Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Main Stream Media Bias?
Topic Started: Apr 16 2004, 09:18 AM (526 Views)
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
The adultery, although a felony, was not the contention made for imeachment. It was perjury - lying in court, that was the greater crime. If you think it's about the adultery (the sexual act) you totallt missed the point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Surok
Apr 17 2004, 01:59 AM
It was sex and there was no good reason to go there in the first place, except that it killed the right that they could not get anything else on the man that would stick. (Uh, maybe stick was a bad choice...). Geez - how many millions to prove Clinton got a bj?

Many government workers I know made the best argument for punishing him for the "crime" - he did it on government time whilst on the clock. That's a no-no.


PERSONAL OPINION

:loling: :loling: :loling: :loling: :loling: :loling:

Surok you and I come from the same time period. Hearing a "60's radical" say the President should (deserves?) to live by a separate set of laws/torts than the rest of us is hysterical.

We must all be getting older. :rotfl:

END OF PERSONAL OPINION
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
Wichita
Apr 17 2004, 06:50 AM
Surok
Apr 17 2004, 01:59 AM
It was sex and there was no good reason to go there in the first place, except that it killed the right that they could not get anything else on the man that would stick. (Uh, maybe stick was a bad choice...).  Geez - how many millions to prove Clinton got a bj? 

Many government workers I know made the best argument for punishing him for the "crime" - he did it on government time whilst on the clock.  That's a no-no.


PERSONAL OPINION

:loling: :loling: :loling: :loling: :loling: :loling:

Surok you and I come from the same time period. Hearing a "60's radical" say the President should (deserves?) to live by a separate set of laws/torts than the rest of us is hysterical.

We must all be getting older. :rotfl:

END OF PERSONAL OPINION


Age falls upon us all, I guess. :shrug:

But I am in no way saying that the President can/should live by a separate set of laws. I am saying that in the end Clinton committed a sex act in the Oval Office and then lied about it. There are an awful lot of men out there who would have lied if they were in the same position and with their wife watching.

The opinion I found most prevalent (including among women, which surprised me) was "Sex is sex and business is business. Get off it and move on." His popularity and approval ratings indicated that the majority of Americans made the same distinction and cared not one bit.

I might feel differently if he wasn't being hounded over every possible indiscretion or illegality the opposition thought they could come up with at a cost of millions of dollars to the American people, and then the best they could come up with was a bj and a lie.

I never said I did not find his behavior reprehensible on a personal level, because I did. I just cannot see hounding someone to impeachment over that. As I said, the best case against him would have been a charge that he did it while on the clock.

It's not the same as trying to sabotage the opposition as the Nixon campaign did, then state on tape that they could come up with a million dollars to make it go away, then fire the special prosecutor because he did his job (my favorite bumper sticker from the Watergate era: "Impeach the Cox Sacker").

If they could have proved travelgate or one of the other serious charges, well then he would have had to go or at least be sanctioned. What we ended up with was a joke which did not even affect his popularity based on his approval ratings.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Surok
Apr 16 2004, 08:59 PM
Yeah, so when they couldn't get him for anything meaningful at a cost of millions, they get him for lying about a bj. Whoopie. If it was me (which it wouldn't be) and my wife was sitting there watching, I'd lie too.

Why is it you lefties have such a problem with breaking the law. I don't care if someone lies about sex or giving missile technology to the Chinese... and then gets others to lie as well, and then tries to OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. He was guilty. Period. Add in the Jones investigation (he was fined $90,000 and barred from practicing law for five years), Whitewater (sent TWELVE PEOPLE TO JAIL), and you get the picture.

You'd lie, too? Why. Lack of scruples or morals?

I just don't understand why you Kool-Aid drinkers support such a scumbag as Clinton.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
Quote:
 
You'd lie, too? Why. Lack of scruples or morals?


Neither. Lack of nerve. Besides, I said it wouldn't be me in the first place.

Quote:
 
Why is it you lefties have such a problem with breaking the law.


Why is it that only you "righties" have a problem with this? Because it is more than the "lefties" that don't - based on his approval numbers, most of America didn't. Don't blame it on the left. I said his behavior was despicable on a personal level, but that's all it was - personal, and nobody's business.

I think you are still burnt over Nixon and carrying a grudge.




Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Kool-Aid drinkers?
Oh YEAHHHHHH!
Serously, Wild Cherry Pepsi. Can't beat it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Surok
Apr 17 2004, 09:58 AM
I said his behavior was despicable on a personal level, but that's all it was - personal, and nobody's business.

Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...

:whistle:

:no:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Dwayne
Apr 16 2004, 12:21 PM
The bias in the media is found in the adjectives a reporter or talking head chooses to use - for example, is a reduction of a planned budget increase reported as such or does the talking head characterize it as a draconian 'budget cut'?

9 times out of 10, I'd bet Dan Rather calls it a budget cut versus a reduction in the budget increase.


What's so draconian about the term "budget cut"? I bet you 9 times out of 10 an editor of a NEWScast going over copy would choose "budget cut" over "reduction in the budget increase", REGARDLESS OF WHAT HIS POLITICS WAS. :rolleyes:

So you really think Hannity or some right wing newscaster would say, "reduction in the budget increase"? Yeah they might, those wingers are rather flowery with their words, aren't they? Even if they are the wrong ones. :banghead:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Intrepid2002
Apr 17 2004, 01:28 PM
Dwayne
Apr 16 2004, 12:21 PM
The bias in the media is found in the adjectives a reporter or talking head chooses to use - for example, is a reduction of a planned budget increase reported as such or does the talking head characterize it as a draconian 'budget cut'?

9 times out of 10, I'd bet Dan Rather calls it a budget cut versus a reduction in the budget increase.


What's so draconian about the term "budget cut"? I bet you 9 times out of 10 an editor of a NEWScast going over copy would choose "budget cut" over "reduction in the budget increase", REGARDLESS OF WHAT HIS POLITICS WAS. :rolleyes:

So you really think Hannity or some right wing newscaster would say, "reduction in the budget increase"? Yeah they might, those wingers are rather flowery with their words, aren't they? Even if they are the wrong ones. :banghead:

Calling a 'reduction in a budget increase' a 'budget cut' is a lie designed to make it seem that there will be less funds available for that budget category than there was the previous year.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Surok
Apr 17 2004, 09:58 AM
Quote:
 
You'd lie, too? Why. Lack of scruples or morals?


Neither. Lack of nerve. Besides, I said it wouldn't be me in the first place.

Quote:
 
Why is it you lefties have such a problem with breaking the law.


Why is it that only you "righties" have a problem with this? Because it is more than the "lefties" that don't - based on his approval numbers, most of America didn't. Don't blame it on the left. I said his behavior was despicable on a personal level, but that's all it was - personal, and nobody's business.

I think you are still burnt over Nixon and carrying a grudge.

Nixon? Why? He did the honorable thing and resigned.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
AB:
Quote:
 
Nixon? Why? He did the honorable thing and resigned.

Touche

Dwayne:
Quote:
 
Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...
If Lewinsky had charged him with sexual harassment you would have a point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
His popularity and approval ratings indicated that the majority of Americans made the same distinction and cared not one bit.

Yes, and the downward spiral which is humanity continues. But this is to be expected, is it not?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Surok
Apr 18 2004, 10:23 AM
Dwayne:
Quote:
 
Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...
If Lewinsky had charged him with sexual harassment you would have a point.

Incorrect, the place I work for has a 0 tolerance for things like this. Even if the hearsey doest make formal charges yet it is common knowledge that the harassing went on. the person doing the harassment would lose their job.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Surok
Apr 18 2004, 09:23 AM
AB:
Quote:
 
Nixon? Why? He did the honorable thing and resigned.

Touche

Dwayne:
Quote:
 
Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...
If Lewinsky had charged him with sexual harassment you would have a point.

Bill Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment - not Monica Lewinsky.

The issue of Lewinsky came up in the discovery phase of the trial as a means to establish a pattern of behavoir. When her name was brought up, Bill Clinton was like, "Lewinsky who?" and denied everything.

Bill Clinton does not have the right to lie in court even if he or you thinks it's a personal matter!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Surok
Apr 18 2004, 02:23 PM
Dwayne:
Quote:
 
Let's see if that defense will work for the average joe who's being sued for sexual harassment...
If Lewinsky had charged him with sexual harassment you would have a point.

Personal rant

Oh, so you would also think Clinton guilty of sexual harassment if Lewinsky had just filed a complaint ... ;) :P

It was lucky for him that she "found" that career as a purse designer after he had her booted from the White House. :rolleyes:

I know that "business is business", Surok. I also know that there is a huge number of talented women who have the ability to get to the White House without having to go to their knees to do so. NOW (and the rest) whitewash of Clinton's behavior for political expediency severely harmed their credibility.

The average joe DOES get sued (and fired) for consensual sexual relationships at work all the time. If the President is exempt, then the average joe should be as well.

I also find it ludicrous it is believed that women need to be "protected" from hearing a man relate a story about Seinfeld at work because of "sexual harassment", but the same people believe that a 22 year old would not feel one ounce of pressure when dealing with the most powerful man in the world. TRUE sexual harassment of both men and women certainly exists, but lets find a rational middle ground rather than "it depends on who the parties are" policy.

It might surprise you that I don't think he should have been impeached for it either. I also don't give a rat's ass that it was adultry.

As Grandma Wichita used to say, you know the true intent of people when you know how they behave in private. In private, Bill Clinton repeatedly treated women badly. Instead of mumbled "i don't approve of his behavior, but ... from those on the left, he should have been publicly called to task on his treatment of her (and several others) by women's groups and the leadership of his own party.


End of personal rant
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus