Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, yes... you've regurgitated it 1000 times, we get you. Two wrongs ostensibly make a right, and specific examples of lies; outright deceit and deception on the part of our cable news on the behalf of this GOP administration can be canceled out so long as it's plausible that it happened somewhere else, at some time, with the Libs. Ergo, no specific action should be taken at this point as this sort of thing has certainly happened before thus creating a precedent which indemnifies any future wrongdoing.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think when put to the test of analogy, that is a pretty irrational concept?
Yes, yes... you've regurgitated it 1000 times, we get you. Two wrongs ostensibly make a right, and specific examples of lies; outright deceit and deception on the part of our cable news on the behalf of this GOP administration can be canceled out so long as it's plausible that it happened somewhere else, at some time, with the Libs. Ergo, no specific action should be taken at this point as this sort of thing has certainly happened before thus creating a precedent which indemnifies any future wrongdoing.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think when put to the test of analogy, that is a pretty irrational concept?
LOL...plausible.....he said it what you don't belive him now that it doesn't fit your agenda?
Yes, yes... you've regurgitated it 1000 times, we get you. Two wrongs ostensibly make a right, and specific examples of lies; outright deceit and deception on the part of our cable news on the behalf of this GOP administration can be canceled out so long as it's plausible that it happened somewhere else, at some time, with the Libs. Ergo, no specific action should be taken at this point as this sort of thing has certainly happened before thus creating a precedent which indemnifies any future wrongdoing.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think when put to the test of analogy, that is a pretty irrational concept?
Well I run across this quite often personally. Maybe it is just these forums and the fact that I have to look over hundreds of posts that I never reply to but merely look and and move on.
If I had a penny for every time I said that "The war in Iraq was based upon a false premise" and the reply is... "You left wing, etc..." It is quite foreign to me that if I were to say, "this administration used deceptive means with a complicit press to take American into an open ended conflict" and the response is, (more often that not) "typical left wing... <enter diatribe here>) As I pointed out in my most absurd example of a child being rape, then being justified or rationalized by someone who agreed with the views of NAMBLA. As though 2+2 only equals 4 when those we agree with confirm it. Its quite baffling really.
I suppose I may never understand this strong desire to break down the world into absolutes and to compartmentalize the world into such stark terms. On one hand it has been the greatest liberation of my life to go beyond simple party politics and yet on the other hand it brings with it the burden of dealing with those who would bet their life on it and no amount of evidence will change such beliefs and faith.
Well I run across this quite often personally. Maybe it is just these forums and the fact that I have to look over hundreds of posts that I never reply to but merely look and and move on.
If I had a penny for every time I said that "The war in Iraq was based upon a false premise" and the reply is... "You left wing, etc..." It is quite foreign to me that if I were to say, "this administration used deceptive means with a complicit press to take American into an open ended conflict" and the response is, (more often that not) "typical left wing... <enter diatribe here>) As I pointed out in my most absurd example of a child being rape, then being justified or rationalized by someone who agreed with the views of NAMBLA. As though 2+2 only equals 4 when those we agree with confirm it. Its quite baffling really.
I suppose I may never understand this strong desire to break down the world into absolutes and to compartmentalize the world into such stark terms. On one hand it has been the greatest liberation of my life to go beyond simple party politics and yet on the other hand it brings with it the burden of dealing with those who would bet their life on it and no amount of evidence will change such beliefs and faith.
But you see it all...your opinion is the only correct one....I posted the actual transcript....no comment?....Just more spouting off at the mouth about how we are being raped by our government?
It must really suck to be held down while you type replies on controversial topics without any KY....and the government just stands by and watches....no interaction to shut you up...
I suppose I may never understand this strong desire to break down the world into absolutes and to compartmentalize the world into such stark terms. On one hand it has been the greatest liberation of my life to go beyond simple party politics and yet on the other hand it brings with it the burden of dealing with those who would bet their life on it and no amount of evidence will change such beliefs and faith.
This is the most poignant, thought provoking, and accurate statement I've heard in a while, and it resonates strongly with how I feel. Excellent post!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
I posted the actual transcript.
Where was this ever in question? You are creating a ulterior argument out of thin air to justify wrong doing, but it doesn't, and you don't make sense.
This is the most poignant, thought provoking, and accurate statement I've heard in a while, and it resonates strongly with how I feel. Excellent post!
Where was this ever in question? You are creating a ulterior argument out of thin air to justify wrong doing, but it doesn't, and you don't make sense.
I'm sorry you can't manage to comprehend basic English. I can't do anything for that.
Since the thread title is "Former WH Press Secretary ADMITS Bush Administration Regularly Gives "Talking Points" to Fox News Commentators"
The transcripts totally blow that arguement out of the water. Since one he says "he didn't necessarily do it" and two "it happens on both sides"
You mise well close this thread as propaganda put up by the blind left.
a. He being himself. Of course he's not going to incriminate himself (though everyone knows fatboy was guilty). He doesn't deny it was done; contrarily writes that it did in fact happen ALL THE TIME and was regular practice.
b. yes it happens on both sides.... but MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT. We're not speaking in what ifs and half truths but a discrete connection between the White House and Fox News on talking points. Why is that so hard to get?
I might ask you the same thing...
Do you speak-EE Engles?
The transcripts do nothing to blow the thread title out of anything. Neither do you...
Might as well close your posts because you're too blind to see a problem, obfuscated by party allegiance.
Hint: I'm not the 'blind left'... heck, I'm not even moderate Left. OT as party politics need not even relate to this thread but I'm just a man that doesn't want too see a senile, neurotic old man who seems to suffer from rage issues extinguish our country with the push of the proverbial button. If the GOP actually wanted to win this election (which seemingly, they do not), they would have nominated a different candidate (and no, NOT the used car salesman who would sell out his own mother for a buck -- goog-lee-a-nee]
And the democrats don't? You must be kidding me? They are infamous for getting those talking points to the press. They ALL do it - to get their message out.
ANYTHING coming from MSNewBarackChannel is suspect, considering their clear bias toward obama, (ie mathews and doberman) and their hatred of Bush. Their credibility is in the trash - although not with the obamatized bots.
I think the problem people have with Fox is how they claim to be "Fair and Balanced." "We report, you decide." Nice slogans, until you hear about stuff like this. They're no better than the left-leaning networks. In fact, they're just a mirror image of them, with the opposite bias.
So if other networks' "credibility is in the trash" because they're cheerleaders for the left, I'm not sure why Fox's credibility wouldn't also be in the trash, since they're just cheerleaders for the neocons. Really, what's the difference, other than that someone prefers one bias over another?
Today on Hardball, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan admitted to Chris Matthews that the Bush administration has regularly given "talking points" to Fox News commentators (such as O'Reilly and Hannity) to act as the White House's spokespeople.
'Bout time someone with insider information on the White House has finally admitted that Bushco uses Fox News as their mouthpiece, which, in effect, makes Fox News neither fair nor balanced, as they so adamantly proclaim to be.
(the part about Fox News referenced above happens at the time stamp 4:20-5:40 on this video)
McClellan, per his own admission, lied at least in regards to O'Reilly. On O'Reilly's show today he admitted not providing the informaiton.
In response to O'Reilly asking “Do you owe me an apology?”
McClellan responded:
Quote:
McCLELLAN: The truth is I messed up. I was specifically not trying to single anyone out, including you. But the way a couple of the questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen. …I understand why you got upset. …
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
