myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54 ... 117, 118, 119  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2344

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
...but he did recently travel to the UK for Margaret Thacher's funeral, so I think your point is only wishful thinking. Overall, it's a given that Cheney will effectively escape any real responsibility for what he did in office. While he certainly deserves to be raked over the coals for his crimes, it will never happen.

Aww, that's too bad. Several countries said they'd try him for war crimes. I've often thought it would be good to give him a one-way ticket to one of those countries.

I think the heartless prick should give that heart to someone who deserves it.

Yes, you're right -- wishful thinking. And his real judgement will come from a higher power than us mortals. Winddoggie got it: karma.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4648

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pueno and Baja--I have had the good, and sometimes bad, fortune to work with dozens of elected officials over the years. I have worked with some who were stunning in their intelligence, and others so stupid I wondered whether they could walk to the corner, and how they got elected. But the truly stupid ones wouldn't do what Bush eventually did with Cheney--realize he was dangerous and replace him with better advisors.

What I find depressing is the personal nature of the attacks on Obama--and their claim that there is no racism involved. In some cases, eg. mrgybe, they accuse of Obama being unable to lead--while dismissing all evidence to the contrary, most particularly the healthcare act. Others are vague, and seem to find Obama lacking in integrity--but have ignored the rather more startling lack of integrity in previous politicians.

One thing that most elected officials share is narcissism. The most narcissistic person I have ever met is Jerry Brown, who when briefed on a public health issue while Mayor, responded "What's in it for me?" Not what might this cost, can we actually do something, who else might be involved--but what's in it for me. Yet he has, by most accounts, been a marvelous and effective governor. Clinton was charismatic and narcissistic--but I never trusted him after he caved in on gays in the military. He really did nothing that he didn't poll first, and showed that he wouldn't draw the line with a view to history. If he had issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against gays in the military, and been overruled by Congress, he would have acted on principle. Serial philanderer, like many politicians and narcissists. Yet it is hard to deny that he was an effective President, and I agree with much that he accomplished.

Those close to Obama describe him as much more committed to the long haul, and much more willing to expend political capital on issues that he considers ethical imperatives. Many of the conservatives here, and in the talking head seats, try to focus on small incidents which are identical to virtually all politicians approach. Others won't tell you what their metrics are--because they know that some--perhaps us--will show them to be incorrect. Ways to feel superior without really thinkking. But no racism involved--as they post references to racist pictures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 651
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Boston bombing suspect and fugitive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a “normal pot head” who supported President Obama for re-election last November, according to friends and his Twitter account.

Chris Barry, who attended the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth with Tsarnaev, described him as normal teenager who loved to smoke pot and cigarettes every day.

“He was a pot head, a normal pot head,” said Barry in an interview with Politico. “I couldn’t even imagine him being mad at someone let alone hurting someone.”

And Obama is better? Just look at his supporters...


The mastermind religious terrorist who is a righty at heart and by his actions was against pot smoking like the right wing finatics.

and as I said I think you have something about being right wing and smoking and supporting cigarette companies. It does seem to be pushed by the right wing like it is a first amendment right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580555/friends-of-bombing-suspects-describe-two-very-different-men/
Quote:
Dzokhar didn't talk about religion either, but Francis Barry, whose roommate was good friend's with Dzokhar, told CBS News that Dzokhar said his older brother didn't like the fact that he smoked weed, because his older brother was very religious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 651
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac thanks for the info.

I am not quit certain he was able to pull brain cells from the 40 year drunken binge out of a hat. He never had then as a child at any place he was and had failure after failure and lived off his family name all the way.

So if you are trying to convince me he was somehow enlightened at the end I do not buy it. For one, as Paul O'Neil stated in his book, Bush set the stage to find a way to go after Saddam from the first month in his cabinet meetings. And he did it. He had his idiots lie up the information for his deniability, that was his directive within a month of being sworn in. It is easy to be a liar and con man, it does not take any brains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2344

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bajaDean wrote:
...Bush set the stage to find a way to go after Saddam from the first month in his cabinet meetings. And he did it. He had his idiots lie up the information for his deniability, that was his directive within a month of being sworn in...

It was the convergence of two parallel goals set by different agencies. On the one hand, Bush wanted to "get Saddam." On the other hand, the neo-cons needed something "like another Pearl Harbor" in order to advance their agenda of weapons and war.

Enter Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, et al.

In their crosshairs: Saddam by whatever means possible.

It was executed by neo-President Cheney, who manipulated and pulled strings of puppet-President Bush.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 651
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:24 pm    Post subject: gotcha moment... Reply with quote

this is a gotcha moment..... here we have it in print, they rich are buying more media from other right wingers so they can shove their ideology down our throats.

Oh but right wingers say ownership is just for money they do not care about the control of the message.... gotcha.... Oh that it is not the owner who dictates what is in the paper/media... you friggen liars are caught right handed in your BIG LIES....

again the largest media owner in the US is right winger partisan Ruppy murdoch with the most partisan media in the history of the USA. Plus the only media owner I have ever heard of with so many crimes committed by the media? whats up with that the media is a criminal organization. What right wingers support criminal enterprises.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/business/media/koch-brothers-making-play-for-tribunes-newspapers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130421&_r=0

Quote:
Three years ago, Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists and supporters of libertarian causes, held a seminar of like-minded, wealthy political donors at the St. Regis Resort in Aspen, Colo.
....

Other than financing a few fringe libertarian publications, the Kochs have mostly avoided media investments. Now, Koch Industries, the sprawling private company of which Charles G. Koch serves as chairman and chief executive, is exploring a bid to buy the Tribune Company’s eight regional newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant.

....

Guests at the Aspen seminar included Philip F. Anschutz, the Republican oil mogul who owns the companies that publish The Washington Examiner, The Oklahoman and The Weekly Standard, and the hedge fund executive Paul E. Singer, who sits on the board of the political magazine Commentary. Attendees were asked not to discuss details about the seminar with the press.

A person who has attended other Koch Industries seminars, which have taken place since 2003, says Charles and David Koch have never said they want to take over newspapers or other large media outlets, but they often say “they see the conservative voice as not being well represented.” The Kochs plan to host another conference at the end of the month, in Palm Springs, Calif.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slinky



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 395
Location: Old Saybrook Ct.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We might also ask ourselves how free our supposed free press is. Unpopular oppinions do not get published,often because that would offend the masses, which in turn would have a negative impact on the bottom line of any company who choses to publish such oppinions.

In short, our so called "free press "is only as free as company profit will allow. It's all about money, power and control. We do not get fair and balanced anything!

Big business does have a sort of mafia like mentality when it comes to protecting it's profits.

Viewing the world through the prism of corporate media is like putting on a rose colored pair of sunglasses , and then viewing a painting with multicolored hues. Everything will look like roses, but it is not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3015

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually the press is all about money.
Fox sells a product to conservatives. Msnbc sells a product to liberals.
If everyone in America goes liberal then Fox will go far left before your eyes.
So will Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, and all the other media whores.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5435

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"If everyone in America goes liberal then Fox will go far left before your eyes.
So will Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, and all the other media whores."


I don't know keycocker. While I would tend to agree that Fox News could become more liberal, folks like Limbaugh, Beck and Savage are too far down the road to ever come back. Even though these characters are entertainers of sorts, they exclusively cater to the interests of the extreme right. Any significant movement to the left would be total hypocrisy, and it would result in a complete loss of credibility.

The only high profile person that I can recollect that made a successful shift from right to left was Arianna Huffington.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13267

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slinky wrote:
We might also ask ourselves how free our supposed free press is. Unpopular oppinions do not get published,often because that would offend the masses, which in turn would have a negative impact on the bottom line of any company who choses to publish such oppinions.

I "discovered" Fox News when I moved to Washington and got cable in 1999. I'm still impressed how well they present both sides of most debates, and how lopsided the "news" and analysis remains everywhere else. Fox-haters have no clue how quick they are to criticize or commend either or both parties as appropriate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54 ... 117, 118, 119  Next
Page 53 of 119

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group