Jump to content

Pres. Bush's Resignation Speech


cryingbluerain

Recommended Posts

ad hominem really sucks the life from a discussion.

And honestly I'm not taking any particular side here, regardless of my political views.

Just in general - if you think it applies to ya, then give it a rest.

Here's another clue - if someone asks not to be addressed outside of their specified screen name, that oughtta be respected.

Continuing after repeated requests not to = annoying.

Consciously trying to be annoying = asshole.

Also, don't resurrect old issues from other threads you may have with someone.

No I'm not a mod, but I play one on another forum, plus I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

So really folks, maintain some level of maturity.

That was funny. :D

But overall, you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ad hominem really sucks the life from a discussion.

And honestly I'm not taking any particular side here, regardless of my political views.

Just in general - if you think it applies to ya, then give it a rest.

Here's another clue - if someone asks not to be addressed outside of their specified screen name, that oughtta be respected.

Continuing after repeated requests not to = annoying.

Consciously trying to be annoying = asshole.

Also, don't resurrect old issues from other threads you may have with someone.

No I'm not a mod, but I play one on another forum, plus I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

So really folks, maintain some level of maturity.

Oh, alright. <_<:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was funny. :D

But overall, you're right.

oh, so now I'm funny.

If it was one of your left wing lib buddies you wouldn't be calling THEM funny, huh!

:lolo:

I keed, I keed.

glad to know I can goof across political lines :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets see how it works: it's fine to -

Curse, call people names, call them stupid, accuse people of being racist, talk so rank and obscene that it is disgusting, but then:

Somebody use's someone's signature and they get called out for it. Let's see how many clean up their mouths around here.

Yup, makes total sense....keep it clean until you had one too many and then bam! Go out in a blaze of shitslinging, insult as many nationalities as possible, and drag out some choice racist comments along the way....calling out the mods all the while.

Lather, rinse, get banned, repeat.

Tedium, thy name is Rick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, makes total sense....keep it clean until you had one too many and then bam! Go out in a blaze of shitslinging, insult as many nationalities as possible, and drag out some choice racist comments along the way....calling out the mods all the while.

Lather, rinse, get banned, repeat.

Teduim, thy name is Rick.

Hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets see how it works: it's fine to -

Curse, call people names, call them stupid, accuse people of being racist, talk so rank and obscene that it is disgusting, but then:

Somebody use's someone's signature and they get called out for it. Let's see how many clean up their mouths around here.

ad hominem

84946fb1e0c7531d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh darn, apparently I missed Type O's thoughtful response to my post addressing each of the points he asked about.

:coffee:

(The other posts have been most entertaining, though. Thanks, ladies. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh darn, apparently I missed Type O's thoughtful response to my post addressing each of the points he asked about.

:coffee:

(The other posts have been most entertaining, though. Thanks, ladies. :) )

No, around your post the thread was really coming apart - see my post.

And I meant that - it's hard to stay engaged in a topic when you gotta read a page or more of "yeah, well you're a blankity whatever", "No you are."

As for your post -

Believe it or not, I'm not a far-right fringe dweller.

But if I posted a bunch of radical right-wing propaganda website quotes and articles, would you take it very seriously?

The "Big Oil" article is just a rehash of "War for Oil."

Brain-damaged? C'mon.

Sure, it's all funny to poke at a guy who's not an articulate, smooth talker, but I really don't believe you actually think he's brain-damaged or retarded.

If you honestly believe that in your heart rather than just to make a point, I'd be honestly surprised.

You challenged if I had the BALLS to read a link? Wow.

No offense, but all that Carlisle group and PublicIntegrity.org stuff is all the worst kind of leftist conspiracy propaganda.

Yeah, I've read the Carlisle group stuff before.

There's rich people around the world that pull the strings? Who'dathunkit?

Just as many leftist rich guys pullin' strings too, that's hardly a right-wing monopoly.

That's all kinda what I meant when I made the "moveon.org" comment - quoting me stuff from ultra-liberal sites won't convince me of anything any more than right-wing propaganda would convince you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, around your post the thread was really coming apart - see my post.

And I meant that - it's hard to stay engaged in a topic when you gotta read a page or more of "yeah, well you're a blankity whatever", "No you are."

As for your post -

Believe it or not, I'm not a far-right fringe dweller.

But if I posted a bunch of radical right-wing propaganda website quotes and articles, would you take it very seriously?

The "Big Oil" article is just a rehash of "War for Oil."

Brain-damaged? C'mon.

Sure, it's all funny to poke at a guy who's not an articulate, smooth talker, but I really don't believe you actually think he's brain-damaged or retarded.

If you honestly believe that in your heart rather than just to make a point, I'd be honestly surprised.

You challenged if I had the BALLS to read a link? Wow.

No offense, but all that Carlisle group and PublicIntegrity.org stuff is all the worst kind of leftist conspiracy propaganda.

Yeah, I've read the Carlisle group stuff before.

There's rich people around the world that pull the strings? Who'dathunkit?

Just as many leftist rich guys pullin' strings too, that's hardly a right-wing monopoly.

That's all kinda what I meant when I made the "moveon.org" comment - quoting me stuff from ultra-liberal sites won't convince me of anything any more than right-wing propaganda would convince you.

Well, you're right about what happened to the thread. :blink:

I think you didn't bother to check the links. I took some pains to make sure they weren't "far left wing propaganda sources" or "ultra liberal."

Some of them are left wing or progressive, but that doesn't automatically make them propaganda, you know. And, come on, a Canadian newspaper? Stanford University? YouTube clips of Bush himself?

As you say, rich people getting together and pulling strings is hardly new - it's just, don't tell me it's all for some lofty cause, and I'm unpatriotic because I see if for what it is.

You also seem to be buying into the argument that liberal = bad. Then of course somehow, someone speaking the truth has been turned into them being a "liberal." Unfortunately we've had a couple of decades of right wing media whores all going "Oooooohhhhhh!!! Liberal, bad! Bad Bad Liberals!" That mentality has stopped too many people even bothering to think, any more.

And yes, I do honestly think George W. Bush is a brain damaged individual. It's not just that he's "not a smooth talker" - that's the understatement of the century! I've seen and heard clip after clip, hundreds of them, with him not being able to speak coherently at all. They're all over YouTube, Dave Letterman manages to unearth just about one a day, and if you've watched "Farenheit 911" you'd know that some real doozies have never seen the light of day in the main stream media.

Judging from his actions in the world, his moral dipstick is two drops short of bone dry (to quote my favorite TV show), as well, which tells me his mental and spiritual processes are short circuited somewhere.

But what I really care about is, he's been a disaster for this country. Wait until he's gone, even you'll see it, by way of comparison... how about we agree to meet here next summer and compare notes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As hard as Bush Rove might try to turn the tables on us--ALL 204,775,164 of us who think you've singlehandedly run our country into the ground-- the facts remain.... this isn't based on some media-centric propaganda.. the majority of us are smart people... smart enough to do our research and realize that the Bush administration is the one spewing their propaganda...

"Last year, 4th and 8th graders achieved the highest math scores on record," he said, referring to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. "Reading scores are on the rise."

NOPE.

Since it took effect, reading scores have barely budged among 4th graders and they have fallen among 8th graders. Math scores have risen, but not as rapidly as before. And in one international test, the Program for International Student Assessment, Americans' performance in math declined between 2003 and 2006. According to that test, says Andrew Coulson of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, "U.S. students have suffered overall stagnation or decline in math, reading and science in the years since NCLB was passed."

Bush claimed that because of the success of his strategy, "the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home." The next day, though, the White House let it out that not all of them are returning just yet—and that by the time Bush leaves office, the number of American troops in Iraq may still be higher than it was before the surge began.

He bragged that thanks to our help, hope is on the rise in Afghanistan. In fact, 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops and Afghan civilians since 2001. The Taliban has rebounded. One administration official recently told The Washington Post, "We're seeing definite expanded strongholds. That's not going to stop in 2008. ... If anything, it's gaining momentum." In Afghanistan, things are getting worse, not better.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124710.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you're right about what happened to the thread. :blink:

I think you didn't bother to check the links. I took some pains to make sure they weren't "far left wing propaganda sources" or "ultra liberal."

Some of them are left wing or progressive, but that doesn't automatically make them propaganda, you know. And, come on, a Canadian newspaper? Stanford University? YouTube clips of Bush himself?

