RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 The mainstream media has allowed itself to be turned into a public relations firm for the dems and their blind followers. You are a blind follower. Did you know that NBC hadn't reported on the DOJ Fast and Furious program at all until a couple of days ago? That's your MSM for you. I am a blind follower? You are unintentionally hilarious. Is Fox News part of the MSM? How about the Wall Street Journal? Would you consider either of them to be public relations firms for the Dems and thier blind followers? Some media outlets lean right, a larger number lean left, and a few try (with varying degrees of success) to present the news with no slant. Your only beef with the "MSM" is that overall they're not all leaning to the right and covering things in the way you think they should be covered. And I'm using the term "you think" loosely as I'm entirely unconvinced that any of your cognitive processes actually meet the definition of independent thought. Fast and Furious is a subject for another thread, and you're only using it here to divert attention from the rest of your losing arguments. But to show you how much of a blind follower I am; that whole matter should be turned over to a special prosecutor and Holder should be fired (and prosecuted if the S.P. uncovers enough hard evidence). Now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yes, if you take the partisan viewpoint and either ignore or deny the fact that the Plame leak appeared as if it might be a calculated political maneuver designed to silence a critic of White House policy on Iraq. otherwise see above. And that calculated political maneuver was a response to Mr Plame's ... er Wilson's calculated political maneuver to lie about his findings on Niger? Yet in one case no one got harmed, a book and publicity tour was spawned, a witchhunt wasted millions and convicted a tangential player. In the other, a doctor doing good deeds will be tortured, as in real midieval torture. But hey, it's all about moral equivalence and who's in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 I am a blind follower? You are unintentionally hilarious. Is Fox News part of the MSM? How about the Wall Street Journal? Would you consider either of them to be public relations firms for the Dems and thier blind followers? Some media outlets lean right, a larger number lean left, and a few try (with varying degrees of success) to present the news with no slant. Your only beef with the "MSM" is that overall they're not all leaning to the right and covering things in the way you think they should be covered. And I'm using the term "you think" loosely as I'm entirely unconvinced that any of your cognitive processes actually meet the definition of independent thought. Fast and Furious is a subject for another thread, and you're only using it here to divert attention from the rest of your losing arguments. But to show you how much of a blind follower I am; that whole matter should be turned over to a special prosecutor and Holder should be fired (and prosecuted if the S.P. uncovers enough hard evidence). Now Yes, my losing argument that the MSM isn't covering the egregious leaks anywhere near as much as the Valerie Plame "outing" of someone that wasn't even undercover by a State department person. This vs. the political leaks of top secret information for the political benefit of Obama. "Fast and Furious" was just another example of the MSM not covering serious errors by a leftist administration. I started this thread criticizing the media. You keep trying to make it partisan. BTW, you are not even an adequate troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 And that calculated political maneuver was a response to Mr Plame's ... er Wilson's calculated political maneuver to lie about his findings on Niger? Yet in one case no one got harmed, a book and publicity tour was spawned, a witchhunt wasted millions and convicted a tangential player. In the other, a doctor doing good deeds will be tortured, as in real midieval torture. But hey, it's all about moral equivalence and who's in power. Oh no! You mean they're going to waterboard him? Oh for Allah's sake! Say it isn't so. Just making them undergo a rigorous round of Twenty Questions should be enough. That's Eric Holder's interpretation of the Geneva Convention and standard comportment for authorities with enemy combatants in their care. Can we at least start a collection to get him lawyered up? Wonder what will happen to the Israeli agents that planted Flame into the Iranian's centrifuge controlling software. Maybe they'll be followed through the neighborhood on a dark night and let off with a stern warning after their Skittles are confiscated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 And that calculated political maneuver was a response to Mr Plame's ... er Wilson's calculated political maneuver to lie about his findings on Niger? Yet in one case no one got harmed, a book and publicity tour was spawned, a witchhunt wasted millions and convicted a tangential player. In the other, a doctor doing good deeds will be tortured, as in real midieval torture. But hey, it's all about moral equivalence and who's in power. When are you going to argue against what I've posted instead of throwing things that I never said or commented on up as smokescreens? All Leaks ARE BAD! Leaks cause bad things to happen to good people. Leakers should be found and proscecuted in all cases! The differnce between what I'm saying and what you guys are saying is basic. You're arguing that the "MSM" coverage of the leaks issue isn't sufficiently vitriolic against the current administration and comparing it to the vitriol directed against President Bush and his administration when the Plame leaks happened. I'm saying that that is easy to understand if you're willing to put aside your partisan nonsense for a few seconds. At no point in this thread did I defend the current administration or cast dispersions on the previous administration, I simply commented on the ridiculous idea that the "MSM" is somehow acting to protect the current administation in this (or any) matter. Yes, my losing argument that the MSM isn't covering the egregious leaks anywhere near as much as the Valerie Plame "outing" of someone that wasn't even undercover by a State department person. This vs. the political leaks of top secret information for the political benefit of Obama. "Fast and Furious" was just another example of the MSM not covering serious errors by a leftist administration. I started this thread criticizing the media. You keep trying to make it partisan. BTW, you are not even an adequate troll. Right! You started a non-partisan thread about how the leftist "MSM" is not covering serious errors by the leftist administration, I disagree, and I'm the only one making it partisan. I don't care who you are. That's some funny stuff there. [/Larry the Cable Guy] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 When are you going to argue against what I've posted instead of throwing things that I never said or commented on up as smokescreens? All Leaks ARE BAD! Leaks cause bad things to happen to good people. Leakers should be found and proscecuted in all cases! The differnce between what I'm saying and what you guys are saying is basic. You're arguing that the "MSM" coverage of the leaks issue isn't sufficiently vitriolic against the current administration and comparing it to the vitriol directed against President Bush and his administration when the Plame leaks happened. I'm saying that that is easy to understand if you're willing to put aside your partisan nonsense for a few seconds. At no point in this thread did I defend the current administration or cast dispersions on the previous administration, I simply commented on the ridiculous idea that the "MSM" is somehow acting to protect the current administation in this (or any) matter. It may be motivated by partisanship, but it's true, and shouldn't be discounted. The problem is that under bush, the press corps hammered the whitehouse secretary everyday, and after relentless withering pressure bush buckled and then came independent investigations. We aren't seeing the same today. The press has a journalistic duty to continue to press the W.H until they do, just as they did under the Plame fiasco, don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 When are you going to argue against what I've posted instead of throwing things that I never said or commented on up as smokescreens? All Leaks ARE BAD! Leaks cause bad things to happen to good people. Leakers should be found and proscecuted in all cases! The differnce between what I'm saying and what you guys are saying is basic. You're arguing that the "MSM" coverage of the leaks issue isn't sufficiently vitriolic against the current administration and comparing it to the vitriol directed against President Bush and his administration when the Plame leaks happened. I'm saying that that is easy to understand if you're willing to put aside your partisan nonsense for a few seconds. At no point in this thread did I defend the current administration or cast dispersions on the previous administration, I simply commented on the ridiculous idea that the "MSM" is somehow acting to protect the current administation in this (or any) matter. Right! You started a non-partisan thread about how the leftist "MSM" is not covering serious errors by the leftist administration, I disagree, and I'm the only one making it partisan. I don't care who you are. That's some funny stuff there. [/Larry the Cable Guy] From my original post "The White House has engaged in “outrageous” leaking in an obvious attempt to enhance President Obama’s re-election efforts, Joe diGenova, the former U.S. Attorney in Washington, tells Newsmax. “There has been a pattern of stories — not just a story — but a pattern of stories clearly leaking sources and methods information in order to make the president look like he is a tough cookie,” says diGenova, a noted commentator on legal and political issues. “When you look at the series of stories, they run over a set period of time,” diGenova says. “Not once during that time that these three or four articles were appearing did you hear an objection from the White House, not from the press podium, not from the president, not from the national security advisor, not from the CIA director, not from the Department of Defense, and not from the National Security Council.” That clearly indicates the leaks were authorized, says diGenova." If the leaks were authorized then clearly Obama is putting his election above our security. If they weren't authorized he has many people in his administration guilty of treason. The MSM is keeping very quiet about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 It may be motivated by partisanship, but it's true, and shouldn't be discounted. The problem is that under bush, the press corps hammered the whitehouse secretary everyday, and after relentless withering pressure bush buckled and then came independent investigations. We aren't seeing the same today. The press has a journalistic duty to continue to press the W.H until they do, just as they did under the Plame fiasco, don't you agree? If you're going to compare the two situations then you have to put them into the full context. The Bush Administration got a free pass from the "MSM" from 9/11 till after the fall of Bagdad. Then after the WMD that both the "MSM" and Congress bought into whole heartedly failed to materialize and the full cost of the Iraq War became apparent to all, the "MSM" started hammering away. Don't try to revise history and make it seem like the "MSM" went hard after the Bush Administration immediately. It didn't happen that way. As for the difference in pressure between the two situations, I've already posted my thoughts on why things worked out that way. I shan't repeat them. Should the press hammer the Obama Admin the same way? Yes, they should, but it's easy to see why they haven't and it has nothing to do with the"MSM" "Cheerleading" for a Dem Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 If you're going to compare the two situations then you have to put them into the full context. The Bush Administration got a free pass from the "MSM" from 9/11 till after the fall of Bagdad. Then after the WMD that both the "MSM" and Congress bought into whole heartedly failed to materialize and the full cost of the Iraq War became apparent to all, the "MSM" started hammering away. Don't try to revise history and make it seem like the "MSM" went hard after the Bush Administration