Anti-Bush vs Anti-American

[HGROKIT]

Hey all:

 

[Xenimus]

Its all about opinion. I believe that communism was a bad form of government and it was bound to implode. To believe that Reagan stopped communism is to believe that communism would have been successful. Heh, communism aint dead though, look at china, their capitalist version is growing at an unbelievable rate. This could be the Chinese century. Lets hope not.

HGROKIT, your presence here is the definition of troll, get outta here.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Heh, communism aint dead though, look at china, their capitalist version is growing at an unbelievable rate. This could be the Chinese century.

This is scarier than the scariest movie I have ever seen.
Like maybe The Shining, which my father took me to when I was like 10.

Asshole.

j/k, he had no idea what a disturbing movie that was going to be I don't think, he just knew that our man Jack was in it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Its all about opinion. I believe that communism was a bad form of government and it was bound to implode. To believe that Reagan stopped communism is to believe that communism would have been successful. Heh, communism aint dead though, look at china, their capitalist version is growing at an unbelievable rate. This could be the Chinese century. Lets hope not.

HGROKIT, your presence here is the definition of troll, get outta here.

China is communist in name only. They are still totalitarian but as by deffinition Communism only occurs with the abolishment of private property China can not be called communist.

And simply because Communism wouldnt have been successful doesnt mean Reagan didnt stop them. That would be like saying because facism wouldnt have been successful the greatest generation didnt stop them. Evil regardless of what form can be successful and screwing the people over unless good men stop it.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
China is communist in name only. They are still totalitarian but as by deffinition Communism only occurs with the abolishment of private property China can not be called communist.

And simply because Communism wouldnt have been successful doesnt mean Reagan didnt stop them. That would be like saying because facism wouldnt have been successful the greatest generation didnt stop them. Evil regardless of what form can be successful and screwing the people over unless good men stop it.

Facism almost was successful.
Bad example.
:

 

[Xenimus]

Ya I saw the movie 'IT' at young age, I still hate clowns.

Avatar, I don't think reagan stopped communist by demanding a wall be taken down. Fascism is the merging of corporations and state. I think we are veering in that direction..Medical corporations are the biggest doner to our goverment, the most lobbiests, which used to be illegal. Now we pay the most for our health care and the smallest amount of people actually getting it, worse than any industrialized nation in world. Just because we have the best medical technology does not mean we get the best care.

I wonder why Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

 

[duke]

Communism was spreading like wildfire in the mid to late 70's,examples:Angola,central america and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.It didn't look like it was about to implode at that time.Only one man knew that communism wasn't going to work and that was Reagan and not only did he know he did something about it.

 

[Annie]

Welcome Duke.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I cannot believe that the media has a liberal bias. I'm sorry, but I can't.

After watching the 2000 election it's painfully clear that there is no liberal bias. Even now, I do not believe in the whole liberal media thing. Not with:
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
National Review
Fox News (and any other thing that Murdoch owns such as Fox Broadcasting Network and about 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard, plus HarperCollins publishing, 20th Century Fox and ownership and major interests in satellite services reaching Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. That's practically the entire world, excluding the "emerging" African market.)
London Times
New York Post

And who was the station that didn't want to show an opposing argument against the Bush campaign during the Superbowl, but had no problems showing commercials supporting Bush? I'm sure you can figure it out.

 

[insein]

Im sorry brneyedgirl. ABC, NBC, CBS have been around for decades. Fox has been around for less than 1 decade and is making a dent into the bias that has always existed. You named a handful of newspapers, periodicals and 1 News station that sway towards conservative views to counter the 20+ news stations and hundreds of liberal newspapers and periodcials in this country.

When anchors such as brokaw and rather gicing their slant as "News" than there will remain a media bias in this country. If they would at leats say

"Today in Iraq, there were reports of alleged prison abuse. In my opinion, I feel that the terrorists are militants of their religion and therefore should treated as such."

Instead of "Today Islamic Militants were humiliated and tortured by American Soldiers. For more coverage on this atrocity, tune in at 6."

If they said it was their opinion, just like Op Ed's do, just like Rush, Hannity and O'reilly do, more like What alan colmes does, I wouldnt have a problem with the media. However they do give their opinions and pass it off as facts.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

As well as many right-wing people do, giving off opinion instead of fact or just getting the facts wrong in the first place as Hannity and Coulter does, in my opinion and many other peoples opinion. Like I said, the 2000 elections were a prime example of this.

I gave a handful of examples because only a handful of examples were given to prove a liberal bias provided by OCA.

And even looking at Fox, yes they have only been around about 2 decades actually, remember the 80s? Married with Children, Tracy Ulman Show, etc... But look at what Murdoch has his hands tied to. So much power.

Here's an example of opinion that people will take as fact, considering the word socialist is thrown about so recklessly:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406070006

O'Reilly apologized for calling Molly Ivins a socialist



More than six weeks after FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly falsely labeled author and syndicated columnist Molly Ivins a "socialist" during the April 20 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, as Media Matters for America reported, O'Reilly apologized to Ivins on the air.

From the June 4 edition of FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And finally I got a letter from writer Molly Ivins who lives in Austin, Texas. I called Ms. Ivins a socialist recently which doesn't mean she's a bad person: "Bill, I've never been a socialist. Hearing you describe me as one left me whomper-jawed. I'm a great supporter of regulated capitalism. I think the history of our country proves we need this from the era of the Robber Barons to Enron."

Well, I believe you, Ms. Ivins. I'm sorry I called you a socialist. I don't want you to have a whomper-jaw.

— G.W.

Posted to the web on Monday June 7, 2004 at 2:11 PM EST

 

[insein]

When was the last time anyone at the NYT apologized for printing slanderous material about the president? Or Rather or Brokaw apologizing for misleading the people of this country with their "News"?

The difference with Hannity and Coulter is that they are not News anchors. They do not sit and report headlines as plain fact. They give news and then offer their opinions. They even say that when they are doing it. I suspect you do not listen to hannity otherwise you would know that he is very based with his facts. anytime he is uncertain of something he will state that he is unaware of that and will look into it further. With that said he is right 99% of the time. You would also know that Hannity has criticised Bush are many major issues. He though, like many Americans, feels that the War on Terror is the biggest issue and that Bush is the right man for the job.

Comparing the 2 as 1 to 1 is not accurate.

When Ronald Reagan's coverage lasts less than a week and Brokaw and Rather are complaing that its getting too much air play (NYPost) and then in today's news they are putting more Abu Gharib photos up after almost a month of coverage of the same thing, you tell me who is biased.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I will get back to this when I get home so I can look up what I need. This is not over, just postponed.

On a side note, I watch Hannity and Colmes, it's just amazing to me that Hannity gets so many statistics and facts wrong period. He'll say something that he believes is fact, but he's some how got it all distorted in his mind. And as for Colmes, don't even get me started. Democratic point of view my ass!

Anyways, we weren't just focusing on news anchors, but the media as a whole. I'll get back to this.

 

[insein]

Colmes isn't a democrat? Damn the party has drifted so far left that Alan Colmes is now a republican? ITs worse than i thought.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I'm not disclaiming him as a democrat. He's just not a very strong democrat. He rarely makes a stand for what he is about. They should just call it the Hannity Show....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
As well as many right-wing people do, giving off opinion instead of fact or just getting the facts wrong in the first place as Hannity and Coulter does, in my opinion and many other peoples opinion. Like I said, the 2000 elections were a prime example of this.

I gave a handful of examples because only a handful of examples were given to prove a liberal bias provided by OCA.

And even looking at Fox, yes they have only been around about 2 decades actually, remember the 80s? Married with Children, Tracy Ulman Show, etc... But look at what Murdoch has his hands tied to. So much power.

Here's an example of opinion that people will take as fact, considering the word socialist is thrown about so recklessly:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406070006

O'Reilly apologized for calling Molly Ivins a socialist



More than six weeks after FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly falsely labeled author and syndicated columnist Molly Ivins a "socialist" during the April 20 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, as Media Matters for America reported, O'Reilly apologized to Ivins on the air.

From the June 4 edition of FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And finally I got a letter from writer Molly Ivins who lives in Austin, Texas. I called Ms. Ivins a socialist recently which doesn't mean she's a bad person: "Bill, I've never been a socialist. Hearing you describe me as one left me whomper-jawed. I'm a great supporter of regulated capitalism. I think the history of our country proves we need this from the era of the Robber Barons to Enron."

