a social one in question, I think my point was pretty valid.

Dunc

Yeah, I saw that. I guess supposedly we had it set up, we did have a ban, but it was on their places but not their helecopters (which they ended up getting arround just by using the helicopters instead). I'd love to know who was behind that 'only helicopters' exception though; whether it was our government's decision or our coalition twisting our arm.

[quote="duncvis]Sounds like your doggedly held opinions being questioned, rather than cast iron facts Epimonandas... conservative media never distort the truth do they?

Dunc[/quote]

Neither do the Left media do they? (I'm being sarcastic of course).

No, I don't think that Bush thing is true. I just meant it mattered less because I WAS left for his administration and I still did not disagree with the Iraq attack. I don't think the Post is that truthful especially back then as I've they have gotten a little less left only recently.

And the get the facts straight quote just meant I thought that stuff was pure bull.

The Left gets too much here, as they control most of the media.

thats what they would say on fox news.

do you think the ceo's of most corporations vote democrat epimonandas?

because as far as i can see. the person who owns a media outlet is the person most likely to have control over that outlet.

how many american papers actively opposed iraq war II. the "liberal" new york times was all for it wasnt it? that guy (i forget his name) who was clintons foreign policy chief stated his reasons for supporting the war as "the hidden hand of the market sometimes needs the hidden fist".

friedman is his name. he wanted to force private i.e american ownership of iraqs economy. he can come out and say it, bush cant. no right minded indivdual is going to support that war so they have to drum up reasons for it like WMD and democracy.

its a complete crock of s**t in all honesty

Oh, please.

Have you ever hear of Fox News? They're really 'fair and balanced'. At least Fox News FINALLY gives a voice to middle-class/wealthy, white, Christian males!

Personally I at least have to agree with Ep that the left does have a grip on the media (especially CNN, NBC, NPR, L.A. Times, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.). That's not to say that they throw an immense ammount of smoke at things, but its enough to where a lot of the positves that the right achieve get very much under-aired, anything they do wrong is all over headlines, whereas on the left you can have guys like Sandy Burger shoving top-secret papers down his pants and it's only..ehh...kinda important if it has to be.

One of the things that really got me feeling thet FOX News had a grain of truth which the others didn't was just how spazzed out the liberal media got over one runt upstart station (minescule in comparison with the other networks). If the major networks are so on point, why even worry about some little right-leaning network like FOX News? Why would they matter? Why would they spaz about Rupert Murdock owning 2% of the media when there are people out there who own much more? To me it only seems logical that there's only one reason why a station like FOX wold be so controversal and to where college professors would be citing it next to smut and tabloid magazines as an invalid source for reports. Maybe there is a better reason, but for the life of me I just can't come up with it.

oooohhhh. One station. What about Washington Post, NY Times, Time Magazine, most media in general, CBS, CNN, ABC, even NBC sometimes are not exactly wholeheartedly in favor of the right.

Fox is relatively new, and at least they often show both sides of any view, unlike other networks, mainly CBS.

Car, honestly, I don't know where you get these bizarre ideas. Besides, Fox is owned by a foreigner, an Austrailian named Rupert Murdoch.

which of those organizations opposed the iraq war?

now our country has more enemies then allies. impeach tex

Hey Chris, I voted he was doing a bad job, but I was a little torn as to how to answer.

Here is why:

What is happening now is like a healing crisis.. it looks bad feels bad and in some ways what he is doing is bad, and yet, what is happening is for us to all wake up and finally say "Hey, everybody! the Emperor* has no clothes!"

*The emperor in this case being our crummy, pitiful, disgusting management of society in the "pretend disguise" of helping everyone.

Truth is, the scandals have always been in the open, but we have been instructed to believe that it being covered up. But when the burden gets too galling (thanks to men like GW) people will just say, "Enough is enough! We are done pretending we don't know you are taking away our freedom!"

LOL

So that's what I think.

Why don't you say what you really feel - no need to bottle it all up.....

Note: Please refrain from insulting members of the forum, regardless of the validity of your assertions.

You guys seem to be taking this way too seriously. It no longer matters whether you like him or not, because he is there. And when other nations' media and public continue bashing America, it will only alienate more Americans from them and perhaps make another Bush ever more likely. Perhaps you should stop adding fuel to the fire, so to speak, and take it easy. The only thing to do now, no matter your side, is to hope that it works out in the end. At least there were elections and millions braved life threatening situations to vote anyway. If there had not been a 9/11, the U.S. might not ever have gone in this direction in the first place. Judging by the past, the U.S. would prefer to be isolationist if it could, but that only led to another 60 million or so deaths the last time the U.S. tried to stay out of world politics.