immediately. It didn't happen that way. As for the difference in pressure between the two situations, I've already posted my thoughts on why things worked out that way. I shan't repeat them. Should the press hammer the Obama Admin the same way? Yes, they should, but it's easy to see why they haven't and it has nothing to do with the"MSM" "Cheerleading" for a Dem Admin. I was making an apples to apples comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 The differnce between what I'm saying and what you guys are saying is basic. You're arguing that the "MSM" coverage of the leaks issue isn't sufficiently vitriolic against the current administration and comparing it to the vitriol directed against President Bush and his administration when the Plame leaks happened. First of all, no one is complaining because the MSM coverage isn't "vitriolic" enough, but color me not surprised that a liberal finds it necessary to throw some hyperbole in a discussion for absolutely no reason. Second, you will never, ever, ever get what it is being discussed here until a Republican is back in the White House. Only then will you have a true A/B. You'll likely deny it then, or throw in more hyperbole, but it will be there in simple black and white for even you to see. If Romney gets elected and somehow ACA is held up this month, you'll get your chance right out of the gate when Romney issues an executive order to give ACA waivers to all 57 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 From my original post "The White House has engaged in “outrageous” leaking in an obvious attempt to enhance President Obama’s re-election efforts, Joe diGenova, the former U.S. Attorney in Washington, tells Newsmax. “There has been a pattern of stories — not just a story — but a pattern of stories clearly leaking sources and methods information in order to make the president look like he is a tough cookie,” says diGenova, a noted commentator on legal and political issues. “When you look at the series of stories, they run over a set period of time,” diGenova says. “Not once during that time that these three or four articles were appearing did you hear an objection from the White House, not from the press podium, not from the president, not from the national security advisor, not from the CIA director, not from the Department of Defense, and not from the National Security Council.” That clearly indicates the leaks were authorized, says diGenova." If the leaks were authorized then clearly Obama is putting his election above our security. If they weren't authorized he has many people in his administration guilty of treason. The MSM is keeping very quiet about this. Yeah, quoting Joe deGenova makes it a non-partisan post. The fact that you honestly can't see or understand how unintentionally hilarious your posts are just serves to illustrate my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) First of all, no one is complaining because the MSM coverage isn't "vitriolic" enough, but color me not surprised that a liberal finds it necessary to throw some hyperbole in a discussion for absolutely no reason. Second, you will never, ever, ever get what it is being discussed here until a Republican is back in the White House. Only then will you have a true A/B. You'll likely deny it then, or throw in more hyperbole, but it will be there in simple black and white for even you to see. If Romney gets elected and somehow ACA is held up this month, you'll get your chance right out of the gate when Romney issues an executive order to give ACA waivers to all 57 states. Yep, that was me. And if he wasn't complaining about how the liberal "MSM" was giving the liberal administration a free pass, what exactly was he saying? I'll give you some help, read what he says in post #63 then get back to me on that. And please spare me the tired semantics arguments. OBTW I "get" exactly what is being discussed here, I just think it's mostly a bunch of partisan whining. "Wah the MSM is giving the WH a free Pass! WAH!" And your appearance in the discussion pretty much proves I was right. Edited June 16, 2012 by RI Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-13-2012/newsleaks This sums up this whole story, the media's role in it and how !@#$ed our priorities are with regards to the issue. Worth watching. ...and I can't figure out how to imbed the video. Grrr. Edited June 16, 2012 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yep, that was me. And if he wasn't complaining about how the liberal "MSM" was giving the liberal administration a free pass, what exactly was he saying? I'll give you some help, read what he says in post #63 then get back to me on that. And please spare me the tired semantics arguments. OBTW I "get" exactly what is being discussed here, I just think it's mostly a bunch of partisan whining. "Wah the MSM is giving the WH a free Pass! WAH!" And your appearance in the discussion pretty much proves I was right. Yes, partisan whining. Those democrat Senators sure are partisan: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/13/ED0F1P0KPJ.DTL "It was gutsy for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein to come out against Washington's recent rash of dangerous intelligence leaks last week; she made criticism of the leaks bipartisan. Flanked by the House Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, Dutch Ruppersberger, and GOP committee leaders, Feinstein declared, "This has to stop. When people say they don't want to work with the United States because they can't trust us to keep a secret, that's serious." Silly boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yes, partisan whining. Those democrat Senators sure are partisan: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/13/ED0F1P0KPJ.DTL "It was gutsy for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein to come out against Washington's recent rash of dangerous intelligence leaks last week; she made criticism of the leaks bipartisan. Flanked by the House Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, Dutch Ruppersberger, and GOP committee leaders, Feinstein declared, "This has to stop. When people say they don't want to work with the United States because they can't trust us to keep a secret, that's serious." Silly boy. Okay, so let me get this straight. You're no longer