"Slander", by Ann Coulter

O

oddfellow4870

#41
#41
Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by James1701


For the record:


Assistant Attorney-General Webster Hubbell convicted of embezzling funds from Rose Law Firm before his federal appointment; that is, stealing from his law partners, including Hillary Rodham Clinton;

Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, a political rival of Bill Clinton's, convicted on charges involving local television licensing, and nothing at all to do with Clinton;

Jim and Susan McDougal, convicted of crimes in Whitewater matter. In summation to the court, Independent Counsel declares that President Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Yes, and on the day those convictions came in, CBS ran the JFK tapes as their lead story for 10 minutes. The point is not to compare the presidents, it's to compare the coverage. Lawyers can always find something to work with.

Look, I remember Watergate very well. Every night, the first 10 minutes of the news focused on it, even if there was no new news. For months, it was like that. CBS had an agenda and it sure as hell was not just reporting the news. I'm glad there are plenty of outlets for news now and many points of view, but the primary networks of the 70s and 80s are STILL incredibly biased and agenda driven.

It is their right to be so. And mine to point it out.

The non-coverage of Clinton's rape allegations are another of my favorites. If it had been a Republican, you'd have a made for TV movie in 2 months. Look what they did to that scumbag who was kissing pages..... LOTS of coverage for weeks and weeks.

What I would like is a scale for rating how much coverage a story gets, wieghing both frequency and prominence. Then I'd like the media outlets to publish the scales monthly, so that people know what they're buying. Top 100 stories of the month.
 
R

Reel Deal

#42
#42
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by oddfellow4870


Yes, and on the day those convictions came in, CBS ran the JFK tapes as their lead story for 10 minutes. The point is not to compare the presidents, it's to compare the coverage. Lawyers can always find something to work with.

Look, I remember Watergate very well. Every night, the first 10 minutes of the news focused on it, even if there was no new news. For months, it was like that. CBS had an agenda and it sure as hell was not just reporting the news. I'm glad there are plenty of outlets for news now and many points of view, but the primary networks of the 70s and 80s are STILL incredibly biased and agenda driven.

It is their right to be so. And mine to point it out.

The non-coverage of Clinton's rape allegations are another of my favorites. If it had been a Republican, you'd have a made for TV movie in 2 months. Look what they did to that scumbag who was kissing pages..... LOTS of coverage for weeks and weeks.

What I would like is a scale for rating how much coverage a story gets, wieghing both frequency and prominence. Then I'd like the media outlets to publish the scales monthly, so that people know what they're buying. Top 100 stories of the month.
Click to expand...
The left's common reply is to say "your guy did it, too"...

They cannot defend their guy on his own merits.

And when you control the press and media, it works. Well, it used to. The left's popularity has declined with the rise of alternative, non main-stream media.

C'mon, oddfellow-it's "Mean Spirited" to confuse 'em with facts.
 
J

James1701

#43
#43
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by Reel Deal
The left's common reply is to say "your guy did it, too"...

They cannot defend their guy on his own merits.

And when you control the press and media, it works. Well, it used to. The left's popularity has declined with the rise of alternative, non main-stream media.

C'mon, oddfellow-it's "Mean Spirited" to confuse 'em with facts.
Click to expand...
No the common reply is Watergate & Iran-Contra were both abuses of Presidential Power that had occured within 1-2 years of being reported. Whitewater was a local Arkansas Real Estate deal that happened years prior to Clinton taking office. Yet Whitewater & related stories received more airtime over Clinton's eight years than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined.

As far as who controls that media, they are owned by General Electric, Disney, TimeWarner & Viacom. All multi-billion dollar corporations, hardly left wing institutions.
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#44
#44
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by James1701
As far as who controls that media, they are owned by General Electric, Disney, TimeWarner & Viacom. All multi-billion dollar corporations, hardly left wing institutions.
Click to expand...
Actually, Michael eisner (Disney CEO) is a major league contributor to the Democratic party. I think Gerald Levin (just retired CEO of TW-AOL) was too.
 
J

James1701

#45
#45
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by pjorourke


Actually, Michael eisner (Disney CEO) is a major league contributor to the Democratic party. I think Gerald Levin (just retired CEO of TW-AOL) was too.
Click to expand...
And Roy Disney, the chairman of the board, is a regular contributor to the republican party and other right wing organizations. The executives and board members of all coporations give to both political parties as a way to ensure access.
 
O

oddfellow4870

#46
#46
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by James1701


Yet Whitewater & related stories received more airtime over Clinton's eight years than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined.

Click to expand...
That's a statistical count of total coverage. In the Watergate era, there was FAR less media and the viewership was much more concentrated.

I would love to have the evening news logs from the Watergate era. I counted a 15+ minute (out of 30) run at the start of one broadcast and they kept repeating the same story ( I think it was the 17 minute gap announcement ).

I never saw that long a string on Clinton and his problems, never.

I do agree with you on one point. The TV news is driven by profit and to a lesser degree, is enfusd with ideology. Bu the soap opera they are selling 90% of the time is evil white men destroying nature, evil businessmen opressing the poor, evil catholics buggering the young, evil men subverting women AND evil republicans against compassion and peace. They still sell the soap opera, cause that's what sells, but the story line is right from the Democrat play book.
 
Last edited:
T

TheNextBigThing

#47
#47
I totally agree with Oddfellow about how the media works today vs yesteryear, but you also have to remember that Watergate didn't occur until Nixon's second term of which he only served about half (2 years). While Whitewater erupted during Clintons first term, so there was a great deal more time (aprox 7 years) to discuss it. Lets also not forget that during Nixon's terms there was something called the Vietnam that took up a great deal of the daily evening news as well as several other "more news worthy" world events at that time (ie... Nixons trip to China, the cold war with the Soviets, the all out war in the Middle East, the space race etc...). There also was no such thing as CNN, CNBC, FOX NEWS, 20-20 nor Nightline or all the other various new programs that didn't come around until the advent of cable TV in the late 70's early 80's. I believe that other than local news and the "old" evening news with Walter Cronkite, there were no other news outlets (maybe only "60 minutes") on TV. Nor was TV the powerful media tool it has become today. For christ sakes... during the Watergate era most homes were still watching black and white TV on American built TV sets (Philco, RCA Victor and Emerson).

So it's completely unrealistic to compare media coverage from anything in the past (pre 1980's) to todays vast coverages. Today if a cat gets stuck in a tree there's ten choppers in the air and 20 reporters on the ground in less than 10 minutes.
 
J

James1701

#48
#48
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by oddfellow4870


That's a statistical count of total coverage. In the Watergate era, there was FAR less media and the viewership was much more concentrated.

I would love to have the evening news logs from the Watergate era. I counted a 15+ minute (out of 30) run at the start of one broadcast and they kept repeating the same story ( I think it was the 17 minute gap announcement ).

I never saw that long a string on Clinton and his problems, never.

I do agree with you on one point. The TV news is driven by profit and to a lesser degree, is enfusd with ideology. Bu the soap opera they are selling 90% of the time is evil white men destroying nature, evil businessmen opressing the poor, evil catholics buggering the young, evil men subverting women AND evil republicans against compassion and peace. They still sell the soap opera, cause that's what sells, but the story line is right from the Democrat play book.
Click to expand...

The statistic I mentioned was from the Center for Media policy and it was based on the network Newscasts only, not on on the cable channels. They also based it on an average year rather than the totality.

As far as the rest of your point that 90% of the time they are enfused with Democratic party ideology is ludicrous. Part of journalism it to question authority and report on injustices in society. There job is not to be cheerleaders for society saying that everything is great. And they go after Democrats just as much as they go after Republicans. They have a high standard for accuracy and employ fact checkers, something the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh do not do. But the bottomline is profits and keeping the advertisers happy. That's why CBS killed that insider tobacco story years ago.
 
O

Ozzy

#49
#49
CBS killed that insider tobacco story because the tobacco industry had friends in high up places that put pressure on CBS to kill it.

I don't know why everyone does this "my party is better than yours" bullshit. Because Republicans and Democrats are all the same crap... They are all fucking hypocrites and crooks and outrite thieves who will support any agenda that their own party puts forth and will never support an agenda by the other, regardless of right or wrong. Simple example is how Gore and all the other Dems who are so against aggression against Iraq today (because it's a Republican agenda now), yet were in full support of Clinton when he used force 5 years ago.... and for a lot less of a reason.

Anyone remember this story (and quote)... http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

well it's 5 years and three thousand dead Americans later and now he says that Bush needs to give Iraq "ONE MORE CHANCE".

http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/bop/nmelder15.html

What a fucking hypocrite piece of shit.


people laughed when i said that the UN was an obsolete organization... well the political party system in this country no longer functions the way it was meant to 200 years ago. It’s time to stop bickering with each other and get rid of the parties and make everyone an independent and thus make everyone an independent thinker.
 
Last edited:
J

James1701

#50
#50
Originally posted by Ozzy

I don't know why everyone does this "my party is better than yours" bullshit. Because Republicans and Democrats are all the same crap... They are all fucking hypocrites and crooks and outrite thieves who will support any agenda that their own party puts forth and will never support an agenda by the other, regardless of right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Ozzy, I agree with you 100% here. Both side play the same games.
 
O

Ozzy

#51
#51
btw... before anyone asks.

I am registered as neither a republican nor democrat. i refuse to align myself with either party because they're both an embarrassment and as crooked as the other. Furthermore… to blame Bush or the republicans for today’s economy woes is plain stupid. Every time I hear someone say that I want to smack them in the face and tell them how stupid they are. The economy started tanking long before the votes were even counted in the last presidential election and if I’m not mistaken the Dems were (and still are) in control on the hill. There was also this "9/11" thing that didn’t help matters either (especially locally). And neither was it due to Clinton that the economy thrived. It’s called being in the right place at the right time (Clinton was and Bush isn’t). And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one. Perhaps that’s why the Dems are so against it now…. Because they want to see the republican president fail and have more to blame on him in 2004. Lets face it... the Dems have just about Zero chance of defeating Bush in 2 years when they attempt to put Al (the blockhead) Gore up against Bush again. What I want to know is... when the Dems realize two months before the election that Gore doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning, will they be allowed to switch candidates as they did in NJ this year?

P.S.

The Dems know that they're doomed in 2008 as well when Rudy in all probability will run… So Hillary stands Zero chance as well.
 
S

skagen

#52
#52
Originally posted by Ozzy
And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one.
Click to expand...
Aaah, the first admission that this war crap is all about more money - for people who are already rich in the first place.

That's fine as long as its your kids you want to send off as cannon fodder. In this country wars are fought primarily by the kids of poor people who aint gonna get any of the loot anayway. The last time anyone in the Bush family tuned up for war duty was GW's dad - in Korea. W himself found a nice cushy air guard post to hideaway and I don't see any of theier next generation serving either. I'me ure the song would be different if his relatives lives were at stake.

BTW what did Noele Bush get for a felony drug drug offense the other day? 10 DAYS in jail plus treatment! Please - Florida? You have to be kidding me. You think poor kids in Florida get off with 10 days only for doing drugs and stealing? One law for the rich, another for the poor, but lucky them, they DO get to go off to WAR and die to line your pockets....
 
Last edited:
O

Ozzy

#53
#53
Originally posted by skagen


Aaah, the first admission that this war crap is all about more money - for people who are already rich in the first place.
Click to expand...

How the hell you got THAT out of what i wrote i'll never know. You're certainly a creative thinker.

I'm for war to punish the enemy (al-queda where ever they hide, and iraq for being the instigators of terrorism that they are) and to serve notice to the rest of the world that terrorism and psycho's (saddam) won't be tolerated. if it helps the economy... than thats just another check mark on the plus side of going to war.
 
H

h. von bingen

Sharon
#54
#54
just 4 the record . . .

i wouldn't do her with ozzy's discarded strap-on, and the girl the from west wing was way TOO TOO pretty. who did ms. coulter blow to get that casting . . . crackhead sorkin, peut-etre.

i know, i know god love a crackhead,
or that's mr. crackhead 2 me,
hvb
 
R

Reel Deal

#55
#55
Re: just 4 the record . . .

Originally posted by h. von bingen
i wouldn't do her with ozzy's discarded strap-on, and the girl the from west wing was way TOO TOO pretty. who did ms. coulter blow to get that casting . . . crackhead sorkin, peut-etre.

i know, i know god love a crackhead,
or that's mr. crackhead 2 me,
hvb
Click to expand...
Huh?

My translater must be broken.

I'm disappointed. All this time I thought hvb was a deep thinker. Oh well, another fantasy debunked.

But hvb has resorted to name calling straight out of The Liberal Playbook: "If you can't argue fact, call your oponent a really horrible name".

HVB-did you read the book? If you had, you probably wouldn't have used such an attack, because that is EXACTLY the kind of behavior AC points out...

God, I love an educated response by well-read people...
 
H

h. von bingen

Sharon
#56
#56
yes fly boy . . .

you are right. some punishment is in order . . . consider one, and i will obey.

unfortunately, 4 me, i got a little too much coulter-action on the now-defunct politically incorrect to actually spend $$$$$ on her tome. if i find the paperback in a trashcan, i will happily read it. (and i expect i will one day soon.)

i bend over
awaiting correction
hvb

but don't make me do her, i don't think i could get it up.

arriana huffington, maybe,
hvb
 
Last edited:
R

Reel Deal

#57
#57
Re: yes fly boy . . .

Originally posted by h. von bingen
you are right. some punishment is in order . . . consider one, and i will obey.
Click to expand...
(Reminds me of the Masochist who married the Sadist. On their honeymoon night, she lay back in bed and pleaded, "Beat me, beat me..."

To which he sternly replied, "Nooooooooo.....")
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top