Now Fox News Controls CNN!!!

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
IMO more people think for themselves than do not.

I could not disagree with you more. I think most people in the world pick a celebrity they like, be it entertainment or political, and simply regurgitate whatever comes out of their mouth. I also think that most people disregard any evidence that comes out to refute their previously held opinion.

Example: Clinton.

It wasn't "just about sex" and everyone in the whole world knows damn well it wasn't. It was about sexual harrassment, perjury and abuse of power. But try and tell that to any Democrat voter and Clinton supporter and you'll get nonsensical drivel back.

The media and their regurgitators (that's us, btw) worked overtime to assure anyone who would listen to them that Clinton did NOT lie and these women DID lie and it was all the doings of the VRWC. Then Clinton came on national TV and admitted, yes, he lied. So THEN it became "just about sex" and "oral sex isn't real sex anyway". Then Hillary writes a book about how devastated she was to learn that Billy boy had "cheated" on her and "lied" to her.

But STILL Clinton supporters won't believe it. It was Ken Starr! Yeah! That's it! HE did all those terrible things to the poor Clintons! HE cost the taxpayers millions of dollars! How do they know this? Because James Carville told them so!

DUH DUH DUH

 

[Bertha Venation]

Re: WHAT!?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
You must not be watching! My hero is on all the time, numb nuts!

LOL

My nuts must be numb... I can't even FIND them, let alone feel them...

Perhaps I have learned to tune them out, then. I honestly hadn't noticed.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I could not disagree with you more. . . . I also think that most people disregard any evidence that comes out to refute their previously held opinion.

To a point, I agree. I just think it's "many" and not "most."

You make valid points, V. But really, we can't walk around offering all 300 million Americans an example of what passes for news and ask each one, "what do you think?" If we could I think the story would be different.

But hey, call me an optimist... I mean, a liberal...

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
But STILL Clinton supporters won't believe it. It was Ken Starr! Yeah! That's it! HE did all those terrible things to the poor Clintons! HE cost the taxpayers millions of dollars! How do they know this? Because James Carville told them so!

BTW, I'm a Clinton supporter. I voted for him twice and I'd do it again, and I know he lied about his philandering. And I know he wasn't a perfect president, let alone a perfect man. There's no such animal--either one.

I think it's to say that, in general, Clinton supporters do not blame Bill Clinton himself for his own failures.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
I think it's to say that, in general, Clinton supporters do not blame Bill Clinton himself for his own failures.

There you go, being liber...uh, I mean optimistic again. If you watch the talk shows or even read these forums, you know that the vocal Democrats do not hold Clinton responsible for his actions. There may be some Democrats that don't hold Clinton accountable for his actions. You're the first one I've ever heard of.

The important part of the Clinton lies is NOT that he lied about philandering. The important part is that he sent troopers to march Paula Jones to his office, where he then sexually propositioned her and flashed her. She brought suit against him (her fault, right?). He lied under oath to prevent her from getting her day in court. THAT is important.

Another important part is that, suddenly, the Clinton sex-capades then became, not about philandering or lying, but about how fat and ugly Linda Tripp was (because she dared to refuse to perjure herself on behalf of Clinton). And what trailer trash Paula Jones was (because she dared to go public with Clinton's crassness). And what a stalker Monica Lewinsky was (because she dared to have sex with the President). These women are now global laughing stocks - the butt of a zillion jokes. But Clinton is an elder stateman and, when he speaks, the cameras record every syllable and present it to the American public as the gospel.

Some accountability.

 

[vraiblonde]

And while I'm on a rant, let me toss some logic your way:

Election 2000. Bush stole the election. People voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore.

IF people mistakenly voted for someone else instead of Gore, whom they meant to vote for, doesn't it also stand to reason that some people might have voted for someone other than Bush, whom they meant to vote for? Or was it only Gore voters that couldn't figure out how to work the ballot?

IF someone mistakenly voted for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore, how would they know? After having the ballot right in front of them and punching the wrong hole, did they lay awake in bed that night going, "Gee, I wonder if I did it right? I think I might have punched the wrong hole!" I don't know about you, but when I vote I check it, then I stick it in the machine, which sucks it into tally-land. It never occurred to me to wonder if I did it right later.

 

[SmallTown]

For those who may have forgotten why there were problems in Florida, and in particular this one county...
I'm not posting this to start an argument, just FYI... This is exactly why i feel the literacy test should be brought back... If you can't handle this simple process, we shouldn't be allowing you to help make one of the most important decisions for this country.

http://rama.poly.edu/~latour/Politics/election2000/FactsandSpin.htm

 

[Bruzilla]

Vrai, the reason that I disagree with you on the mis-reporting issue is that when I hear "mis-reporting" I think of a broadcaster either purposefully or accidentally reporting invalid information, i.e., lying. I don't see them going to questionable sources of information as mis-reporting as determining who's a reliable source and who isn't opens a pretty deep Pandora's box. When I think of slanted news coverage I think of the BBC. They only reported the negative aspects of each story, and never talked about any of the successes.

BTW, did you catch Meet The Press this weekend? Talk about a worse-case scenario! Russert had Dick Cheney on and asked him the following questions:

1. Did you understimate the cost of the war? Don Rumsfeld was on that show a couple of months ago, and Russert pressed and pressed for Rumsfeld to tell him how much the war would cost, and attacked him for saying "we don't know". Rumsfeld explained that there hadn't been an estimated cost of military action that had been anywhere near accurate in recent history, and that he would rather say "we don't know" than offer up a number that has about zero percent chance of being right.

So Russert goes out and finds some abstract estimates from some low-level White House types and throws them in Cheney's face with a lot of "a-ha! Gotcha" attached. This despite the fact that Russert and other media types had a fit about the White House not providing them with numbers in the first place, now they're having a fit that the unofficial numbers they got were wrong.

2. Russert asked about how we could have been so wrong in predicting how the Iraqis would respond to us. Cheney had said we would be seen as liberators, and that was wrong. Cheney called Russert on that and said that the majority of Iraqis are glad we're there, and that the problems that we're having are the result of a small group of Iraqis.

3. Russert of course said how "WMDs have not been found and may never be found." That's a bold statement to make just a few months after we've secured the country. It's very easy to twist the news around to make your point, and a lot of reporters do just that. But I think the charge of mis-reporting rests on reporters like that POS from the NYT that made up his stories.

IRT to CLinton, I think we need to get past the lying/sex thing. To me that's not what made him a bad President. I think what made him that was:

1. The assault weapons ban.
2. His dealings with China and North Korea.
3. Not dealing with terrorists (which I think is also a smear on the Bush Sr. presidency.)
4. Poor handling of the economy.
5. Taking credit for the Middle East peace process that the Norwegians put in place after Warren Christopher threw up his hands and quit, and then making a mess of what the Norwegians gave him.

 

[Bertha Venation]

V., you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN, or any national nightly news. On Sunday morning if I'm not in church or doing chores I'm asleep. I don't watch talking heads. (I take that back. Occasionally I watch "Inside Washington," but that's mostly for entertainment, because I love to watch Kathy get mad at Charles Krauthammer. Saturday evenings, one can usually hear one or two "oh, bull####!"'s coming from our windows. ) And I don't read many of the political threads here because I don't like getting angry.

So I don't know what "the vocal Democrats" are saying. I attempt to draw my own conclusions from what elected people say.

So when you tell me that "the Democrats" bash Paula Jones et al for being white trash whores, instead of Bill Clinton for thinking with his parts; when you tell me what "the Democrats" as a whole are saying, there's nothing I can say in reply. All I can do is address what I discuss w/ other Democrats and what goes on in my own mind.

All the Democrats I know who have ever commented on how Clinton mucked things up for the country, his family, the women, etc., share one sentiment: the azzhole couldn't keep it in his pants and then he lied about it.

I've never heard any Democrat I know say anything about how the problems associated with the man were not his fault. (That's not to say people weren't ####ed at the impeachment proceedings and everything that came before. But Bill himself could've staved that #### off by not being an azzhole to begin with, but since that was impossible, by owning up where he was guilty.)

I myself have never blamed any of his problems on Starr or Jones or Flowers or Tripp or Lewinsky or anyone else but Bill Clinton. Despite what you hear "the Democrats" saying, V., I think it's unfair to state that the things "they" say are "the Democratic position."

 

[Bruzilla]

I saw Paula Jones bashing on all sorts of entertainment shows... Saturday Night Live, Late Night with David Letterman, The Tonight Show, Entertainment Tonight. Pretty much any show that was either hosted by a Democrat or where Democrats were interviewed, took shots at Starr, Jones, the House Republicans, etc. It wasn't just the talking heads shows on Sunday or the specialized political talk shows.

What I found paricularly disgusting was at the very time that Dems were defending Clinton for abusing a White House intern, they were also calling for the heads of the Army instructors at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds who had sex with their subordinates under the justification that the instructors "raped" their students because they had too much influence over their careers. And who has more influence over a White House intern than the President? That sex was consentual while sex between a private and a sergent had to be rape.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
V., you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN, or any national nightly news.

Busted! If you don't watch or keep up with the news, how do you know Bush is doing such a poor job that you wouldn't vote for him in 2004? How, exactly, did you decide to be a Democrat and not a Republican? How did you decide to vote for Bill Clinton? Did you just take a poll of your friends? Did you flip a coin?

I attempt to draw my own conclusions from what elected people say.

If you don't watch the news, how do you know what they are saying?

Despite what you hear "the Democrats" saying, V., I think it's unfair to state that the things "they" say are "the Democratic position." [/B]

When Democrat leaders and mouthpieces come on TV and state candidly their views on the issues, I think it's safe to say that that IS their position. Especially when they say it in complete lockstep and to a man. When it comes from every single one of their party leaders, it IS the party position.

This is coming off more antagonistic than I mean it to. But I just get frustrated when people talk about "educated" voting decisions, yet they admit they never watch the news and have no idea what's going on in the world.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Busted! If you don't watch or keep up with the news, how do you know Bush is doing such a poor job that you wouldn't vote for him in 2004? . . . If you don't watch the news, how do you know what they are saying?

