|
good for them! It's about time some of the mainstream media got truthful no thats it bad. im disgusted. Pop for Kkapricorn's comment. It's not fair. The newspapers are supposed to only support the Republicans. Murdoch will have to speak to them. Well said k. Does that surprise you, jatfla? Doesn't surprise me... NYTimes is, was and likely will be a left-wing outfit. So, nothing surprising there... simply a blatant confirmation of what we already knew. It's disappointing that such big organization would stoop so low and print such a ridiculous ad, but it's not surprising. MoveOn.org isn't the problem; Bush's war policy is. MoveOn.org is THE problem with what's discussed here. Using your logic, debbyski, you could've just as easily said that 'Bush isn't the problem - bin laden is', but again, that's NOT what this is about. It's a blatant example of many lacks of the far left, such as lack of decency, reason and respect... to name a few. There was absolutely ZERO reason to attack the man. This is a perfect example and proof of total lack of credibility on the left when they say they 'support the troops'. That's an extremely twisted definition of 'support'. You don't support someone by attacking them, which is precisely what they did in the ad. Record...of course I agree with you...and about 3 others around at Clipmarks. It's amazing that *cute* phrases and hateful rhetoric are what is being promoted by the traditional media outlets; and some not so traditional. It is designed to be eye-catching and even offensive so that our lazy-listening public can remember it without giving any of it much thought or focus. As I've said so many times. Say something productive and have a working, logical, well-thought-out plan. Anyone can criticize and pick apart a person's words and twist them. These people do us no good and indeed, foster more ill-will and fan the flames of anti-Americanism...which might be their goal after all. There was absolutely ZERO reason to attack the man.Are you serious Record? Hey, did anyone attack Powell when lied for the President? So what is a big deal? I know I won't see your comment when Swift boat people kicks in their campaign, right? Absolutely, debbyski. @arifsali, we'll talk about that when it happens, let's not discuss hypotheticals here or change topics. When you "won't" see something - then you can say you didn't. You don't know the future any better than I do... so let's leave what I will or won't say in the future... for the future, has nothing to do with this. And as for Powell's "lie for the President"... that makes about as much sense as saying that your comment is your "lie for the Democrats" or liberals or whomever you want to associate yourself with. See? The liberals ONLY see themselves as being treated fairly if they are given the advantage or have the mnstrm. press usual bias. And if you think the press is for factual reporting, how do you confuse a paid ad consisting of an OPINION a matter of being truthful? That's a very unrefined view of what the press is for. No wonder you misperceive the product it puts out. And the play right here is soooo typical. Divert from the point and and attack impudently and self-righteously. In all fairness, Giuliani got the same discount afterwards, but I'd guess only to avoid the obvious. And, Oh yeah,...I guess since nobody attacked Powell you got a free one coming. "FREE PASS== One Infantile Slandering of an Honorable Man" Does this really even compare to the meshing of Faux Nexs and the Bush Badministration as one entity? And yes when you cherry pick statistics to present a skewed picture that no one else feels is accurate at all (e.g. shot in the back of the head -sectarian violence, shot in the front of the head - wrong place wrong time, not part of the statistics), it is a betrayal of trust. Petraeus has already demonstrated he is far from being error free: His [Petraeus] critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05[... Perhaps this isn't the right place to post this comment, but a thought has been bubbling in my mind since I first read this story and it's just going to have to spill out here. My thought is this: How sad is it that a political organization such as MoveOn.org uses a man's name to attack him? I can put aside my anger that a military officer would essentially be ordered by Congress to testify and would then be asked to make political judgments about the success of his mission -- and would then be personally attacked for it. I can also take it in stride that the NY Times appears to support a political agenda with its advertising policy. But, man, it really boils me that a national PA... What a laugh that you do not recognize the bullying conservatives have been practicing against liberals for the last 3+ decades. How about the bullying of anyone who disagreed with the Bush administration about getting into this BS war in the first place as being unpatriotic. This doesn't even compare. What a laugh that you do not recognize the bullying conservatives haveBobby-- I'm not defending anybody's bullying-- Republican, Democrat, Libertian, Vegetarian, whatever. I'm not even defending the President's decisions to engage military forces in Iraq. My point is simply that using a man's name to make fun of him-- especially for serving as a uniformed officer sworn to follow the political leadership of any party-- suggests a pretty sad organization. If MoveOn thinks Gen Petraeus has willingly abandoned his constitutionally and statutorily required neutrality to lie to Congress, they should make that point, not st... |
View the Top Clips from September 13, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
