Text 13276, 167 rader
Skriven 2008-03-20 17:12:53 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
RW> I'm still looking for a reason to believe it...The person who would have
RW> been able to prove it is dead. He didn't testify to it before he died.
RW> And the person who provided the papers is known as a kook making his
RW> word worthless.
 
Doesn't help that Bush's military records for that time period were just so
coincidently "destroyed".
 
 
RW> Why? It shouldn't be anything that would affect his future. It would
RW> just part of his history that was a part of his youth. People change
RW> over time and Bush is no different.
 
People can change, sure, but something as serious as not completing proper
military service and trying to hide it is a serious issue.  If he would do
something like that, who's to say he wouldn't have been the same sort of man
once he took office?  If he really was the liar many people think him to be,
then history should remember him for it.  Not praise him for being the
president during 9/11 or anything.
 
 
RW>JB> I don't have to sit through a whole episode to see him be a jerk to
RW>JB> people.
 
RW> I sit through a lot of them and havn't seen that happen. I guess you're
RW> more biased than I am.
 
Being more liberal, I probably do see his bias a lot more clearly than you do,
I'd be the first to admit.  Just like you tend to find bias in liberals much
more directly.
 
 
RW> Since many clips are taken out of context, I'd be skeptical of them in
RW> any case.
*snip*
RW> Context...although I doubt your source can be anything but biased against
RW> the man.
 
It's so easy to play the context card.  I've probably done it myself.  But as I
said, there is no context to be had in the particular incident I brought to
your attention.  Even if I found you the entire episodes, you probably still
wouldn't believe me.
 
 
RW>JB> If he doesn't want them to air their opinions, why does he bring
RW>JB> them on?
 
RW> To discuss their positions...giving them the air time to make fools of
RW> themselves far outweighs what Bill has to say.
 
The only person that makes a fool of themself most of the time is Bill when he
gets proved wrong.  Then he tries so hard to make them be quiet.
 
 
RW> I've seen him take viewer opinion, actually agree with it and correct
RW> himself. You see, constructive criticism goes a long way. Biased
RW> criticism doesn't. And that works for everybody.
 
They weren't even criticizing him in the incident I showed.  Somebody merely
wrote in to say he got the Malmedy thing backwards.  Then he pulled out an
O'Reilly bald-faced lie and said he had been talking about something totally
different.  Which was obviously crap, cause there was videotape proof of it. As
well as transcripts, before they edited them.
 
 
RW>JB> Yeah, because a website that allows anyone to post anything is
RW>JB> obviously liberal.  No Republicans allowed!
 
RW> It's been proven to gather liberals, while conservatives stay away.
 
There are plenty of conservatives on Youtube.  You're the first person I've met
to actually say Youtube is somehow biased.  I know several Republicans who
watch stuff on there regularly.
 
The internet is probably majority liberal in general, based on what I've seen. 
Internet users tend to be more technology-inclined, as are liberals. Either far
fewer republicans are tech-savy, or they all hide in secret Republican
compounds where all the horrible liberal propoganda can't touch them. Either
way, it's their own fault for not stepping up and taking equal footing.  The
internet is for everyone.
 
 
RW>JB> You didn't even watch the Olberman clip, apparently.
 
RW> I did...it was the usual Olberman biased bullshit he's always been known
RW> for.
 
Of course there was bias in it, that's why people watch him.  Same for why
conservatives watch O'Reilly.  Olbermann hates O'Reilly and doesn't pretend
otherwise. The difference is, O'Reilly never speaks of Olbermann cause he
rarely has anything truly bad to say aside from hating on him for being
liberal. Olbermann on the other hand often has something to point out to his
viewers that O'Reilly has done, because O'Reilly is good at making himself look
like a bag of hot air.
 
Anyway, bias doesn't always mean something is untrue. Even Fox News is
generally capable of truth, regardless of heavy bias.
 
 
RW>JB> There's no way the things O'Reilly said about Malmedy could ever
RW>JB> possibly be taken out of context in any way whatsoever.
 
RW> Without that entire program segment, it is taken out of context...yes
RW> sir.
 
O'Reilly was using Malmedy as an example related to the program segment.
Something which would have never had any reason to be brought up again during
the segment, meaning it stands alone regardless of context.  He again proved
almost a year later that he still incorrectly believed that those US soldiers
committed the war crimes by citing it in another example to a different guest. 
No context is needed to see that he was wrong twice about the same example.
 
You're never going to believe me though so I give up.
 
 
RW>JB> I honestly don't know why you're so opposed to accepting that
RW>JB> O'Reilly might have done those things.
 
RW> Because he's more honest than any liberal I've ever met.
 
"Outspoken" and "honest" aren't one in the same.
 
 
RW>JB> I don't read all of the newspaper, but that doesn't mean the
RW>JB> things I did read aren't still useful.
 
RW> Yes...like everything printed in the NY Times...everything is useful for
RW> liberal pundants.
 
I don't read any paper religiously, certainly not any of the national ones.
It's a waste of money considering most of it is on the internet for free.
 
I mostly only read articles from them which make news on one of the countless
sites I subscribe to RSS feeds from.  Which leaves me on Fox News' site too,
before you can accuse liberal bias there too.
 
 
RW> Sort of like the words of Simon Cowell on American Idol. 'Your singing is
RW> like old wallpaper, you notice it, but you can't remember what it looks
RW> like.'
 
More Americans would probably vote for Simon to be president than some of the
other real presidential candidates, just because of name recognition.  That's
the sad state of how much air time some of those guys get.
 
 
RW>JB> Nobody wants to put their money on the horse last out of the gate.
RW>JB> Even if that one might really be the fastest runner.
 
RW> Especially when their 'track record' shows them not to be. Pun intended.
 
There were plenty of candidates this time which I felt were worthy of more
debate time.  I liked Joe Biden personally.  He even kind of had that
presidential look about him.
 
 
RW>RW>> Oh well. I'll just keep you in the 'lost soul' list...
 
RW>JB> I'm pleased to make it into anyone's lists!
 
RW> :o) I'm at the top of many shit lists.
 
My shit list is pretty short, and you might be pleased to know you haven't made
it on there as of yet.  Or maybe disappointed, if you like lists!

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)