complaining that the "MSM" isn't covering the leaks story properly. You agree with the coverage because Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA came out in unison with some unnamed GOP committee leaders, and said "Leaks Bad!" So this thread is no longer about the liberal MSM giving the current liberal administration favorable non-coverage of the leaks story. Now it's about Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA taking the lead in stopping the leaks and restoring the World's faith in the good old USofA. Nice! I'm with you on this one 3rd old boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 Okay, so let me get this straight. You're no longer complaining that the "MSM" isn't covering the leaks story properly. You agree with the coverage because Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA came out in unison with some unnamed GOP committee leaders, and said "Leaks Bad!" So this thread is no longer about the liberal MSM giving the current liberal administration favorable non-coverage of the leaks story. Now it's about Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA taking the lead in stopping the leaks and restoring the World's faith in the good old USofA. Nice! I'm with you on this one 3rd old boy. I started the thread complaining about the MSM and lack of coverage. You kept trying to change it to me being partisan. How could I be partisan if I agree with Dianne Feinstein? Just pointing out my bipartisanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 One more time. I started a thread about the MSM not really covering the egregious security leaks and you kept saying they were no more serious than the Valerie Plame deal. I explained to your sorry ass that the leaks were coming from high up in the administration and were obviously for political reasons. The Plame leak was from Richard Armitage in the State Dept. who didn't agree with Bush's foreign policy. No harm was actually done to Plame. The latest leaks here could harm many people including you or me. You kept telling me that my motives were strictly partisan. When I posted an article about Barbara Feinstein's indigation over the leaks to point out that I wasn't being partisan you tried to twist it all around. The leaks are very serious and the MSM lack of reporting and disinterest in holding this administration's feet to the fire is deplorable. Can you imagine the schitstorm if Bush had openly targeted terrorists with drones and released the kind of classified info that this administration has? I haven't heard much about the Patriot Act or Gitmo in the last 3 1/2 years. I started a thread about the MSM not covering the leaks and I get crap here that the Valerie Plame deal was much worse. Certain posters here think it's ok to throw the people that helped us under the bus, but for someone in the State Dept. that disagreed with the Administration's foreign policy, to out someone that wasn't even undercover was worse than getting the good doc who helped us get OBL and the guy who infiltrated Al Qaeda and saved a terrorist attack into deep schit. I'm posting this again just to show what a hypocrite you are 3rd. So AGAIN! Either provide the link to where I said any of the things you're claiming I said or STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 If you honestly cannot understand why the leaks in the Valerie Plame story created a bigger controversy than the current leaks did your partisan blinders way too tight. Not that anyone expected anything else. Snopes would give me a "Mostly True". A "bigger controversy" would indicate that it was a bigger deal than the most recent leaks. Since you agree that leaks are bad I would assume that the bigger the leak the worse it is. Now it is your turn to STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Snopes would give me a "Mostly True". A "bigger controversy" would indicate that it was a bigger deal than the most recent leaks. Since you agree that leaks are bad I would assume that the bigger the leak the worse it is. Now it is your turn to STFU. You are such a hypocritical lying weasel that this isn't even funny anymore. It's actually getting to be sort of sad. Weren't you the indignent clown who started a thread about someone in the liberal MSM twisting Romney's words to make it sound like he said something he hadn't? Yet you pull this shidt? Really? Think about something that's not happening here 3rd. The insane clown posse that usually appears to defend every other conservative who gets into an argument with a big mean liberal, you know who I'm talking about, the guys who can even be counted on to defend D.i.E.'s racism, has stayed silent this time. WHY? They live to bash liberals. So why aren't they defending you? Could it be that you've jumped the shark? That this time your blatent hypocracy and sheer bullshidt is too much for even those guys to try defending? Face it 3rd, the little tiny bit of credibility you had is gone. You've become the right wing version of connor. Enjoy it, you earned it. And with that I will STFU. Edited June 20, 2012 by RI Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 You are such a hypocritical lying weasel that this isn't even funny anymore. It's actually getting to be sort of sad. Weren't you the indignent clown who started a thread about someone in the liberal MSM twisting Romney's words to make it sound like he said something he hadn't? Yet you pull this shidt? Really? Think about something that's not happening here 3rd. The insane clown posse that usually appears to defend every other conservative who gets into an argument with a big mean liberal, you know who I'm talking about, the guys who can even be counted on to defend D.i.E.'s racism, has stayed silent this time. WHY? They live to bash liberals. So why aren't they defending you? Could it be that you've jumped the shark? That this time your blatent hypocracy and sheer bullshidt is too much for even those guys to try defending? Face it 3rd, the little tiny bit of credibility you had is gone. You've become the right wing version of connor. Enjoy it, you earned it. And with that I will STFU. Wow, that's alot of words to not refute my post. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say you were sorry? Well, at least I got you to STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts