Text 13323, 276 rader
Skriven 2008-03-21 19:43:02 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13276 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
======================================
20 Mar 08 17:12, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> I'm still looking for a reason to believe it...The person who would
RW>> have been able to prove it is dead. He didn't testify to it before
RW>> he died. And the person who provided the papers is known as a kook
RW>> making his word worthless.
JB> Doesn't help that Bush's military records for that time period were
JB> just so coincidently "destroyed".
It's in the past and has nothing to do with his Presidency. See earlier
message.
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.
JB> People can change, sure, but something as serious as not completing
JB> proper military service and trying to hide it is a serious issue.
Yeah, so what? Does it make a difference in how someone can be trusted to
hold public office? He was Texas governor for 8 years before he ran for
President, yet Texas is none the worse for it. In fact she's better off
than when there was a Democrat in the Governor's mansion.
JB> If he would do something like that, who's to say he wouldn't have
JB> been the same sort of man once he took office?
His most recent record...it shows that the man has made a change for the
better in his life.
JB> If he really was the liar many people think him to be, then history
JB> should remember him for it.
They'll probably not remember him for that, but as the only person with
the vision to do what he's done.
JB> Not praise him for being the president during 9/11 or anything.
I tremble and my knees buckle every time I think of what it would be like
with AlGore at the helm at that time. He'd do absolutely nothing, except
kiss the ass of Bin Laden and we'd be at the mercy of the terrorists until
we elected someone with the guts to tell the libs to fuck off and get the
job done right.
RW>> JB> I don't have to sit through a whole episode to see him be a jerk
RW>> to
RW>> JB> people.
RW>> I sit through a lot of them and havn't seen that happen. I guess
RW>> you're more biased than I am.
JB> Being more liberal, I probably do see his bias a lot more clearly
JB> than you do,
I doubt it.
JB> I'd be the first to admit. Just like you tend to find bias in
JB> liberals much more directly.
If liberals had any brains, they'd be conservatives.
RW>> Since many clips are taken out of context, I'd be skeptical of them
RW>> in any case.
JB> *snip*
RW>> Context...although I doubt your source can be anything but biased
RW>> against the man.
JB> It's so easy to play the context card. I've probably done it myself.
Out of context is worst case scenario...what can I say?
JB> But as I said, there is no context to be had in the particular
JB> incident I brought to your attention. Even if I found you the entire
JB> episodes, you probably still wouldn't believe me.
You never know...show 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
RW>> of themselves far outweighs what Bill has to say.
JB> The only person that makes a fool of themself most of the time is
JB> Bill when he gets proved wrong. Then he tries so hard to make them
JB> be quiet.
I've seen him proved wrong, once...he took it with a grain of salt and
offered an apology. He's not the ogre you paint him to be.
RW>> I've seen him take viewer opinion, actually agree with it and
RW>> correct himself. You see, constructive criticism goes a long way.
RW>> Biased criticism doesn't. And that works for everybody.
JB> They weren't even criticizing him in the incident I showed. Somebody
JB> merely wrote in to say he got the Malmedy thing backwards. Then he
JB> pulled out an O'Reilly bald-faced lie and said he had been talking
JB> about something totally different.
Without the entire segment of that episode, what you have here is merely
hearsay...which is unbelievable.
JB> Which was obviously crap, cause there was videotape proof of it. As
JB> well as transcripts, before they edited them.
Oh, so they edited them and now they don't relate to the actual episode.
Yeah, right.
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.
JB> There are plenty of conservatives on Youtube. You're the first
JB> person I've met to actually say Youtube is somehow biased. I know
JB> several Republicans who watch stuff on there regularly.
If the do, they're probably not watching politically biased material. If
they do, then they're probably doing research into the bias of liberals.
JB> The internet is probably majority liberal in general, based on what
JB> I've seen.
Everythink in my 'bookmarks' is not liberal and is not politially
oriented...there are better things to do on the internet than look for
more crap from liberals.
