<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/' target='_blank'>Liberal Media Strikes Again</a>

Love the typical, well-thought out responses from the dissenters:

Quote:Name: Jack Barnes
Hometown: Bunkie, LA
May God strike you down, sir.&nbsp; Hell hath no fury like thy scorn.&nbsp; You desecrate the dead on a level comparable to Al Queda.&nbsp; Pray for forgiveness.

Name: j harrington
Hometown: coconut creek fl
it does my heart good to watch you twist in the wind and puke all over yourself and your liberal ****** (jr, Seau) friends as americans honor pres. regan. hillary the dike,&nbsp; gore the manic, and bill the diddler, love to use saps like you to spew the hate. you should move to france&nbsp; and be happy, as you are not as an a american.

Name: Jim Day
Hometown: Peoria, AZ
What the hell is wrong with you?&nbsp; Let the dead at least be buried before you pile on.&nbsp; Jesus you are a raging left wing lib/communist Eric.&nbsp; Your irresponsible idealism is the exact thing the country doesn't need now or ever.&nbsp; You and others

Name: Vicki Bryson
Hometown: Gruver, TX
After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them.&nbsp; How dare you.&nbsp; If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again.&nbsp; You people made an anniversary out of Watergate.&nbsp; Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika?&nbsp; Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country.

No disputing facts, no presenting of their own facts, just straight to the attacks and the lies. Wal-mart, NASCAR, and Toby Keith obviously have a market for years to come. :rolleyes:

Of course we know the elitist Oddball prefers Starbucks, Brookstone and Michael Tesh!

I almost forgot his favorite sport , Polo.

SDSundevil Wrote:Of course we know the elitist Oddball prefers Starbucks, Brookstone and Michael Tesh!

<a href='http://www.msu.edu/~parparts/miket.htm' target='_blank'>Michael Tesh</a>

Why in the world would you bring this guy into the discussion?

And much like the Wal-Mart, NASCAR crew quoted, no refuting of the facts, just attempted insults. :rolleyes:

Quote:i don't care what killed him, alzhiemers or the black plague, i'm glad he's dead and i don't care how many times i'm scolded or chastised for it. the day he took office was the most depressing day of my life, and i swore, that on the day he died, i'd drink a toast of celebration and figuratively p*** on his grave and have said so to several gingrich sucking reagan worshipping d***heads.

f*** ronald reagan, and i hope in some small way my f*** you counteracts all the b***s*** we are going to be hammered with for a f****** month after the fall of this 'greeeeeaaaaaat human being'.

f*** you ronnie, here's to ya pal. see ya in hell

This guy must shop at Nordstroms. :rolleyes:

An aside here, but, in at least one instance, Wal-Mart was a good friend to Big Government.

In Alabaster, Alabama, a private developer wanted to commercialize an area of the town, and build a Wal-Mart on a piece of property where people already lived (and didn't want to sell their homes). So, politicians in Alabaster wanted to (ab)use eminent domain, seize the property, and allow the Wal-Mart to be built. Why would they do a thing like that? "Revenue" in the form of taxes generated by Wal-Mart is what the city government was seeking. Big Gubmit and Big Bidness, working together for the 'good' of the people. :laugh:

Read more about it <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34268' target='_blank'>here.</a>

BTW, would Wal-Mart be the focus of such angst, and butt of such jokes, if their stores weren't generally situated in semi-rural, 'heartland' areas of the country, but moreso in urbanized and inner cities?

Oddball Wrote:Name: Vicki Bryson
Hometown: Gruver, TX
After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them.  How dare you.  If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again.  You people made an anniversary out of Watergate.  Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika?  Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country.

This one isn't bad. Some reasonable points.

DrTorch Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:Name: Vicki Bryson
Hometown: Gruver, TX
After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them.  How dare you.  If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again.  You people made an anniversary out of Watergate.  Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika?  Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country.

This one isn't bad. Some reasonable points.

Which ones?

HuskieDan Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:Name: Vicki Bryson
Hometown: Gruver, TX
After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them.  How dare you.  If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again.  You people made an anniversary out of Watergate.  Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika?  Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country.

This one isn't bad. Some reasonable points.

Which ones?

"After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them."

Fair enough. She wants equal treatment for issues from other administrations. (Although I'm unsure what Carter did.)

"If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again." Another legit question.

"You people made an anniversary out of Watergate. Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika? "

I think she means, "When was the last time you wrote about the XYZ Affair? or even Teapot Dome? Why is it always Watergate? If you are genuinely concerned about scandals, then why don't you highlight the annivesaries of other scandals, especially more recent ones than Watergate?"

And, I think that's a fair question. Honestly, Watergate was more important to the Wash Post and investigative journalists than the US. That's why it continues to get publicity in media outlets, particularly that medium.

"Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country."

That's not right. It starts with lawyers. Then Mafia crime bosses. Journalists are probably a close third.

Quote:Even in peacetime I think those are very wrong who say that schoolboys should be encouraged to read the newspapers. Nearly all that a boy reads there in his teens will be known before he is twenty to have been false in emphasis and interpretation, if not in fact as well, and most of it will have lost all importance. Most of what he remembers he will therefore have to unlearn; and he will probably have acquired an incurable taste for vulgarity and sensationalism and the fatal habit of fluttering from paragraph to paragraph to learn how an actress has been divorced in California, a train derailed in France, and quadruplets born in New Zealand. &nbsp; C. S. Lewis

bill the diddler :laugh: :kobe:

DrTorch Wrote:And, I think that's a fair question.&nbsp; Honestly, Watergate was more important to the Wash Post and investigative journalists than the US.&nbsp; That's why it continues to get publicity in media outlets, particularly that medium.

The prominence Watergate retains isn't media driven. That was a seminal moment for a troubled country, when on a scale no one alive had ever experienced, its worst doubts about government were confirmed.

Ever since we've been much more skeptical of government and, in fact, the Republican party has ultimately prospered because it figured out how to play to this sentiment.

Because it clearly showed corruption leading straight to the top of government -- not just unethical or quasi-legal behavior, but pure corruption -- Watergate was an unforgettable scandal. Even though I have my doubts about George W., I would never look forward to seeing the country go through another episode of similar magnitude.

Quote:"After what Carter and Clinton did to this country and literally stealing and vadalizing the White House, I would like to read what you say about them."

Fair enough.&nbsp; She wants equal treatment for issues from other administrations.&nbsp; (Although I'm unsure what Carter did.)

Agreed - equal treatment is fair. I'm no political scholar, but I also don't recall Carter abusing the White House, and simply lumping him into that discussion greatly minimizes the legitimacy of the point, IMO - it sounds more like partisan bickering, which of course it is, but it's hard to get the point of a legit argument when it's filled with the bickering. But I can appreciate the desire for equal treatment - that is legit.

Quote:"If you wrote this 4 years ago, why do we have to read it again."&nbsp; Another legit question.

Because the President is elected every 4 years, and it's long enough for much of your audience to have forgotten what was written back then.

If it's no good four years later, then I'd ask that you cease with the C.S. Lewis quote - you've used it before.

Quote:"You people made an anniversary out of Watergate.&nbsp; Why don't you have an anniversary for Monika? "

I think she means, "When was the last time you wrote about the XYZ Affair?&nbsp; or even Teapot Dome?&nbsp; Why is it always Watergate?&nbsp; If you are genuinely concerned about scandals, then why don't you highlight the annivesaries of other scandals, especially more recent ones than Watergate?"

And, I think that's a fair question.&nbsp; Honestly, Watergate was more important to the Wash Post and investigative journalists than the US.&nbsp; That's why it continues to get publicity in media outlets, particularly that medium.

Not recognizing the ground-breaking nature of Watergate is extremely shortsighted, and from her argument sounds very partisan. Comparing Watergate to Monika is unbelievably silly. Clinton was only impeached because of politics and because what he did isn't something a President should resign the Presidency over, while Nixon resigned before he undoubtedly would have been impeached.

Quote:"Journalists like you are what is truly wrong with this country."

That's not right.&nbsp; It starts with lawyers.&nbsp; Then Mafia crime bosses.&nbsp; Journalists are probably a close third.

:laugh:

HuskieDan Wrote:Clinton was only impeached because of politics and because what he did isn't something a President should resign the Presidency over, while Nixon resigned before he undoubtedly would have been impeached.

Perjury not impeachable? I guess it depends on what your diffinition of "is" is. :D

Skipuno Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:Clinton was only impeached because of politics and because what he did isn't something a President should resign the Presidency over, while Nixon resigned before he undoubtedly would have been impeached. 

Perjury not impeachable? I guess it depends on what your diffinition of "is" is. :D

Yeah. He perjured himself about a blow job.

His agenda: He didn't want his wife to find out.

Was our democracy threatened?

No.

Richard Nixon used a gang of thugs to break into Democratic Party headquarters and steal secrets.

Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iranians in exchange for hostages held by terrorists -- then defied the clear word of Congress by using that money to support rebels intent on restoring a brutal, repressive dictatorship in Nicaragua.

Nixon's actions clearly posed a threat to our democracy.

Reagan's actions arguably did so.

Clinton's actions? Hardly.

I'm not saying Clinton didn't do a bad thing. He was wrong to lie about the blow job...

... and I believe he was disbarred for it. Disbarrment is strong medicine. It was probably justified.

But impeachment?

Impeachment was *insanely* out of proportion to anything Bill Clinton did.

Most Americans saw right through the politics of it. Most of us -- when we weren't shuddering with fear that we were seeing a coup attempt in progress -- were *laughing* at Congress for being so utterly stupid.

History will not treat Congress kindly for impeaching Bill Clinton.

The idea that the Clinton administration vandalized the White House is a myth.

<a href='http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html' target='_blank'>http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001...dals/index.html</a>

Well Nixon resigned because most likely he would have been impeached.

At the time of the Reagan Presidentsy the congress was still controled by the demacrats and they were looking hard for any thing they could use againest him. But if they tried it without anything but an airtight case and they would have been thrown out then instead of 94.

As for President Clinton you could argue one way or the other, I myself wasnt too excited about Gore being President. If he was thrown out of office you might have a point about history. Since he wasnt I doubt that history will care that much.

Skipuno Wrote:As for President Clinton you could argue one way or the other, I myself wasnt too excited about Gore being President. If he was thrown out of office you might have a point about history. Since he wasnt I doubt that history will care that much.

Virtually every account of Andrew Johnson's presidency amounts to an indictment of the Republican Congress of that era. Like Clinton, Johnson also survived a highly-politicized impeachment.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Skipuno Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:Clinton was only impeached because of politics and because what he did isn't something a President should resign the Presidency over, while Nixon resigned before he undoubtedly would have been impeached. 

Perjury not impeachable? I guess it depends on what your diffinition of "is" is. :D

Yeah. He perjured himself about a blow job.

His agenda: He didn't want his wife to find out.

I disagree. His agenda was to avoid evidence that would have supported Paula Jones' accuasations. (You stand up for the little guy SF, remember Jones?)

If (and I'm willing to say 'if') Jones' accusations were true, then I think Clinton should have been impeached, kicked out of office, and serving time.

What appalled me is that the media turned this event into a circus about Lewinsky, instead of staying on course.

Quote:Nixon's actions clearly posed a threat to our democracy.

Reagan's actions arguably did so.

Clinton's actions?

If you don't stand up for the individual's rights, then the democracy does indeed suffer.

Quote:Most Americans saw right through the politics of it. Most of us -- when we weren't shuddering with fear that we were seeing a coup attempt in progress -- were *laughing* at Congress for being so utterly stupid.

Some of us respect other people more than you give us credit for. Jones' accusations deserved a fair trial...not one spun away by a wily politician and media that actually did want to get in bed with him.

Quote:History will not treat Congress kindly for impeaching Bill Clinton.

We shall see.

Quote:BTW, would Wal-Mart be the focus of such angst, and butt of such jokes, if their stores weren't generally situated in semi-rural, 'heartland' areas of the country, but moreso in urbanized and inner cities?

Yes, if that meant they still treated their workers like crap, put cheap sweatshop-labor goods on the shelves while wrapping themselves in a "Buy American" mantra, sucked up local taxpayer resources to build their bloated, redneck-haven stores, subverted local zoning laws and forced families out of their homes through the illegal use of eminent domain, engaged in predatory pricing designed to kill independent businesses in EVERY community they enter, pollute the areas and neighborhoods around their stores with literally bushels of trash (since they do not clean their own property), and succeeded in putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

Yeah, they'd still take crap for that even if they were located in cities. That their stores are usually filled with hillbillies beating on their kids and more stupid NASCAR swag than you can shake a stick only adds reasons #6,788 and 6,789 to the list of Reasons Why You Should Hate Wal-Mart.