<a href='http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/14/D8D824KO4.html' target='_blank'>They Sensationalize EVERYTHING!</a>


Anyone that believes the liberal media is an idiot.

RebelKev Wrote:Anyone that believes the liberal media is an idiot.

What next? <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101400226.html' target='_blank'>Staged interviews</a>?

Im suprised the media did not change the headline to "Reporter attacked by Two Giants!!!" film at eleven.

ShoreBuc Wrote:Im suprised the media did not change the headline to "Reporter attacked by Two Giants!!!" film at eleven.

My wife and I was getting a big laugh out of that one.

I45Owl Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Anyone that believes the liberal media is an idiot.

What next? <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101400226.html' target='_blank'>Staged interviews</a>?

Where?


<a href='http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/003723.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/003723.htm</a>

Would you genuinely assert that President Bush's advisors would permit him to respond to questions in an environment where they could not ensure they could carefully control his responses.

I have not (yet) seen any comments that approach the hyperbole that you use on this contrived media coverage. Yet, you don't have to be a genious to realize that George W. Bush has scripted answers every time he's in a "town hall" environment.

I45Owl Wrote:Would you genuinely assert that President Bush's advisors would permit him to respond to questions in an environment where they could not ensure they could carefully control his responses.

I have not (yet) seen any comments that approach the hyperbole that you use on this contrived media coverage. Yet, you don't have to be a genious to realize that George W. Bush has scripted answers every time he's in a "town hall" environment.

Yeah, I know. What would that soldier know....he was only THERE. :rolleyes:


Don't think we are ****ing morons, damnit.

RebelKev Wrote:


<a href='http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/14/D8D824KO4.html' target='_blank'>They Sensationalize EVERYTHING!</a>


Anyone that believes the liberal media is an idiot.

As we all know there is no conservative media... :laugh:

Don't have to think......you are proving it :wave:

RebelKev Wrote:Yeah, I know. What would that soldier know....he was only THERE.&nbsp; :rolleyes:

I am well aware that the mililtary will prep soldiers for a staged event, even if they were talking to local third graders. As an aside, I enjoy reading Michelle Malkin, but she is more of a polemicist than a journalist at this stage - you will probably never see me stake my credibility on an article by her.

The point of my last post is to point out the irony of your post on the heels of something that was both overblown, and remarkably representative of political appearances by our President.

RebelKev Wrote:Don't think we are ****ing morons, damnit.

Ahh, the South - Land of Faulkner, Robert Penn Warren, ...

:bang: :bang: :bang: Why is it that whenever I engage any kind of serious conversation with an SEC fan that I get accused of trolling, but other times you would post something like this. Unless there's some kind of double super-secret hilariously funny behind the scenes joke at play, it's just no damn fun. Even if you're not, the above post gets you honorary status in my book.

I seriously doubt you enjoy reading Malkin as you say you do. For one, she's an opinionated editorialist, not a journalist. Secondly, that was that soldiers blog, not her opinion on the matter.

Why do I get angry at things like this? Because when you, and other libs like you, state something about the military, it is very condescending. We don't need you taking up for us. We are capable of that ourselves.

RebelKev Wrote:I seriously doubt you enjoy reading Malkin as you say you do. For one, she's an opinionated editorialist, not a journalist. Secondly, that was that soldiers blog, not her opinion on the matter.

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polemicist' target='_blank'>Polemicist</a>: A person skilled or involved in polemics

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polemics' target='_blank'>Polemics</a>: 1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

RebelKev Wrote:Why do I get angry at things like this? Because when you, and other libs like you, state something about the military, it is very condescending. We don't need you taking up for us. We are capable of that ourselves.

You're misreading me on a couple of counts here, not the least of which is failing to take me at my word. First, you've read something I've said as critical of the military, when I'm only being critical of the President and his handlers. I would assert it is both natural and expected that the military prep soldiers prior to any kind of public interaction - with the President, with 3rd graders, or with the press. It is naive and foolish to expect otherwise, or to criticise them for doing it. I take Malkin with a grain of salt, as I do with military blogs, emails, and letters, and the like - I think it is just as naive to accept these at face value without knowing significant background on the authors. Same applies for bloggers like saalampax prior to the war. A case in point is some of the discussion of Pat Tillman, his atheism and association with Noam Chomsky. I have respected his character before his demise and since. In spite of my unqualified disgust of Chomsky, I find myself respecting his character even moreso after reading some of the articles and statements from his family about his life, values, and beliefs - even though I am disappointed with some of them.

Say what you will about the media (disregarding most TV news, which is garbage by about any standard), but you expect due diligence regarding who they cite as sources and what agendas they may be pursuing.

Regarding the comment "libs like you", there aren't that many like me. I would consent to being called liberal only in the classic sense - truly liberal on economic issues, liberal on social issues. I think the Democratic party is generally worhtless, think the Republican party is irredeemably evil and don't trust them a bit. I would be happy to split the Republican party in two, either sending the 'Religious Right' packing or lobotomizing membership as necessary, taking 25% of Congress and using that play the "left" and "right" off each other enough to at least get something sensible done.

Back to the President, if you can't visualize George W. Bush sitting in a canoe riding in six inches of water - at least in a figurative sense - then I think you are simply not being honest. If you have watched the President in a town hall environment, even in the debates of last year, then you should have observed the he comes prepared only to answer about 5-6 specific questions that are carefully scripted by his staff. That is what some people mean by saying that he is good at staying "on message". But, it is pure unadulterated deception by his staff to prepare him in such a manner and place him in a setting that is supposed to be an open discussion to some audience - town hall or otherwise. Politics aside, fmr President Bill Clinton was exceptionally good at genuinely sitting in such an environment, and it took guts for he and his staff to put him there. The contrast between that and President George W. Bush is dramatic. You should have seen Tony Blair in front of Parliament in the lead up to the war in Iraq - it was awe-inspiring, and something that I don't think any American politician I have seen could have gone through without being reduced to a simpering pile of crap within minutes. Far from being a poodle, I think he is someone with genuine courage and conviction - we have had leaders of that caliber in the past, but I don't expect to see it again in our lifetimes.

When you mention staged and Canoe you cant go without talking about Al Gore. Anyone remember this beauty :laugh:

It was 5:15 a.m. by the time I finally left the Washington Times newsroom on November 8, 2000. Having written countless versions of an ever-changing story-including one in which I authoritatively reported that George W. Bush had been elected president-I was physically and mentally exhausted. But like so many other journalists who had planned on taking some time off after the grueling, eighteen-month campaign, I was suddenly forced to scrap my vacation. The election was deadlocked and Florida was about to conduct a recount. Unable to remember the Sunshine State’s capital, I asked an editor on the way out of the newsroom.

“I dunno,