The New liberal Name For Our *PRESIDENT*...

[007]

You think the media is liberally biased and are looking for more reasons to reinforce that notion.

I THINK the main stream media is liberal bias?

Please... do NOT insult my, or anyone else's intelligence here on this board!

 

[Annie]

And I was taught in college to use the "injector pulse width" tables to reflash the ECM. Then we had an industry whip come along and taught us to use the "volumetric effiency" tables to reflash the ECM instead.

Just goes to show... what's in the books and what you're taught may not necessarily be right.

I get back to my main point... the liberals are doing it, whether it's "taught" or not, as a disrespect to President Bush. Do you not concede that?

Well I sure am not on MJDuncan's side, :cof: . Lord knows, well I KNOW Music Man knows, I am NOT a fan of the MSM as it operates today. I do believe they have a STRONG anti-Bush/anti-GOP/anti-religious, except Muslim agenda. I just don't think this is an instance of it. I've contributed more than enough posts on examples of their bias.

This thread began I think Friday night/early Sat. morning. Fairly early on, I said I thought I remembered that convention from journalism which was my first major and became a minor-mind you, "All the President's Men" came out when I was in I think Sr. year of high school. So I am going back to the 70's for the 'rule.' The 'convention' was: Use complete title referencing the first mention of a subject; after that you don't need the title use again, though it wasn't 'prohibited.' The purpose of the convention is to avoid the 'repetition' which doesn't read well for most of us.

I am not trying to be difficult, as I said the premise that the media is 'biased' I agree with. I just think that this particular issue, is not an example of it. There is no doubt in my mind that CNN LOVED Clinton, but they treated him the same way, as you pointed out, perhaps even more informally. (I really don't think CNN was trying to punish him for all he had done, they thought it 'beside the point of how great he was.' )

 

[007]

OK then Kath... we'll just see how the next four years go. If all I hear, 'as I already have been hearing', is mister Bush when refering to President Bush, and then, in reference to either a prior or a future elect president, they're refered to as "president", then I've made my point so that you can see it. Untill then, I guess you consider the liberal media calling "President" Bush, "mister" Bush normal. Funny... I don't, and I don't think many others here do either.

It's a slap in his face, and mine as the electorate, and the reason it's a slap in his face and mine is because the libs are making a *point* of taking every possible oportunity to CALL him "mister" Bush.

I think you know that, you'll just never admit it. That's alright. "I" know you know it, and I think anyone else who's read through this thread knows it judging by the rep I picked up on this very matter.

 

[padisha emperor]

If anyone calls former President clinton, mister clinton, I can see that. He was the second president in American history to be IMPEACHED! He was a shyster and a sexual predator, and dishonored not only the White House, but the office of president. He no longer deserves the respect of being called "President".

Bullshit, pale rider.

It is not becasue apresidnet make something stupid, or ashaming, that he wouldn't be more called "president"...

Because at this prize, GWB wouldn't no mre be call "president"...


I think like Kathianne here, it is the respect of the function, not of the man.

like for the ancients kings : even if the king is quite bad, you have to respect him because he 's the King.
Then, even if Clinton like blow jobs in his office, he was the president of the USA, and then, have to been respected for his function, job.

 

[007]

Bullshit, pale rider.

It is not becasue apresidnet make something stupid, or ashaming, that he wouldn't be more called "president"...

Because at this prize, GWB wouldn't no mre be call "president"...


I think like Kathianne here, it is the respect of the function, not of the man.

like for the ancients kings : even if the king is quite bad, you have to respect him because he 's the King.
Then, even if Clinton like blow jobs in his office, he was the president of the USA, and then, have to been respected for his function, job.

padisha... with all due respect... get your perspectives straight in "english" if you're going to post to me.

You fucked that post up bad. I don't even get what the **** you're saying.

You sons a bitches over there in france are FULLY AWARE you're elected officials are CROCKED, and you all chose to just "let it slide". Well that's not the way we do things here in America.

Perhaps if you'd like, why don't you imigrate here to America, maybe then you'd sound more intelligent after a few years of learning the English language.

 

[padisha emperor]

wow, what for a bright and strong answzer !!! bashing me on my english level !!! wow ! congratulation !

It prooves that you can't answer, hmmm ?


I meant - again, but i'm still convince you understood me - that you respect the JOB, not necessary the MAN, like in a monarchy : a bad king is still the king, and then you call him KING, not Mister, even if he have B-J with some ladies.

Bill Clinto was President of USA, twice, then, even if he had BJ, nevermind, he had to be called PRESIDENT.
IF he were really impeached, then, other question, but he wasn't, so, what you're saying about him is bullshit.



I don't know if an immigration would be a good idea, because if nobody correct me in USA, like on this board, I wouldn't progress.

Come on Tuco, will you able to read me ?

Everybody can, so 2 answers :
everybody has a job in some archeological foundation, and is able to read hieroglypic words.
Or you are more stupid than the others.
But i think you read me...

 

[KarlMarx]

Bullshit, pale rider.

It is not becasue apresidnet make something stupid, or ashaming, that he wouldn't be more called "president"...

Because at this prize, GWB wouldn't no mre be call "president"...


I think like Kathianne here, it is the respect of the function, not of the man.

like for the ancients kings : even if the king is quite bad, you have to respect him because he 's the King.
Then, even if Clinton like blow jobs in his office, he was the president of the USA, and then, have to been respected for his function, job.

Padisha.... the problem that conservatives here in the US have with Clinton is .... he broke the law..... he lied under oath.... in the United States that is a crime.... Clinton also broke other federal laws, he misused Government Property by allowing his personal attorney to use the White House for his office, his Vice President, Al Gore, violated Federal Election Laws by using the White House for fund raising activities (and I'm not talking about sleep overs in the Lincoln bedroom), both him and Hillary Clinton obstructed federal investigations into the cause of Vince Foster's death, what we call "File Gate"....he also betrayed his country turning over missile technology to the Chinese for a campaign contribution from Loral... and to top it off, both him and his wife stole government property by making off with silverware, furniture and other things from the White House.....

Of couse, let's not forget that Clinton also pardoned hundreds of people, mostly convicted felons (like Marc Rich, who was wanted for fraud and income tax evasion and is now living comfortably with his ill gotten gains somewhere outside the US), usually because of a campaign contribution or because he owed them a favor.

His conduct in the Oval Office (i.e. getting blowjobs) has nothing to do with his impeachment. However, we don't respect him because he did that. It's kind of like using the Shroud of Turin to wipe your anus, or relieving yourself on Charlamagne's grave..... some things you just don't do....

Unlike a King, our president is supposed to be under the law, not above it....

Clinton got away with all this partly because of a few feeble minded Senators that decided that Clinton shouldn't be tried for crimes because he was so liberal.....

Yet, during all this time, no one on the Right said "Clinton is not my President" or "I'm leaving the United States if he's re-elected".

 

[padisha emperor]

I can understand you...

but he was the pres, and you haev just the same to respect the Job...


And -you giev only the bad points.

He was a beloved pres, wasn't he ?
He did great things, didn't he ?

And hje was re-elected, without a terrorism atmopshere, so, the elections were not at all biased, so if he was reelected, it is becasue he did a good job during his 4 first years, didn't he ?



(Biased : I meant it becasue I believe that usually, the US voters are really interestied by the economical rapports of the president, and for Bush '04, the economy was bad, but it was re-elected. So, the main subject for the elector was not economy, this year it was terror and fear. So, a different election.)

It's kind of like using the Shroud of Turin to wipe your anus, or relieving yourself on Charlamagne's grave..... some things you just don't do....

It is a little bit different, no ?

Not the same scale

 

[KarlMarx]

I can understand you...

but he was the pres, and you haev just the same to respect the Job...


And -you giev only the bad points.

He was a beloved pres, wasn't he ?
He did great things, didn't he ?

And hje was re-elected, without a terrorism atmopshere, so, the elections were not at all biased, so if he was reelected, it is becasue he did a good job during his 4 first years, didn't he ?



(Biased : I meant it becasue I believe that usually, the US voters are really interestied by the economical rapports of the president, and for Bush '04, the economy was bad, but it was re-elected. So, the main subject for the elector was not economy, this year it was terror and fear. So, a different election.)







It is a little bit different, no ?

Not the same scale

Actually I used Charlamagne and The Shroud of Turin to try to get you to understand what the Oval Office means to us as Americans. I'm sure that you would take offense at either Charlamagne's grave (being French) or the Shrould (assuming you're Catholic) being violated.

Clinton is credited with the good economy of the 1990s by some, which is not entirely fair. The Republican Congress of 1994 lowered the tax on the buying and selling of stock, so that helped the economy, second, corporations had made some changes to make themselves more competitive and that helped and finally, the Internet revolutionized a lot of stuff (for instance, I would not in my wildest dreams ever thought I'd be working from home on a Sunday morning and chatting with someone from the other side of the Atlantic as if he were sitting next to me, emailing my brother about our parents' anniversay celebration and looking up his airline itinerarry all at the same time as I am at this very instant!)

Also, Clinton did not do much about terrorism except for some minor things. For instance, he did not pursue the first World Trade Center bombing very aggressively, he did not respond to the bombing of US Embassies, the USS Cole (an American battleship) or the Khobar towers. Any one of these are acts of war, Clinton treated them as if they were a matter for the police. Bush has been a lot more aggressive with the terrorism threat.

 

[padisha emperor]

ok

( I have a catholic culture, but I'm atheist

And if you let Comarde answer to me for what would touch me, instead of Charlemagne, Saint Denis' graves, Panthéon or Invalides, , he would answer Hitler's bunker place..... he's so funny....)

 

[007]

Well to no surprize to me, padisha thinks clinton can walk on water. I would expect as much from an athiest from france, where their own officials are crocked as hell, and they don't give a damn about that either.

God Bless America.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I THINK the main stream media is liberal bias?

Please... do NOT insult my, or anyone else's intelligence here on this board!

Oh please - beating your chest doesn't count in my book as proof for a claim. "It's so obvious that it's an insult to suggest otherwise" is a poor excuse for an argument.

And furthermore, I didn't say that there was no liberal bias. I said YOU think (know, have been told by God, whatever you want to say) that there is and look for evidence to support that conclusion - that is backwards logic.

And I'm still curious if you got this angry when it was done to Clinton PRE-Monica.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh please - beating your chest doesn't count in my book as proof for a claim. "It's so obvious that it's an insult to suggest otherwise" is a poor excuse for an argument.

And furthermore, I didn't say that there was no liberal bias. I said YOU think (know, have been told by God, whatever you want to say) that there is and look for evidence to support that conclusion - that is backwards logic.

And I'm still curious if you got this angry when it was done to Clinton PRE-Monica.

If the mainstream media was not biased, why the uproar about fox? If Fox is right wing, the others must be left wing. Deduction, my friend. Try it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

If the mainstream media was not biased, why the uproar about fox? If Fox is right wing, the others must be left wing. Deduction, my friend. Try it.

Not so...you exlude the middle. And I'll preface this by saying that I'm making no claims about the nature of any networks...just showing you an error.

----------------------------------------------------------------
(Right Wing)________________(Center)______________(Left Wing)

If Fox is here___________The mainstream can be at either of these two

If the mainstream is either center OR left, Fox would appear to be right wing. I am well versed in the rules of formal logic. You have assumed the only two choices are left wing and right wing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not so...you exlude the middle. And I'll preface this by saying that I'm making no claims about the nature of any networks...just showing you an error.

----------------------------------------------------------------
(Right Wing)________________(Center)______________(Left Wing)

If Fox is here___________The mainstream can be at either of these two

If the mainstream is either center OR left, Fox would appear to be right wing. I am well versed in the rules of formal logic. You have assumed the only two choices are left wing and right wing.

all the libs were happy until fox came around. Why? Now some of the others are pulling center to compete with fox. SO it's not as clear cut now. The big three and cnn were so far left before fox it was pitiful. Now all the sudden the libs are saying ALL msm is right wing, because no outlets will pick up on their baseless insane stories.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

See again you assume that all the networks had to be left wing in order for liberals to be horrified at how right wing they percieve Fox to be. The scenario would work just as well if liberals thought all the networks were somewhere around the center but have been pulling to the right now to compete with Fox.

 

[007]

And furthermore, I didn't say that there was no liberal bias. I said YOU think (know, have been told by God, whatever you want to say) that there is and look for evidence to support that conclusion - that is backwards logic.

I'd say that judging by my 900+ positive rep, and then your NEGATIVE 20+ rep, that more people would tend to agree with me than you. Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because of YOUR liberal attitude... ya think? I *DO NOT* expect you to EVER admit error or wrong doing with your brethren liberals, thus this arguement could never have a conclusion.

And I'm still curious if you got this angry when it was done to Clinton PRE-Monica.

"Pre" monica, pre watergate, pre filegate, pre impeachment, pre White House and Air Force One robbery, pre EVERYTHING, clinton deserved to be addressed as PRESIDENT clinton. However, now, he doesn't deserve to be pissed on if he was on fire. The cad should be in a prison cell.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I'd say that judging by my 900+ positive rep, and then your NEGATIVE 20+ rep, that more people would tend to agree with me than you. Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because of YOUR liberal attitude... ya think? I *DO NOT* expect you to EVER admit error or wrong doing with your brethren liberals, thus this arguement could never have a conclusion.

Congratulations. You, a conservative, have the support of the majority of the people on a conservative message board. Amazing feat of intellect. And of course it is because of my liberal attitude...this is a CONSERVATIVE message board and they are REPUTATION points...not exactly an objective measure of ability.

And your reply doesn't make any sense to me. I'll try to simplify: You think that there is a liberal bias in the media (now I know I don't have to tell you that by using the word "think" I am not implying that it is wrong or anything else...it is a statement of fact about the world that you think there is such a bias). Because of that, you look for evidence to support that idea. Formal logic works the other way around: You find evidence and come to a conclusion. And this is where I am confused...why would me admitting I was wrong have anything to do with your conclusions? I think you have misunderstood the difference between the conclusion of an argument (the definition it seems you are using in your reply) and a logical conclusion (to what I am referring).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See again you assume that all the networks had to be left wing in order for liberals to be horrified at how right wing they percieve Fox to be. The scenario would work just as well if liberals thought all the networks were somewhere around the center but have been pulling to the right now to compete with Fox.

Why would they be upset with fox then if there's wasn't a difference? Maybe they THOUGHT they were center. The truth is they were left.

The level of outrage indicated that the distance between fox and the others was more than the distance between right and center. SO if fox is right.....

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Why would they be upset with fox then if there's wasn't a difference? Maybe they THOUGHT they were center. The truth is they were left.

Well it's easy to support your argument when you simply assert a premise is just true (they were left). The point is that liberals can be up in arms about Fox being right if the other networks were either center OR left. Either one means that Fox is to the right of the others. The question is where were the other networks.

The level of outrage indicated that the distance between fox and the others was more than the distance between right and center. SO if fox is right.....

How are you measuring this outrage? Please provide the scale so I can better understand what level of outrage indicates what. That way I can better respond to this since I don't know what level of outrage signifies what.

My personal opinion:

Right = -10
Left = 10
Center = 0

Most of the major networks seem to have traditionally been around a 2 or 3. Slightly liberal but that is how I want journalism to be...always questioning the establishment. Fox came out and is around a -5 or -6. Thus the claim that Fox is so right wing because it is more to the right of center than the major networks are left of center. But that is just my personal opinion.