Bush or the media?

[Meyer]

Who's responsible for the current state of affairs. Bush's group for being a bunch of morons/swindlers, the media for selling it or at least not refuting it, or us the moron/sheep who bought it?

[prometheus]

Who's responsible for the current state of affairs. Bush's group for being a bunch of morons/swindlers, the media for selling it or at least not refuting it, or us the moron/sheep who bought it?


You can't forget Clinton and the Dems too. They are all one group of power hungry corrupt bastards, taking turns to sell us out. Did you know the owner of Fox (Murdoch) is donating to Hillary's campaign? We haven't had TV for years, and have never had fox, but isn't fox the conservative right wing channel?


There is no difference between the R's and D's, and they firmly control the media, and use it to play us off each other to stay in power.

Short answer: the moron sheeple.

[Lights]

Who's responsible for the current state of affairs. Bush's group for being a bunch of morons/swindlers, the media for selling it or at least not refuting it, or us the moron/sheep who bought it?

We are a paralyzed nation just trying to get by. Bush and the media have their own agendas, and it would be stupid for anyone to forget it.

You can't forget Clinton and the Dems too. They are all one group of power hungry corrupt bastards, taking turns to sell us out. Did you know the owner of Fox (Murdoch) is donating to Hillary's campaign?

She isn't even President yet and you are blaming her for the current state of affairs? Does it hurt to be that anti liberal? :laugh:

[prometheus]

She isn't even President yet and you are blaming her for the current state of affairs? Does it hurt to be that anti liberal? :laugh:


I was referring to Arkansas Billy Bob. Our current finical troubles are shared between all prior Presidents and legislators (which the other Clinton is one of).

Isn't it numbing to actually think all problems are caused in the present and history has no role in what is happening?

But, FSM help us if Hitlery gets in.

MTA: FSM help us if McCain gets in. At least Rudy is out.

[Lights]

I was referring to Arkansas Billy Bob. Our current finical troubles are shared between all prior Presidents and legislators (which the other Clinton is one of).

Isn't it numbing to actually think all problems are caused in the present and history has no role in what is happening?

But, FSM help us if Hitlery gets in.

Yes, clearly the president from over 7 years ago is just as responsible for our current state as is the president who has served for 7 years. :laugh:

While we are at it, should we discuss how Abraham Lincoln has contributed to the war in Iraq?

[prometheus]

Yes, clearly the president from over 7 years ago is just as responsible for our current state as is the president who has served for 7 years. :laugh:

While we are at it, should we discuss how Abraham Lincoln has contributed to the war in Iraq?



Do you honestly think that economic and political decisions manifest all results immediately?

That the choices of Greenspan no longer have any effect on us because "helicopter Benny" is now in?

God help us all. Isn't there an inFj board somewhere.

[Lights]

Do you honestly think that economic and political decisions manifest all results immediately?

That the choices of Greenspan no longer have any effect on us because "helicopter Benny" is now in?

God help us all. Isn't there an inFj board somewhere.

I think you are going to have to provide some evidence to support your assumptions that Clinton's policies have had a significant impact after 7 years! :laugh:

In my experience, it's typical of anti liberals to scape goat the last democratic president.

[Colette]

In my experience, it's typical of anti liberals to scape goat the last democratic president.

Ah well...we've got Oliver Stone and a biographer to do that for Bush now. Why must all dying presidents have a legacy for pity's sake. Why can't they just go and die quietly somewhere without all the fuss?!

[Allie]

I think you are going to have to provide some evidence to support your assumptions that Clinton's policies have had a significant impact after 7 years! :laugh:

In my experience, it's typical of anti liberals to scape goat the last democratic president.

It's common knowledge that the policies of the previous presidencies have long term impact, not only on the current administration/US, but the world at large. The most obvious is foreign policies, where it's the President's main job as Commander In Chief.

Take the issues we have today resulting from Clinton's Free Trade policies, particularly his push for China joining into the WTO in 2000. There are pros and cons to be sure, but to answer your question, does it have an impact even as of today? Hell yes! Think of where we are with China today in terms of trade deficits, and manufacturing offshores/outsources, etc...This has far reaching consequences, in terms of both foreign and economic impact.

Here are some links:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 63

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 63

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. =20071107195844AA7lS9n

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's Bush today dealing with this:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

It's common knowledge that the policies of the previous presidencies have long term impact, not only on the current administration/US, but the world at large. The most obvious is foreign policies, where it's the President's main job as Commander In Chief.

Take the issues we have today resulting from Clinton's Free Trade policies, particularly his push for China joining into the WTO in 2000. There are pros and cons to be sure, but to answer your question, does it have an impact even as of today? Hell yes! Think of where we are with China today in terms of trade deficits, and manufacturing offshores/outsources, etc...This has far reaching consequences, in terms of both foreign and economic impact.

Here are some links:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 63

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 63

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. =20071107195844AA7lS9n

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's Bush today dealing with this:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hm...fascinating. I stand corrected. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Nonetheless, I wonder how the Republican's returning us to a massive budget deficit and a war that is fast approaching $1 trillion will compare to the consequences of Clinton's policies.

You have a link for that Mr. Smarty Pants! :p

[Allie]

Hm...fascinating. I stand corrected. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Nonetheless, I wonder how the Republican's returning us to a massive budget deficit and a war that is fast approaching $1 trillion will compare to the consequences of Clinton's policies.

You have a link for that Mr. Smarty Pants! :p

Na. I can't justify for overspending. As I said, LIMITED government...as limited as possible!

You want links? You got links :p Just...no name calling please. Brings back bad memories :cry:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for Clinton and Bush legacies, only time will tell. We'll wait and see what the historians have to say.

In the meantime though, there's food for thought on Bush's legacy on stem cell research:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

In the meantime though, there's food for thought on Bush's legacy on stem cell research:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah...I don't usually take NeoCon editorial pieces about Bush that seriously. They have a habit of exaggerating and taking things out of context. Especially Krauhammer. :laugh: Do a little bit of unbiased research on it and then tell me what you think.

All they have managed to do up to this point is produce cells that are similar to embryonic stem cells. It is quite premature to hail Bush as a hero. But God, if he could have done at least one thing right, then I sure as hell hope this is it.

[Allie]

Yeah...I don't usually take NeoCon editorial pieces about Bush that seriously. They have a habit of exaggerating and taking things out of context. Especially Krauhammer. :laugh: Do a little bit of unbiased research on it and then tell me what you think.

All they have managed to do up to this point is produce cells that are similar to embryonic stem cells. It is quite premature to hail Bush as a hero. But God, if he could have done at least one thing right, then I sure as hell hope this is it.

I don't take ANY op-eds seriously at all, UNLESS there are data/facts to support them. The WP piece on this development also touched on all the issues associated with this hot topic at the time, hence the link.

I don't get my info from just one source. When I try to make a point, then it's been vetted and reasoned out, otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

Here you go. A quick search on Google. I was hoping you'd be curious enough on your own to dig further, since it's easy enough to search...but yes, yes, I said it, I need to prove it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or, go directly to this one on the list:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

I don't take ANY op-eds seriously at all, UNLESS there are data/facts to support them. The WP piece on this development also touched on all the issues associated with this hot topic at the time, hence the link.

I don't get my info from just one source. When I try to make a point, then it's been vetted and reasoned out, otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

Here you go. A quick search on Google. I was hoping you'd be curious enough on your own to dig further, since it's easy enough to search...but yes, yes, I said it, I need to prove it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or, go directly to this one on the list:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You misunderstand. My contention wasn't with the facts of the piece, but with the glorious hailing of Bush as hero. That particular op-ed piece had about 3 sentences of facts followed by paragraph after paragraph of toting Bush as a glorified champion. It's not like they wouldn't have made this discovery had Bush not taken the stance he had. And it doesn't do much for those who were and are currently in need of therapies that could be derived from stem cells. That piece was merely an exaggeration by a NeoCon supporter of Bush.

[Allie]

You misunderstand. My contention wasn't with the facts of the piece, but with the glorious hailing of Bush as hero. That particular op-ed piece had about 3 sentences of facts followed by paragraph after paragraph of toting Bush as a glorified champion. It's not like they wouldn't have made this discovery had Bush not taken the stance he had. And it doesn't do much for those who were and are currently in need of therapies that could be derived from stem cells. That piece was merely an exaggeration by a NeoCon supporter of Bush.

Ah. I see. I was concentrating on the facts of the discovery, as tied to the original debates on the subject, and the topic of legacies.

Although, this is news to me. I didn't realize WashingtonPost is considered Neocon. I supposed anything not mainstream is considered Neocon? Learn something new everyday.

I had and currently have no opinion on this issue, since I don't know much about it. Stem cells are potentially critical for curing a number of diseases, but at what cost is the issue....or should not be an issue. There seems to be more questions than answers.

Now, I'll need to go get updates on the primary elections and other news. Hmm....should I go to the alphabet soups....or the rest of the Neocon sites?

More questions. Fudge!

[Lights]

Ah. I see. I was concentrating on the facts of the discovery, as tied to the original debates on the subject, and the topic of legacies.

Although, this is news to me. I didn't realize WashingtonPost is considered Neocon. I supposed anything not mainstream is considered Neocon? Learn something new everyday.

I had and currently have no opinion on this issue, since I don't know much about it. Stem cells are potentially critical for curing a number of diseases, but at what cost is the issue....or should not be an issue. There seems to be more questions than answers.

Now, I'll need to go get updates on the primary elections and other news. Hmm....should I go to the alphabet soups....or the rest of the Neocon sites?

More questions. Fudge!

:rolleyes:

Seriously you are going to feel like such an idiot now.

Who was the article by?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Krauthammer is generally considered a conservative or neoconservative."

In fact, if you actually read the 12th post in this thread, you will see I mentioned him by name. :laugh:

[Allie]

:rolleyes:

Seriously you are going to feel like such an idiot now.

Who was the article by?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



In fact, if you actually read the 12th post in this thread, you will see I mentioned him by name. :laugh:

I think this is a classic case in conversation between T and F.

I don't dispute the fact that you and anyone may view Krauthammer as conservative/Neocon (I could care less actually). Yes, I know you mentioned him by name, but here's the correlation and point I was making: If his article is posted in the Washington Post, does it mean that Washington Post supports his views? And if so, then Washington Post is also Neocon, and therefore, should automatically be discredited? How would you see a different perspective if you don't get info from the other side?

I try not to have an automatic LABELING of the different views, but just focus on the POINTS being made, and don't automatically discredit someone's point of views based on whether he/she is Neocon/Liberal (Ultra-liberal?); but based on the merits of their arguments/inputs.

I can see your points of view, but I can see Krauthammer's or anyone else's also. Now, whether I accept their POV or not is another story, but it's a learning exercise.

[Octavianus Caesar]

The media is my vote.

They are the ones that present everything to American people, what is shown and in what light.

The war was doing "bad" they highlighted that to the people.
The war is doing "ok" they show how bad the econmony is.

They play this switch-a-roo to the point i really do not think the american people can really gleam what is true or not from the media.

Look how they went ga-ga over each primary as if it was the last one to "win" the nomination.

Huckabee wins Iowa "he is the front runner, no McCain won New Hampshire, he is the new front runner, no Thompson shows up, he is the new guy. . ." They viewed it as one big football game.

[iamnotspock]

Bush is the one who authorized tax cuts and wars. That put us in the red an additional $5 trillion. Clinton left us surpluses. The media didn't do that. And for the record, Chuck the Saurkraut is a Bush apologist, Fox News fave, Iraq War supporter, and way beyond neo-con. It's no surprise the WashPo runs his stuff. The WaPo ed board under Fred Hiatt is highly conservative (it's separate from the news room which skews liberal).

[fonmaneal]

Yeah...I don't usually take NeoCon editorial pieces about Bush that seriously. They have a habit of exaggerating and taking things out of context. Especially Krauhammer. :laugh: Do a little bit of unbiased research on it and then tell me what you think.

All they have managed to do up to this point is produce cells that are similar to embryonic stem cells. It is quite premature to hail Bush as a hero. But God, if he could have done at least one thing right, then I sure as hell hope this is it.

Whats your dog in this fight?

[Lights]

Whats your dog in this fight?

Who do I think is responsible for our current state of affairs? All of the above.