JB> Internet users tend to be more technology-inclined, as are liberals.
LOL! Bullshit.
JB> Either far fewer republicans are tech-savy, or they all hide in
JB> secret Republican compounds where all the horrible liberal
JB> propoganda can't touch them.
LOL! That's a good idea...more people should give that a try.
JB> Either way, it's their own fault for not stepping up and taking equal
JB> footing. The internet is for everyone.
And many conservatives are there to enjoy it...
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
RW>> known for.
JB> Of course there was bias in it, that's why people watch him.
You mean sickos watch it.
JB> Same for why conservatives watch O'Reilly. O
The difference is that O'Reilly is believable, while Olbermann is not.
JB> lbermann hates O'Reilly and doesn't pretend otherwise.
I hear that all the time...O'Reilly thinks Olbermann is a whacko and says
so everytime Olbermann opens his mouth and spits out stupid rhetoric.
JB> The difference is, O'Reilly never speaks of Olbermann cause he
JB> rarely has anything truly bad to say aside from hating on him for
JB> being liberal.
See above.
JB> Olbermann on the other hand often has something to point out to his
JB> viewers that O'Reilly has done, because O'Reilly is good at making
JB> himself look like a bag of hot air.
That's what comes out of Olbermann, you've been misled on that.
JB> Anyway, bias doesn't always mean something is untrue. Even Fox News
JB> is generally capable of truth, regardless of heavy bias.
Fox News is always truthful, which can't be said of the liberals news
channels...wish I could, but that's impossible.
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
RW>> context...yes sir.
JB> O'Reilly was using Malmedy as an example related to the program
JB> segment. Something which would have never had any reason to be
JB> brought up again during the segment, meaning it stands alone
JB> regardless of context. He again proved almost a year later that he
JB> still incorrectly believed that those US soldiers committed the war
JB> crimes by citing it in another example to a different guest. No
JB> context is needed to see that he was wrong twice about the same
JB> example.
JB> You're never going to believe me though so I give up.
Great, you're just wasting bandwidth on it anyway.
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.
JB> "Outspoken" and "honest" aren't one in the same.
Ummmm...outspoken means that he's speaking out loud and honest is in the
content of his words.
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
RW>> for liberal pundants.
JB> I don't read any paper religiously, certainly not any of the national
JB> ones. It's a waste of money considering most of it is on the internet
JB> for free.
This is why the NYT, among other liberal biased reasons, is losing
money...as a liberal, you should be supporting that paper.
JB> I mostly only read articles from them which make news on one of the
JB> countless sites I subscribe to RSS feeds from. Which leaves me on
JB> Fox News' site too, before you can accuse liberal bias there too.
With RSS, you don't get the complete news as it's reported in those
papers.
RW>> Sort of like the words of Simon Cowell on American Idol. 'Your
RW>> singing is like old wallpaper, you notice it, but you can't remember
RW>> what it looks like.'
JB> More Americans would probably vote for Simon to be president than
JB> some of the other real presidential candidates, just because of name
JB> recognition. That's the sad state of how much air time some of those
JB> guys get.
Yeah, those Americans are the people who have yet to find anything
worth while in their 'lifetime experience'...like a young Kennedy or Bush.
RW>> JB> Nobody wants to put their money on the horse last out of the
RW>> 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
RW>> intended.
JB> There were plenty of candidates this time which I felt were worthy of
JB> more debate time. I liked Joe Biden personally. He even kind of had
JB> that presidential look about him.
Biden looks like a pimp and comes off sounding like an ass...Mitt Romney
would make a better President than any of them.
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.
JB> My shit list is pretty short, and you might be pleased to know you
JB> haven't made it on there as of yet. Or maybe disappointed, if you
JB> like lists!
I make it to the lists because my demeanor isn't acceptable to the
Fido Whankers and idiots.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|