Well, I believe you, Ms. Ivins. I'm sorry I called you a socialist. I don't want you to have a whomper-jaw.

— G.W.

Posted to the web on Monday June 7, 2004 at 2:11 PM EST

Name one of Hannity's alleged lies.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Well, first lets start with this.

Following Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, Hannity and Colmes had their little show with their guest, Peggy Noonan (former Reagan apeechwriter).
Hannity gushed with: "There were two lines that we just played that I really loved in the speech. That 'We will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, oher presidents, other generations. We'll focus on them with clarity and courage.'

Unfortunately, lost in all that talk about not passing problems off to future generations was that Bush was passing off to future generations a projected ten-year deficit of $1.8trillion dollars on top of the existing $6.4 trillion national debt. Since then, the projected ten-year deficit has risen to over $4 trillion.

And of course Colmes didn't comment on anything. Instead, he asked Peggy if there were any great lines in the speech that might live on in the public memory. Gee... thanks buddy.

Speaking of Colmes, did you know that in that State of the Union episide Hannity spoke 2,086 words while Colmes only spoke 1,261? But it makes sense considering Hannity got to hand pick his little buddy for the show.
Also, has anyone heard of Colmes book? Probably not considering it's been overshadowed b Hannity's own page-turner 'Let Freedom Ring'.

Speaking of Hannity's book, on page 145-146, Hannity is ranting about the "absolute abomination" that is the New York City public school system. After rattling off some grim statistics about test scores, he says:
City and state education officials didn't seem to have a clue about what was going wrong. "Is it teaching?" asked state Education Commissioner Richard Mills. "Is it teaching practice?" Is it the material? Is it the work students are doing? What are they reading? What are they writing? What kind of math problems are the doing?"
What are these people doing with our tax dollars if they don't even know the answers to these questions?

Was Mr. Mills, as Hannity implied, bumbling around, hoping that someone would tell him what the kids in his schools were doing all day? Doubtful. For a little context, Richard Mills was the person who had created that accoutability system. In fact, just the year before, Mills had been presented with the prestigious Corning Award for Excellence because, among other things, he had set tough new academic standards and required rigorous testing of all students' progress. The difficulty of the tests that Mills himself had imposed hd led to the low test scores Hannity cited.

The orginal article where Hannity go this quote went like this, "There's no simple fix," he said. "I would peel the onion. I would ask questions about all the fundamentals that go on in school."
And that's where Hannity started quoting him-when Mills started asking questions bout all the fundamentals. So when Mills asked "Is it teaching?" or "What are they reading?" he didn't mean it literally. He was using what's called "a rhetorical device."
But good ol' Sean knew that but still presented it as if the man had no clue what was goind on in his schools. That's a tadbit dishonest and stupid.

Here's another one. During one of his endearing liberal-bashing jags, Hannity spits out: "They tell us that fuel-burning SUVs are bad for America, but flag-burning SOBs aren't" Well, Sean, fuel-burning SUVs burn fuel. And there are about fifty million of them. They contribute to global warming and our dependence on oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, which fund the vry terrorism you profess to be so upset about. Flag-burning, on the other hand, is relatively rare. And what's more, Saudi Arabia does not produce American flags. Most American flags are made in Taiwan, a staunch ally.

Here's another ridiculous thing he says. In keeping with his uncompromising stance against terrorism, hannity takes a tough principles stand against John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. I'm with Hannity when he calls Lindh a traitor, but what really irks me is when he uses Lindh to malign an entire county. No one man can represent an entire county, unless that county is Climax County, Montana, which does indeed have a single resident.
Here's Hannity:
Named after John Lennon, John Lindh was born in Marin County, a wealthy, liberal suburb of San Francisco. he grew up in veritable ideological Disneyland of moral relativism, political correctness, and not-too-subtle anti-American multi-culturalism, the kind that preaches tht America is racist, sexist, bigoted, imperialist, homophobic, and thus fundamentally evil and oppressive nation.

