Why is The New York Times so well respected in spite of it's obvious political slant?

I don't think Bush is as bad as Yawa's making him out to be. I'd still never vote for him. (Unless he outlawed reggaeton.) Maybe that's my apathy talking. Anyway, I'd love to have him over for a BBQ: I bet he's got some great grilling tips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

I don't think Bush is as bad as Yawa's making him out to be. I'd still never vote for him. (Unless he outlawed reggaeton.) Maybe that's my apathy talking. Anyway, I'd love to have him over for a BBQ: I bet he's got some great grilling tips.

---

"Now what you do is, you see, what you do is pour a line of coke out on the steak, then snort it and see how many eyebrow hairs ya'll have left by the time you've done snortin!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

I've never said Bush has done no wrong, or that our problems are the Democrat's fault (most of them are terrorist's fault). He's made mistakes and does some things I don't agree with at all (like his policies on immigration). But this notion that he's this scheming mastermind that lied to the country to get into an oil war, that the economy is his fault (the economy started going down on Clinton's watch if you want to blame it on a President), or any number of other propaganda issues backed by exactly ZERO evidence, are so silly that it's hard to take the people that buy them seriously. If most of the left truly in their hearts believes all those things without asking for a shred of evidence then we're in deep trouble.

I understand that Bush is an easy guy to hate, he's a spoiled rich kid that got where he is largely because of his Dad. You want to have reasons to hate a guy like that, but it's irresponsible to make them up in as serious a time in our history as this.

---

? If your refering to my comparison with that make up reason's comment, then fine. If your referring too everything else he's done, then thats really not cool.

I don't think he's a scheming mastermind either. In the simplest terms I can put it, I think he's a puppet for oil companies. I think he's blunt and krass because he is blunt and krass not because he's pretending to be blunt and crass. I think he's bullheaded and doesn't wanna hear second opinions because he truly believes he's right. A manical genius? Not in the least.

But propaganda? Please Spo, thats all your party has fed you for the last six years. Wake up and actually listen to what they are saying.

Lying to start a war isn't propaganda, it happened. Colin Powell admits he regrets just about everything he did before the Iraq war, including using information that wasn't "confirmed" as a launchpad for a "war." Where people will die. Over 1,000 American troops. Tens of thousands Iraq civilians. Human Life, the loss of which no one has answered for.

I didn't make that up, so please keep that in mind at all times when you debate with me, and want to believe that left "makes up" things about Bush. Get it straight.

The left exaggerates, the right makes shit up.

The left and right suck.

Yes, I know that doesn't add anything to this thread, but I felt it needed to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

The left and right suck.

---

Apathetic fence-sitters suck harder.

Lying about a blowjob or lying in order to start a war, I wonder which deserves more attention? The fact that the blowjob was the one which caused an impeachment is an indication of the sorry state of our country.

A republican compaining about a liberal bias in the media is laughable. Thousands died because of this presidents lies and errors, and only once in awhile will you see someone in the mainstream press say anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Lying to start a war isn't propaganda, it happened. Colin Powell admits he regrets just about everything he did before the Iraq war, including using information that wasn't "confirmed" as a launchpad for a "war." Where people will die. Over 1,000 American troops. Tens of thousands Iraq civilians. Human Life, the loss of which no one has answered for.

---

The UN and Bill Clinton signed off on going into Iraq and deposing Saddam in 1998 (the only reason Clinton didn't is because he was afraid it'd look like he was trying to divert attention from BlowjobGate, and Clinton was never one to put the good of the world over his own image), what were their motivations? What lies did they tell?

Obviously "war" isn't cool, loss of life isn't cool, are you implying you're a pacifist? Do you not understand that those American troops signed up to fight and die defending the interests of their country and do so bravely and willingly? Do you not realize that Hussein was killing far more Iraqi's than we could if we tried? That Iraqi's are finally deciding their own destiny, electing their own leaders, getting real educations and information from the outside world?

Civilians are dying because when we first got to Iraq the civilians were thrilled to see us, that made Saddam's Bathist connections to Al Qaeda start to worry about global sentiment. They brilliantly decided the best thing to do was to turn our own liberal body counting mentality against us and disguise their suicide bombers as civilians, sending them to civilian vehicle checkpoints. Back home the liberals are gleefully publishing an updated tally every time a soldier dies, and the enemy now looks identical to the innocent civilian. Does the military trade soldiers (and public sentiment back home) for Iraqi civilians, or do they start treating everyone approaching them with suspicion to protect themselves?

The answer is obvious, better to deal with the hypocritical "Bring home our beloved troops that are viciously murdering innocent Iraqi civilians so the innocent Iraqi civilians can all be murdered in the ensuing civil war" bullshit than the "Another US Soldier died, Bush is that much more wrong, my dick is hard!" bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

The left exaggerates, the right makes shit up.

---

Michael Moore, meet your follower YAWA

Michael Moore quoted George Orwell at the close of his tribute to Triumph of the Will, so I'll do the same here regarding all this pacifist whining:

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States…" -George Orwell, Notes On Nationalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinopio

Lying about a blowjob or lying in order to start a war, I wonder which deserves more attention? The fact that the blowjob was the one which caused an impeachment is an indication of the sorry state of our country.

A republican compaining about a liberal bias in the media is laughable. Thousands died because of this presidents lies and errors, and only once in awhile will you see someone in the mainstream press say anything about it.

---

I ask again, would anyone care to provide a shred of evidence, beyond Michael Moore and Howard Dean's say so, that George Bush lied to start a war? Why do you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton and the UN signed off on invading Iraq and deposing Hussein 7 years ago? There's a difference between acting on bad intelligence universally accepted to be good intelligence and lying.

Most of my friends who are now serving are doing so because they couldn:t afford it. And they hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Michael Moore quoted George Orwell at the close of his tribute to Triumph of the Will,

---

Don't throw around references you don't understand. The Triumph of the Will and Fahrenheit 9/11 have NOTHING in common whatsoever other than you making a ridiculous allusion that Michael Moore is a Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

I ask again, would anyone care to provide a shred of evidence, beyond Michael Moore and Howard Dean's say so, that George Bush lied to start a war?

---

Downing St. Memo and Colin Powell's own admission that the WMD line he was told to feed the UN was garbage.


EDIT: Oh and since you like throwing around Orwell quotes here's a couple you might like:

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."'

EDIT x2: Even better, here's one that pretty much describes conservatives these days, from the same essay:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Orwell, Notes On Nationalism

"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’.* But secondly—and this is much more important—I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Don't throw around references you don't understand. The Triumph of the Will and Fahrenheit 9/11 have NOTHING in common whatsoever other than you making a ridiculous allusion that Michael Moore is a Nazi.

---

I'm suprised even you are this thick, they're both propaganda pieces. Do I really need to point out all the disgusting lies and misinformation in that piece of trash again?