I didn't say I don't keep up with the news. I said I don't watch certain sources. I listen to the radio; I read the Post, the L.A., N.Y., and Washington Times, various other on line news sources. I didn't mean to mislead you. I was thinking mainly of talking head shows.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
How, exactly, did you decide to be a Democrat and not a Republican? How did you decide to vote for Bill Clinton? Did you just take a poll of your friends? Did you flip a coin?

I didn't decide to be a Democrat. It just happened. The only action I took, besides reading, thinking a great deal, paying attention to the years-long process that changed my opinions, was changing my registration from Republican.

I decided to vote for Bill Clinton first, because Tom Harkin didn't win the nomination, and then, because I didn't care for GHW Bush's leadership. I paid attention to both Pres. Bush (I) and Bill Clinton during the campaign. I read about Clinton as Arkansas governor. It was easier to decide not to vote for the president than it was to vote for Clinton. I didn't instantly make up my mind about him merely because he was the Democratic nominee.

In 2000, I voted for Bradley in the primary, but like a great many Democrats was disappointed. If McCain had won the Republican nomination, I would have cast my vote for John McCain.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
This is coming off more antagonistic than I mean it to. But I just get frustrated when people talk about "educated" voting decisions, yet they admit they never watch the news and have no idea what's going on in the world.

I realize you don't mean to be antagonistic (much ). I'd be frustrated too. But again, I didn't say I don't follow the news--and again, I didn't mean to mislead you in that regard.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
I listen to the radio; I read the Post, the L.A., N.Y., and Washington Times, various other on line news sources.

Okay, I accept that with one caveat: In order to get the full flavor of a politician or a political party, you really should listen to them talk - live, uncensored and unspun. There are many times I've heard Bush say something specifically in a press conference or whatever, yet when I read some reporter's story about it later, it comes across as completely different than what I saw.

Also, the news media picks and chooses what they decide to report and who their commentators will be. I don't consider entertainment celebrities to be experts on government affairs. MSNBC, Today and various other news shows obviously think they are because they're frequent guests.

 

[Larry Gude]

You mean that???

I would have cast my vote for John McCain.

All honesty???

 

[Bertha Venation]

Re: You mean that???

Originally posted by Larry Gude
All honesty???

Of course, Larry. He would clearly have made the best president. IMO, of course.

(I know that on line we have to take what we read with a grain of salt, so this probably won't mean much to very many people, but I don't lie about anything on message boards [or in my livejournal, for that matter]. And I post a lot.)

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, I accept that with one caveat: In order to get the full flavor of a politician or a political party, you really should listen to them talk - live, uncensored and unspun.

That's why I usually try to slip into one of the attorney's offices at work to listen to CSPAN or some such on my lunch hour. To get it from the horse's mouth. I'm a tad bit more informed than I've let on, V. And I do understand spin.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I don't consider entertainment celebrities to be experts on government affairs.

You don't?! But-but-but-but -- Katie, she's so cool! And her husband died! So she has to be right!

Sweetie, I knew this about you without your telling me. I know you are a smart cookie.

 

[Bruzilla]

Well Vrai... when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I was watching TV last night and heard on one of the non-FNC news shows that Dick Cheney had said on Meet The Press that "We need to put the 9/11 attacks behind us and move forward", which I didn't recall hearing on the parts of MTP that I saw on Sunday and couldn't imagine Cheney saying. The show said that the statement was a part of a story in The New York Times.

Later, I turned on Brit Hume's Special Report, and near the end he touched on the NYT's article, but instead of reporting the mis-reported story, he told the "whole" story, which was that Cheney had said "Some people feel that it's time to put the 9/11 attacks behind us and move forward, but that's not what were going to do" (or words to that effect.) So the NYT not only took words out of context, but also dropped words to intentionally change the meaning of a statement... and that's about as bad a case of mis-reporting that I can think of.

Hey Bertha... you say you looked at Clinton's record as Governor of Arkansas to make your decision about voting for him? Since Arkansas ranked near the bottom in just about every category a state is measured in except poverty (where they were near the top of the list), what about Clinton's record made you want to vote for him? It sure couldn't have been his record on children's matters, education, health care, etc. The state was ranked about 49th in those categories.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Well, Bruzilla, what can I say. I guess I'm just as backward, inbred, alcoholic and brain dead as anyone else (Republicans included) who voted for ol' Bill.

 

[Bruzilla]

Both of my parents voted for Clinton twice, and they aren't backward, inbred, alcoholic or brain dead. They got fooled by the Dems' claims of the Republicans wanting to cut social security. So there's really nothing about Clinton's performance as governor that led you to vote for him?

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Both of my parents voted for Clinton twice, and they aren't backward, inbred, alcoholic or brain dead.

Then it would seem my point was taken. Time will tell.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
So there's really nothing about Clinton's performance as governor that led you to vote for him?

Of course not. I just voted for him because he was the Democrat.

Much about Bill Clinton impressed me, not the least of which was the fact that he paid attention to Joe & Jane Six Pack of Arkansas USA. I read as much about what they had to say as I did to anyone else talking about the race in '92, and what I read, I liked.