S
Savior2006
Guest
The mainstream media is now nothing more than a bunch of slobbering, sycophantic toadies.
If you're including Fox News in that then yes.
Upvote
0
The mainstream media is now nothing more than a bunch of slobbering, sycophantic toadies.
So your point could be expressed as because one President you hated grandstanded it makes another President that you adore doing the same sort of grandstanding less asinine? Perhaps you should get over your Bush fetish long enough to deal with the present.
Who says I hate Bush? Besides the point I was merely expressing is that if it is wrong for Obama to "grandstand" then it is wrong for any President to do or to have done the same. Furthermore I expect every president who has done it to be griped about equally from now on. Otherwise people are not being internally consistent and are hypocrites.
Bush didn't run around blaming other people for his own stupid ideas, like Obama is concerning Sequestration.
FINALLY we agree on something! No you're right Bush took full credit for his stupid ideas.
The problem we have is that when Obama says it enough times, people do believe it. That's why we call them Low Information VotersThe problem with Obama is he feels if he says it enough times, people believe it - and guess what - they are believing him. He is leading us down the wrong path to destruction and he has 51% of the people agreeing with him.Scary.
MachZer0 said:The problem we have is that when Obama says it enough times, people do believe it. That's why we call them Low Information Voters
I think it's more Wrong Information Voters because they get all their information from a freedom of speech practicing news media that makes up or changes what they need to keep their audience hypnotized.
GarfieldJL said:They are only parroting what the Obama White House tells them to parrot...
The only major network that is practicing journalism anymore is Fox News.
Every major news outlet makes up statistics and changes statistics, unless the actual statistics fit their view. I know this for a complete fact with regards to my service in the military. People should get all of their information from .gov websites.
GarfieldJL said:Your claims that the government gives you accurate information doesn't fit the facts...
In one case, just before the November election, according to the government the unemployment numbers dropped, when you look at the data though, they left out the state of California...
Then we have the government claiming that what happened in Benghazi, was the result of a stupid youtube video that nobody had seen...
Not to mention Fast & Furious.
The government actually has a horrible track record currently when it comes to telling people the truth.
They give more accurate information than the news media. Benghazi got blown out of proportion. You didn't mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which were for oil and lithium and nothing else.
GarfieldJL said:Maybe compared to MSDNC, but even that's doubtful.
Benghazi wasn't blown up out of proportions, if anything I'm disgusted at how the media tried to sweep it under the rug...
Also we weren't the ones that were trying to hit the Iraqis up for money, it was actually the French that wanted the Iraqis to pay for the military hardware the French sold Saddam...
Seriously, Bush went into Afghanistan to take down Al Qaeda and the Taliban made the mistake not to hand over Bin Laden... The Taliban foolishly thought that Bush didn't have the guts to actually use military force after we were attacked on 9/11. I don't know how the Taliban were so stupid to assume that a Texan wouldn't put his money where his mouth is...
And you believe all of this from the media? I worked directly for General Petraues in Iraq. Iraq has the second largest oil deposit underneath it and Afghanistan the largest lithium deposit.
GarfieldJL said:I'm not denying the fact that Iraq has oil reserves and Afghanistan has a lithium deposit, I'm saying that the motives Bush had to invade Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with either.
I'm sure Bush would have liked us getting discounts on Iraqi oil, but that wasn't exactly high up on his priority list (not sure about some other people in government at the time, but Bush is a little too straightforward for that kind of subtle motives, doesn't fit his behavior patterns).
So why do think the US invaded Iraq?
GarfieldJL said:Offhand, I'd say the intelligence information that Saddam still had WMDs (whether or not that information was accurate is up to debate considering the fact Syria may have gotten chemical weapons from Saddam, the jury is still out), and then Saddam made the mistake of trying to play games with Bush and seriously misread Bush and thought Bush was bluffing.
Bush's cowboy-style diplomacy actually caused Qaddafi to cough up his own Nuclear program, cause he was afraid he'd be the next one on Bush's "regimes to topple list." Again, Bush tended to be fairly straightforward.
So why did we stay in Iraq after the government and military surrendered almost immediately?