It's a wonder that Marin produced only one American Taliban and not thousands, isn't it? We're lucky al Qaeda didn't establish a training camp right there in Sausalito.
Hannity keeps hacking away:
He grew up feeding his mind on 'The Autobiography of Malcolm X', not Moses or Peter or Paul... In time, Lindh converted from anthign-goes liberal agnosticism to hardcore Middle Eastern radical Islam.

Before reading this, I had never considered the direct line between liberal agnosticism and hard-core, radical Islam. but Hannity has a strong case. So many of my liberal, agnostic women friends from school gradually relinquished their freedoms and decided to spend the rest of their lives in chador, avoiding the gaze of men.
In contrast to Lindh's depraved childhood environment, Hannity trumpets hi Long Island childhood in the protective embrace of the Catholic Church. Gee, nothing weird happened to cute little boys in the Catholic Church, eh, Sean?
I could provide more examples of Hannity's lies and stupidity besides just the 3 up top. I'm not sure if Hannity knows he's lying or doesn't care. Either way it's a crime.

But here's a bonus of Ann Coulter, the gem that she is.
Do you remember back in 1993 when Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog on his TV show shortly after Clinton took office and years before Buddy joined the First Family? It was a pretty famous incident. Well, anyways, Coulter, in her own deeply perverse idiom, weighs in on the issue of insulting women for their appearance. "There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious... so which women are constatnly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, or Madeleine Albright? No, none of these. Only consrvative women would have their looks hel up to ridicule because only liberals could be so malevolent. A blind man in America would think the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug."
Nicely done, Ann! Attacking Democrats for being irredeemably cruel while pointing out five, count'em five, supposedly unattractive Democratic women.



Side note: John Lennon was named after John the Baptist. If anyone is interested.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Here's another one. During one of his endearing liberal-bashing jags, Hannity spits out: "They tell us that fuel-burning SUVs are bad for America, but flag-burning SOBs aren't" Well, Sean, fuel-burning SUVs burn fuel. And there are about fifty million of them. They contribute to global warming and our dependence on oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, which fund the vry terrorism you profess to be so upset about. Flag-burning, on the other hand, is relatively rare. And what's more, Saudi Arabia does not produce American flags. Most American flags are made in Taiwan, a staunch ally.

What a great example of what an idiot he can be.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Well, first lets start with this.

Following Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, Hannity and Colmes had their little show with their guest, Peggy Noonan (former Reagan apeechwriter).
Hannity gushed with: "There were two lines that we just played that I really loved in the speech. That 'We will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, oher presidents, other generations. We'll focus on them with clarity and courage.'

Unfortunately, lost in all that talk about not passing problems off to future generations was that Bush was passing off to future generations a projected ten-year deficit of $1.8trillion dollars on top of the existing $6.4 trillion national debt. Since then, the projected ten-year deficit has risen to over $4 trillion.

And of course Colmes didn't comment on anything. Instead, he asked Peggy if there were any great lines in the speech that might live on in the public memory. Gee... thanks buddy.

Speaking of Colmes, did you know that in that State of the Union episide Hannity spoke 2,086 words while Colmes only spoke 1,261? But it makes sense considering Hannity got to hand pick his little buddy for the show.
Also, has anyone heard of Colmes book? Probably not considering it's been overshadowed b Hannity's own page-turner 'Let Freedom Ring'.

Speaking of Hannity's book, on page 145-146, Hannity is ranting about the "absolute abomination" that is the New York City public school system. After rattling off some grim statistics about test scores, he says:
City and state education officials didn't seem to have a clue about what was going wrong. "Is it teaching?" asked state Education Commissioner Richard Mills. "Is it teaching practice?" Is it the material? Is it the work students are doing? What are they reading? What are they writing? What kind of math problems are the doing?"
What are these people doing with our tax dollars if they don't even know the answers to these questions?

Was Mr. Mills, as Hannity implied, bumbling around, hoping that someone would tell him what the kids in his schools were doing all day? Doubtful. For a little context, Richard Mills was the person who had created that accoutability system. In fact, just the year before, Mills had been presented with the prestigious Corning Award for Excellence because, among other things, he had set tough new academic standards and required rigorous testing of all students' progress. The difficulty of the tests that Mills himself had imposed hd led to the low test scores Hannity cited.

The orginal article where Hannity go this quote went like this, "There's no simple fix," he said. "I would peel the onion. I would ask questions about all the fundamentals that go on in school."
And that's where Hannity started quoting him-when Mills started asking questions bout all the fundamentals. So when Mills asked "Is it teaching?" or "What are they reading?" he didn't mean it literally. He was using what's called "a rhetorical device."
But good ol' Sean knew that but still presented it as if the man had no clue what was goind on in his schools. That's a tadbit dishonest and stupid.

Here's another one. During one of his endearing liberal-bashing jags, Hannity spits out: "They tell us that fuel-burning SUVs are bad for America, but flag-burning SOBs aren't" Well, Sean, fuel-burning SUVs burn fuel. And there are about fifty million of them. They contribute to global warming and our dependence on oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, which fund the vry terrorism you profess to be so upset about. Flag-burning, on the other hand, is relatively rare. And what's more, Saudi Arabia does not produce American flags. Most American flags are made in Taiwan, a staunch ally.

Here's another ridiculous thing he says. In keeping with his uncompromising stance against terrorism, hannity takes a tough principles stand against John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. I'm with Hannity when he calls Lindh a traitor, but what really irks me is when he uses Lindh to malign an entire county. No one man can represent an entire county, unless that county is Climax County, Montana, which does indeed have a single resident.
Here's Hannity:
Named after John Lennon, John Lindh was born in Marin County, a wealthy, liberal suburb of San Francisco. he grew up in veritable ideological Disneyland of moral relativism, political correctness, and not-too-subtle anti-American multi-culturalism, the kind that preaches tht America is racist, sexist, bigoted, imperialist, homophobic, and thus fundamentally evil and oppressive nation.

It's a wonder that Marin produced only one American Taliban and not thousands, isn't it? We're lucky al Qaeda didn't establish a training camp right there in Sausalito.
Hannity keeps hacking away:
He grew up feeding his mind on 'The Autobiography of Malcolm X', not Moses or Peter or Paul... In time, Lindh converted from anthign-goes liberal agnosticism to hardcore Middle Eastern radical Islam.

Before reading this, I had never considered the direct line between liberal agnosticism and hard-core, radical Islam. but Hannity has a strong case. So many of my liberal, agnostic women friends from school gradually relinquished their freedoms and decided to spend the rest of their lives in chador, avoiding the gaze of men.
In contrast to Lindh's depraved childhood environment, Hannity trumpets hi Long Island childhood in the protective embrace of the Catholic Church. Gee, nothing weird happened to cute little boys in the Catholic Church, eh, Sean?
I could provide more examples of Hannity's lies and stupidity besides just the 3 up top. I'm not sure if Hannity knows he's lying or doesn't care. Either way it's a crime.

But here's a bonus of Ann Coulter, the gem that she is.
Do you remember back in 1993 when Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog on his TV show shortly after Clinton took office and years before Buddy joined the First Family? It was a pretty famous incident. Well, anyways, Coulter, in her own deeply perverse idiom, weighs in on the issue of insulting women for their appearance. "There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious... so which women are constatnly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, or Madeleine Albright? No, none of these. Only consrvative women would have their looks hel up to ridicule because only liberals could be so malevolent. A blind man in America would think the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug."
Nicely done, Ann! Attacking Democrats for being irredeemably cruel while pointing out five, count'em five, supposedly unattractive Democratic women.



Side note: John Lennon was named after John the Baptist. If anyone is interested.

Projections aren't worth shit. The problems he's referring to are things like terrorism, which the dems let fester, too afraid to confront it head on.

He said someone was bumbling ? Gee what an attack. His fake award means nothing.

That thing about suvs and flags is obviously a joke. If you can't sse that, you have issues.

Lindh is a traitor.

as for the coulter thing, leftist women attack republican women for their looks. That what she was talking about.

Nothing here is valid. Nothing that rises the level of liberal lies about whole eras of history. Liberals are frantically trying to rewrite reagan's legacy, and it's all lies.

You're really unconvincing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The number of words he spoke? Oh yeah, that proves he's lying. Do you know what logic is? If so, use it.