A newspaper, yes - but it wasn't a news report - it was a column - big difference.

No serious news article by a media source trying to be even a little objective would use the phrase "Big Oil".

As you say, rich people getting together and pulling strings is hardly new - it's just, don't tell me it's all for some lofty cause, and I'm unpatriotic because I see if for what it is.

I didn't, on either count.

However, you see it the way you see it - I see it the way I see it.

That doesn't mean either one of us is right.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

You take from it based on your views, same with me.

We all have built-in filters, it's human nature.

You also seem to be buying into the argument that liberal = bad. Then of course somehow, someone speaking the truth has been turned into them being a "liberal."

It's not "liberal=bad" for me, it's simply "liberal=diametrically opposed to almost every value I believe in."

And as an American, I support that dissent from my own opinions.

And I'm no right-wing whacko, regardless what anyone here may read into my posts.

I'm very moderate, but I simply fall solidly on the conservative side of things most times.

I simply find way too many large gaps in the logic of liberal ideals and policies, if not outright contradictions. And I think it comes from trying to force idealistic theories into real world application. Basically a lot of "it looks good on paper..." -type stuff.

Unfortunately we've had a couple of decades of right wing media whores all going "Oooooohhhhhh!!! Liberal, bad! Bad Bad Liberals!" That mentality has stopped too many people even bothering to think, any more.

Tell me about these right-wing media whores.

Both sides keep saying the media favors the other side.

But seriously - other than Fox news that showed up in recent years, what are these other right-wing media whores?

CBS? ABC? NBC? CNN? MSNBC?

Every major city's print media is the same as well - NY & LA, Chicago, Atlanta, you name it - all well-established left wing machines.

Unless you're talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, which I don't consider "media" any more than I consider Howard Stern or Don Imus media.

That's Editorial Entertainment.

I would challenge anyone to show any of the mainstream "true" media sources such as mentioned above - other than Fox, which is very new in terms of longevity - that aren't decidedly left wing.

And yes, I do honestly think George W. Bush is a brain damaged individual. It's not just that he's "not a smooth talker" - that's the understatement of the century! I've seen and heard clip after clip, hundreds of them, with him not being able to speak coherently at all. They're all over YouTube, Dave Letterman manages to unearth just about one a day, and if you've watched "Farenheit 911" you'd know that some real doozies have never seen the light of day in the main stream media.

OK, I give - he's brain-damaged.

What's that say about the last 2 democratic challengers?

They couldn't beat a brain-damaged retard who can't even speak?

Dave Letterman and Michael Moore mean no more to me than Limbaugh and Hannity mean to you.

But what I really care about is, he's been a disaster for this country. Wait until he's gone, even you'll see it, by way of comparison... how about we agree to meet here next summer and compare notes?

It's a date.

But the true test is history.

All this is just like the stuff that was said about Reagan.

No matter everyone's hatred of Bush, he is nowhere near the worst President.

He's not even in the bottom half.

Within 10-20 years history will prove it.

He's certainly one of the most disliked, but what has that got to do with anything?

The bottom line is he followed what was considered the best course regardless of polls or popularity. No other President in history, not even Clinton, has faced the multimedia onslaught that Bush has.

Farenheit 911, An Inconvenient Truth, Letterman, Olbermann, the list goes on.

Never before have former Presidents and Vice-Presidents spoken out in such self- and party-serving tirades.

And don't say Bush brought it on himself.

Carter truly was one of the worst, most ineffective and "in over his head" Presidents in our history.

Hell, Nixon was a much better President despite that whole "criminal" thing. :lolo:

He was pretty effective in the job, he just turned out to be ruthless.

But you NEVER heard a cross word from any former President about them because you just didn't do that shit.

But not any more.

Now, anything goes for the greater good of the party.

And I DO think that's unpatriotic.

But I never said YOU were unpatriotic for your views.

But I'll repeat what I've said before -

if Bush is such a criminal, and broken so many laws, where's the grand juries?

The Democrats control congress, so it's not like they don't have the ability.

If he's everything they all say he is, impeach his ass and put him on trial and prove it.

Hell, he's a brain-damaged retard - shouldn't be very hard to prove all the charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be the best military mind, but does he knows all the facts, thats the question. and i think the reason he disagrees with Bush, is the fact we could've send more firepower over there to begin with.

Schwarzkopf said from DAY 1 there was no political or military gain for invading Iraq. It would ultimately become a quagmire and cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars. Why would we overthrow a fumbling dictator who could barely control his own people? Because of what was under the ground? Hmmm..smells like..victory for me.

But you keep slinging your Bill O'Reilly quotes and your Fox News balony. If you were a true Republican, you'd know better. But Fox News isn't a Republican channel so you must be one of those conservative junkies, out to prove you wave the flag harder than your liberal neighbor. Someone who wants to believe in a checklist of "supposed" ways to live life. Fuck the lot. Bring on Indifference! You're no better than any bleeding heart liberal. Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A newspaper, yes - but it wasn't a news report - it was a column - big difference.

No serious news article by a media source trying to be even a little objective would use the phrase "Big Oil".

I also said check out other news reports. Anyway, you think it's "itty bitty oil?" Seriously?

"February 1 2008: 2:26 PM ESTNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation...."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/compa...exxon_earnings/

And that was before the huge run up in prices that's taken place since...

Big Oil about sums it up, don't you think?

It's not "liberal=bad" for me, it's simply "liberal=diametrically opposed to almost every value I believe in."

And as an American, I support that dissent from my own opinions.

And I'm no right-wing whacko, regardless what anyone here may read into my posts.

I'm very moderate, but I simply fall solidly on the conservative side of things most times.

I simply find way too many large gaps in the logic of liberal ideals and policies, if not outright contradictions. And I think it comes from trying to force idealistic theories into real world application. Basically a lot of "it looks good on paper..." -type stuff.

Um, I'm giving you facts and you say "it looks good on paper." Sorry, makes no sense to me. But not surprising, since I've found that conservatives often argue that way... say something specific, they go to the generalization, and vice-versa. Never the twain shall meet, and rarely will they answer a direct question.

Tell me again when Iraq committed an act of war against the US, won't you?

Tell me about these right-wing media whores.

Both sides keep saying the media favors the other side.

But seriously - other than Fox news that showed up in recent years, what are these other right-wing media whores?

CBS? ABC? NBC? CNN? MSNBC?

Every major city's print media is the same as well - NY & LA, Chicago, Atlanta, you name it - all well-established left wing machines.

Unless you're talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, which I don't consider "media" any more than I consider Howard Stern or Don Imus media.

That's Editorial Entertainment.

I would challenge anyone to show any of the mainstream "true" media sources such as mentioned above - other than Fox, which is very new in terms of longevity - that aren't decidedly left wing.

"Editorial Entertainment?" Yeah, that's what in other times and places is known as propaganda.

Some print media still has a liberal bent, that's true.

The only network in that list I don't consider to be right-wing is CBS. Bet you didn't expect that one. But you must understand, I grew up in the 1960s. I don't think there's been a true liberal or left wing voice out there since Reagan was elected. And radical? Fergedaboutit... What isn't actively right wing is given over to the military-industrial complex or plain old soul-deadening consumerism.

Far as I'm concerned, it was all over when GE, defense contractor and third largest company in the world, bought NBC. (I suppose you wouldn't call them a Big Company, either?)

(Oddly enough, although Fox news is as right wing as they come, Fox TV has some of the most radical characters on it, including actual scientists and atheists, like Dr. Brennan on "Bones," the inimitable Dr. House, and let's not forget that granddaddy of all supernatural vs. sciencitific slug fests, "The X-Files.")

OK, I give - he's brain-damaged.

What's that say about the last 2 democratic challengers?

They couldn't beat a brain-damaged retard who can't even speak?

Dave Letterman and Michael Moore mean no more to me than Limbaugh and Hannity mean to you.

I guess you missed the part where the election was stolen in Florida in 2000, and Ohio in 2004, huh? Some numbers for you (the popular vote):

2000:

Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38%

George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87%

2004:

Bush: 62,039,073

Kerry: 59,027,478 (the biggest totals ever for a Democrat, at least until this year I'd wager; interesting, huh?)

Plus, look around you... even in the midst of the shit pile mess we find ourselves in, there are still folks who think George Bush is an intelligent world leader. Good lord! I literally couldn't believe it when he "won" in 2004, it made me despair for the level of American intelligence... until I read some stories about Diebold in Ohio.

It's a date.

But the true test is history.

All this is just like the stuff that was said about Reagan.

No matter everyone's hatred of Bush, he is nowhere near the worst President.

He's not even in the bottom half.

Within 10-20 years history will prove it.

He's certainly one of the most disliked, but what has that got to do with anything?

The bottom line is he followed what was considered the best course regardless of polls or popularity. No other President in history, not even Clinton, has faced the multimedia onslaught that Bush has.

Farenheit 911, An Inconvenient Truth, Letterman, Olbermann, the list goes on.

Never before have former Presidents and Vice-Presidents spoken out in such self- and party-serving tirades.

And don't say Bush brought it on himself.

Carter truly was one of the worst, most ineffective and "in over his head" Presidents in our history.

Hell, Nixon was a much better President despite that whole "criminal" thing. :lolo:

He was pretty effective in the job, he just turned out to be ruthless.

But you NEVER heard a cross word from any former President about them because you just didn't do that shit.

But not any more.

Now, anything goes for the greater good of the party.

And I DO think that's unpatriotic.

But I never said YOU were unpatriotic for your views.

But I'll repeat what I've said before -

if Bush is such a criminal, and broken so many laws, where's the grand juries?

The Democrats control congress, so it's not like they don't have the ability.

If he's everything they all say he is, impeach his ass and put him on trial and prove it.

Hell, he's a brain-damaged retard - shouldn't be very hard to prove all the charges.

I bet you've never actually seen an entire Michael Moore show or movie, have you? Be honest, now. Letterman meanwhile is mostly about entertainment, too... I think he just got to the same point as so many of us, he couldn't believe what he was seeing and hearing. Trust me, he lets Bush speak for himself (if you can call it speaking...)

Unfortunately, no, Democrats don't control Congress, they don't have the numbers... yet. Let's see what happens after 01/20/09.

Also, possibly you mis-read me... I don't think the Democrats are all that much better than the Republicans, to be honest. At least they have a clue about the environment, and they don't think women are incubators on legs, so, as long as we remain stuck in this stupid two-party system, I reluctantly prefer them to the "Leave No Child a Dime" crowd.

Meet you here next year at this time. (And don't be surprised if in ten years you know in painful detail exactly how bad BushCo really has been.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Oil about sums it up, don't you think?

I never debated whether it's an effective description.

My point is that it's a derogatory description used by biased sources.

You don't hear Charles Gibson or Katie Couric using the phrase - because they have to maintain a semblance of objectivity.

The minute the phrase is used, the bias is revealed.

Tell me again when Iraq committed an act of war against the US, won't you?

We're not at war AGAINST Iraq.

No more than we were at war with the many countries other wars ended up in.

But Iraq is where the fight has led us.

We are enforcing the sanctions the UN placed on Saddam, and now that he's gone and we try to stabilize Iraq, other parties have become involved.

Simplification of a complex issue in order to make a provable point is weak.

"Editorial Entertainment?" Yeah, that's what in other times and places is known as propaganda.

Call it what you want, as long as you don't call it media.

It's news commentary.

But you want to call it media and then use that to say the media is right-wing biased.

Sorry, bullshit.

Some print media still has a liberal bent, that's true.

The only network in that list I don't consider to be right-wing is CBS. Bet you didn't expect that one. But you must understand, I grew up in the 1960s. I don't think there's been a true liberal or left wing voice out there since Reagan was elected. And radical? Fergedaboutit... What isn't actively right wing is given over to the military-industrial complex or plain old soul-deadening consumerism.

OK, so what I call left-wing/liberal, you call middle-to-right wing.

With that kind of grade curve, then what you call liberal/left-wing, I'd have to call socialist/Marxist.

Everyone isn't as radical as you.

CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are all blatantly liberal.

Fox NEWS is blatantly conservative.

But no farther from center than the others.

I guess you missed the part where the election was stolen in Florida in 2000, and Ohio in 2004, huh? Some numbers for you (the popular vote):

2000:

Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38%

George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87%

2004:

Bush: 62,039,073

Kerry: 59,027,478 (the biggest totals ever for a Democrat, at least until this year I'd wager; interesting, huh?)

Sorry, but I'm one of the few Americans who actually remember things that happened rather than relying on media accounts.

And in 2000, because the democrats actually anticipated the exact opposite of what really happened, they went to great pains to explain to the public (on the evening news, even - how's THAT for interesting?) how Gore could possibly get less popular votes than Bush, but because our country uses that electoral college thing, Gore would win having the majority of electoral votes.

Yeah, I remember all that.

But lo and behold, it didn't work that way - Bush actually had the lower popular vote and more electoral votes - the exact opposite of what the dems predicted, and suddenly the chant began - "POPULAR VOTE, POPULAR VOTE!"

Here's another one, since you wanna go to Florida -

Bush used the courts to steal Florida and the election!

Oops, but what most don't remember is GORE is the one who first filed in court, getting the courts involved.

It just ended up going Bush's way.

My favorite - that confusing butterfly ballot -

all those poor old democrat senior citizens in Palm Beach couldn't figure out the ballot.

The same senior citizens who can play a dozen Bingo cards at one time had trouble reading a ballot.

Sure they did.

I bet you've never actually seen an entire Michael Moore show or movie, have you? Be honest, now.

Unfortunately, no, Democrats don't control Congress, they don't have the numbers... yet. Let's see what happens after 01/20/09.

I usually end up nauseous from Michael Moore's blatant bias.

Why would I need to see an entire movie of his?

Does the blatant bias ever change?

I don't have to watch an actual snuff movie to know it's something I don't care for.

Same with Michael Moore.

He's a piece of shit.

And I have seen enough of his crap to state that with complete confidence.

Democrats don't control congress?

Then why is Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House?

Why is Harry Ried the Senate Majority leader?

Democrats are the majority in the Senate AND the House.

I'd have to say that is in "control."

Next year it is, SunChild. :P

I'm not into astrology, but your name just made me remember that I'm a Cancer, also referred to as Moon Child.

No wonder we're so opposite! :lolo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No serious news article by a media source trying to be even a little objective would use the phrase "Big Oil".

:rolleyes:

"Big Oil" is a phrase that has legitimate (and widely understood and accepted) meaning in the public discourse on energy issues.. and as such its use as a phrase in news reporting is not necessarily an indication of bias.

------------------

McCain's call for offshore oil drilling won't bring relief soon

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as John McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.

That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group. Major environmental groups think the increased supply would be at least that distant before arrival, and say it mostly would benefit Big Oil.

"It would take a decade to bring new leases into production, and then they would only line the coffers of the oil industry," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director.

[/snip]

*source: McClatchy Newspapers*

------------------

Would you suggest that McClatchy is not an objective news

source that offers "serious" reporting on the issues, TypeO? :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never debated whether it's an effective description.

My point is that it's a derogatory description used by biased sources.

You don't hear Charles Gibson or Katie Couric using the phrase - because they have to maintain a semblance of objectivity.

The minute the phrase is used, the bias is revealed.

I find that really fascinating. Why is it derogatory? What "bias?" They are big companies, making big money.

I'll take a stab at why you instinctively know the accurate description "Big Oil" is derogatory: because it is known that these companies do big damage to the environment as well as big harm to political stability around the globe. This, so they can make billions of dollars, while all around the world, most human beings live in poverty.

I'm sure however you will continue to be upset to see them described as exactly what they are. (I'd venture a guess you own stock.)

We're not at war AGAINST Iraq.

Tell it to Ali Ismaeel Abbas, who lost both his arms at the shoulder and was badly burned. His family - brother, father and five months pregnant mother, and seven others - were killed when the US bombed his house at the start of our "action." He was in shock then, and I suspect he'd be way past awe to be told we are not at war with his country.

Had not the English media rallied around his story, he'd probably have died, like the over 93,000 Iraqi civilians and "4,118 Americans, two Australians, one Azerbaijani, 176 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, five Georgians, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in [the war] in Iraq as of July 14, 2008" who have died since we didn't start a war there. All courtesy of the "Culture of Life."

(http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

Oh, bullshit - George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield, among others, CHOSE to wage war against Iraq. And they lied about the reasons it was necessary. The true reason was announced years after Saddam Hussien was dead and buried and long past needing to be "sanctioned:" Big Oil is back in business in the oil fields of Persia... and now even Bush is talking about an "accelerated" (sic) time table for withdrawing. (It'd be funny if it weren't heart breaking.)

Coincidence? Sure, if you're a conservative.

Sorry, I've got to leave it there. It's clear you are living in a different reality than I am, and no rational discussion will be possible. You've even already forgotten Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush, and their roles in giving Jeb's brother the presidency.

See you here next year, MoonChild :) In the meantime, I found an absolutely radical left wing opinion piece on SF Gate... I love it! Someone unafraid to speak out, allowed to publish in a main stream media outlet! (Media = radio, TV, film, magazines, newspapers, internet.)

He writes about how the tide is turning:

Totally Gay Happy Meals

It is the end of the nutball Christian right. Here is your proof. To go.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...notes071108.DTL

:rolleyes:

"Big Oil" is a phrase that has legitimate (and widely understood and accepted) meaning in the public discourse on energy issues.. and as such its use as a phrase in news reporting is not necessarily an indication of bias.

------------------

McCain's call for offshore oil drilling won't bring relief soon

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as John McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.

That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group. Major environmental groups think the increased supply would be at least that distant before arrival, and say it mostly would benefit Big Oil.

"It would take a decade to bring new leases into production, and then they would only line the coffers of the oil industry," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director.

[/snip]

*source: McClatchy Newspapers*

------------------

Would you suggest that McClatchy is not an objective news

source that offers "serious" reporting on the issues, TypeO? :whistling:

He probably will now. Repeatedly saying such things is exactly how the right wing media has been moving anything left of Attila the Hun into the "communist" category for a couple of decades now.

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you suggest that McClatchy is not an objective news

source that offers "serious" reporting on the issues, TypeO? :whistling:

Serious news, sure.

Objective? About as objective as the NY Times, LA Times or Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

McCain's call for offshore oil drilling won't bring relief soon

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as John McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.

That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group. Major environmental groups think the increased supply would be at least that distant before arrival, and say it mostly would benefit Big Oil.

"It would take a decade to bring new leases into production, and then they would only line the coffers of the oil industry," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director.

Guess what?

The old "7 to 10 years" response was the liberal argument - this is great! - over 10 years ago and more when we tried to do the same thing.

Now it's 10 years later, and you're still trying to block it with the same rationale.

I wonder - if we hadn't been defeated by the left-wing anti-Big Oil lobbies back then - and the oil was flowing now, would we be paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas right now?

Logic says no.

Common sense says "Hell to the NO"

Chalk up another win for liberalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure however you will continue to be upset to see them described as exactly what they are. (I'd venture a guess you own stock.)

yeah, God forbid I own stock and try to take care of myself and my family.

What the hell do I think the government's for?

These fuggin' Americans and their God-awful capitalism and free-enterprise.

Buncha fuggin' show-offs.

Why don't they back of and stop tryin' to show everyone else up?

He writes about how the tide is turning:

And yes, thank GOD (no pun intended) these fuckin' church-attending assholes will be HISTORY.

Get rid of ALL of 'em!

You'd think this country was founded by religious people. Jeez.

Good fuggin' riddance.

Because every single religious person I know tries to drag me out of my bed and into church with them every time I turn around.

It might be different if some of them just stayed in their house to pray, or at least didn't get all dressed up when they go to church to show off that's where they're going.

Pricks.

It's funny how so often the people who demand the most tolerance FROM others have the least FOR others.

I've almost forgotten - is this the thread where everyone embraces majority rule, and how we need to drop the electoral college?

It's getting hard to keep up :lolo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious news, sure.

Objective? About as objective as the NY Times, LA Times or Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

:lol:

Yeah,.. Ok. :rolleyes:

Guess what?

The old "7 to 10 years" response was the liberal argument - this is great! - over 10 years ago and more when we tried to do the same thing.

Now it's 10 years later, and you're still trying to block it with the same rationale.

I wonder - if we hadn't been defeated by the left-wing anti-Big Oil lobbies back then - and the oil was flowing now, would we be paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas right now?

Logic says no.

Common sense says "Hell to the NO"

Chalk up another win for liberalism.

Guess what?

You're not seeing the forest for the trees, muh-man.

The future (and our national and economic security) lies not in "more oil", the future

(and our national and economic security) lies in "getting away from dependence on oil".

Hell-Ohhhh! :wave:

If Al Gore hadn't been un-elected by the Supreme Court, America would

currently be 8 years closer to being oil independent than we are today.

Has 8 years of republican rule moved us the least bit toward energy independence?

Logic says: no, of course not.

Common sense says: :rant:

But here we are 8 years later; its crystal clear that oil is a dead end; the economy is "in the tank" (pun intended) while Big Oil is raking in obscene profits; we're no further along toward energy independence; and yet you oil hounds are still barking out the same old "gotta drill more, gotta drill more!" solves-nothing-but-sure-makes-the-oil-execs-rich drivel. :rolleyes:

Chalk up another "win" for myopic, greed-driven conservatism. <_<

Come November though, liberals will be chalking up a win, muh-man. B)

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious news, sure.

Objective? About as objective as the NY Times, LA Times or Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

You mean the Atlanta Journal-Constipation? It's not fit to line a parakeet's cage, much less read. All the years we lived in Atlanta, we never read that paper once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Yeah,.. Ok. :rolleyes:

Guess what?

You're not seeing the forest for the trees, muh-man.

The future (and our national and economic security) lies not in "more oil", the future

(and our national and economic security) lies in "getting away from dependence on oil".

Hell-Ohhhh! :wave:

If Al Gore hadn't been un-elected by the Supreme Court, America would

currently be 8 years closer to being oil independent than we are today.

Has 8 years of republican rule moved us the least bit toward energy independence?

Logic says: no, of course not.

Common sense says: :rant:

But here we are 8 years later; its crystal clear that oil is a dead end; the economy is "in the tank" (pun intended) while Big Oil is raking in obscene profits; we're no further along toward energy independence; and yet you oil hounds are still barking out the same old "gotta drill more, gotta drill more!" solves-nothing-but-sure-makes-the-oil-execs-rich drivel. :rolleyes:

Chalk up another "win" for myopic, greed-driven conservatism. <_<

Come November though, liberals will be chalking up a win, muh-man. B)

:beer:

sorry guys, but you're a little too old for Fantasyland rides.

Gore lost, nothing was STOLEN - he took his chances by taking it to court, which never should have happened in the first place.

Again you're stripping away context - helll-ooohhh.

If you check my previous posts, it's not drilling JUST for more oil, it's to ease pressure WHILE PURSUING alternate sources/better technology (ie, better mileage standards).

Uh, and that would include NUCLEAR POWER, but we can't see the forest for the TREE HUGGERS who are intent on bringing our country down, have us all riding bikes like China, maybe even work out a nice uniform for us all to wear - that would look pretty jazzy.

8 years of republican rule has been spent recovering from the worst attack in our nation's history, including it's effects on the economy, travel, security, etc.

A plan that was formulated, put into place, set up, practiced and totally prepared for under 8 years of Democratic rule.

Also spent trying to straighten out an economy almost destroyed by cheating corporations that FLOURISHED under Clinton - hey, it's the economy stupid, no sense making sure they're legit, our numbers are UP bay-beeeee.

ENRON crashed and burned in Bush's first few months of office, the rest followed.

Their crashes were the final spasm of years of cheating and mismanagement under Clinton's wandering watchful eye.

Quit drinking all that "Lost the 2000 election" haterade2.gif.

Drinking that stuff is bad for your health and makes your breath stink.

The stink of Obama desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Al Gore hadn't been un-elected by the Supreme Court, America would

currently be 8 years closer to being oil independent than we are today.

Did 8 years of Clinton/Gore rule move us the least bit toward energy independence?

Abso-fuggin'-lutely NOT.

How hilarious is it that for 8 years Al Gore had no influence, took no measures to steer us towards that same energy independence, NOR did he do anything much about Global Warming.

But he's sure found a cash cow in it NOW, though, hasn't he?

Suddenly he's the global warming Poster boy, except for his own personal "Inconvenient Truth" - he doesn't practice what he profits from preaches.

His home uses enough energy to power a third-world nation, and he keeps hopping around on private jets and limos.

Plus he sure is fat.

No wonder he feels so warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did 8 years of Clinton/Gore rule move us the least bit toward energy independence?

i think you are "conveniently" ignoring the fact that republicans controlled congress during that time...didn't they determine what legislation was brought to the table???...thanks for bringing it up... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...