# European Media Calls George W. Bush Visionary



## Big Don (Feb 21, 2011)

European Media Calls George W. Bush Visionaryby Rachel Marsden Human Events EXCERPT:

Posted 02/20/2011 ET



A new article in _Der Spiegel_ magazinethe German equivalent of _Time_ or _Newsweek_applauds  George W. Bush for his vision of democracy in the Middle East, and  credits him for the fact that authoritarian regimes in the region are  being kicked to the curb.

"Painful as it may be to admit, it was  the despised former U.S. President George W. Bush who believed in the  democratization of the Muslim world and incurred the scorn and mockery  of the Left for his conviction," says the piece by Jan Fleischhauer.

Hear  that?  That's the sound of bowls full of Whole Foods organic granola  smashing to the ground.  Before we get carried away and cause people to  dive off bridges as a result of having to think of George W. Bush as a  Nobel Peace Prize candidate, let's consider some reasons presented by  various sources so far as to why Bush may not, in fact, be responsible  for the tsunami of change we're currently witnessing in Islamic nations.

1.   The wave of change started in Africa, with the people of the Ivory  Coast elections in December 2010 refusing to allow permanent fixture  President Laurent Gbagbo to stay in power after losing democratic  elections to rival Alassane Ouattara.  The people rioted until he left,  during which the UN reported hundreds of arrests, dozens of murders, and  significant torture by Gbagbo's men.  This was arguably the spark that  ignited the whole region:  Just a democratic election in which someone  refused to rightfully vacate his seat.  Days later, the people of nearby  Tunisia seem to have decided that their guy, Ben Ali, had been in power  long enough (23 years) and wasn't likely to leave of his own volition.   So they gave him a bit of a shove.

2.  George W. Bush may have  said he had a vision of Islamic democracy, but what he really meant was  that it was a side-effect of avenging his dad in the wake of the Gulf  War.  Kind of like when so-called do-gooders volunteer to be candy  stripers in hospitals, not because they enjoy giving of themselves to  people suffering, but rather because they like that sweet discount they  get on the cafeteria food.

3.  Bush didn't "show a man how to  fish."  He reached into the swamp, pulled out the shark with his bare  hands, and hanged it in a secure facility north of Baghdad.  You're not  supposed to do that.  You're supposed to wait until the locals figure it  out.  But would the other Islamic countries living under  authoritarianism have figured it out on their ownor was Iraq an  icebreaker?

4.  Bush didn't invade Saudia Arabia.  Or Iran.  Or  strap himself onto the back of a rocket and take care of business  himself like in Dr. Strangelove.  So he clearly didn't do enough!

5.   War doesn't create peace.  Naive kids in floppy blue hats traipsing  around in conflict zones create peace and change.  Through joy and  smiles, silly.
END EXCERPT
Many people have stated George W. Bush would be remembered quite differently by history, gee, I'm one of them. I'm pleasantly surprised that he's starting to get some respect already.


----------



## granfire (Feb 21, 2011)

A person can't possibly get everything wrong. So yes.

Maybe it will turn out well and he can claim credit for it.


(On the other hand, I ma sure if the elections that will result from this 'wave of liberation' will result in a landslide victory of the Brothers of Islam, I am sure everybody will point the finger at Obama....)


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 21, 2011)

:chuckles:

Before we get too carried away, Jan Fleischhauer is a born-again Conservative and is just one journalist.  He hardly constitutes all of European media - indeed until I Googled him I had no idea who he was.

:lol:


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:
> 
> Before we get too carried away, Jan Fleischhauer is a born-again Conservative and is just one journalist.  He hardly constitutes all of European media - indeed until I Googled him I had no idea who he was.
> 
> :lol:



Really because if it was written about Obama they would be lining up to give him another nobel peace prize


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 21, 2011)

You must live in a different Europe to me, *Ballen* .

True, there was some relief, amongst the ordinary folk, to get rid of Mr. Bush from a position of such prominent power and the American hype of Mr. Obama's campaign *was* duly reported.  But that latter was more a talking point because we don't do that sort of messianic politicing here.  As Tez was saying the other week about the difference in our (British) points of view on Americans and America as a political entity, it is necessary to seperate the actions of those we are forced to 'elect' (in the farce that is the current form of democracy) from the electorate themselves.

That difference it's why I am confident all of the British members of this site end up scratching our heads in wonder at the venom you chaps whip up over politics - and get so annoyed when you cast labels of Liberal or Conservative about as if they were swear words.

I might disdain the Tories as the party of the upper classes and might gybe a friend who (accidentaly I'm sure) voted for them but he'd still be a friend i.e. I wouldn't hate him just because of party politics.  

That applies here too.  Twin Fist, Big Don and Archangel, to name just three, have some political views I find downright distasteful.  But I'll still talk to them and there is a lot we actually agree on.

:shrugs:  So, it seems, I officially don't comprehend populist politics in America .  Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them of course - I'm not often lost for words ...

...

"Really!?!", gasps the crowd :lol:


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> You must live in a different Europe to me, *Ballen* .
> 
> True, there was some relief, amongst the ordinary folk, to get rid of Mr. Bush from a position of such prominent power and the American hype of Mr. Obama's campaign *was* duly reported.  But that latter was more a talking point because we don't do that sort of messianic politicing here.  As Tez was saying the other week about the difference in our (British) points of view on Americans and America as a political entity, it is necessary to seperate the actions of those we are forced to 'elect' (in the farce that is the current form of democracy) from the electorate themselves.
> 
> ...


Well they sure took pride in showing HUGE pro-Obama rallys in Germany, England, France, ect.  Tens of thousands of people marching and saying how great Obama will be for the world and the US.  He gets elected and a few months later he gets his first nobel prize.  So forgive me if I see a little hero worship from the Europeans when it comes to Obama.  Trust me we would be happy to give him to you.

I also love how you claim to be so enlightened and above our politics and how we "annoy" you with our Venom yet your seem to find your way into every thread about it and as you said your not often lost for words


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 21, 2011)

No thanks, you can keep him - sanctimoniousness of all sorts makes my teeth ache.

Oddly, there were no enormous pro-Obama rallies here - I must have slept through them.  Or did you mean a few people with more free time than sense wandering about in London?

Anyhow, hardly my point.  You need a better telescope I think as the one you have is not giving you a very clear picture.


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Well they sure took pride in showing HUGE pro-Obama rallys in Germany, England, France, ect.  Tens of thousands of people marching and saying how great Obama will be for the world and the US.  He gets elected and a few months later he gets his first nobel prize.  So forgive me if I see a little hero worship from the Europeans when it comes to Obama.  Trust me we would be happy to give him to you.
> 
> I also love how you claim to be so enlightened and above our politics and how we "annoy" you with our Venom yet your seem to find your way into every thread about it and as you said your not often lost for words


Technically, what you saw were American media outlets covering the rallies for their own purposes, all of them slanting the story to suit their viewership.  That includes Fox News.  

That Obama is our first black president also had much to do with the coverage.  And Bush was almost universally reviled.  That didn't hurt, either.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Technically, what you saw were American media outlets covering the rallies for their own purposes, all of them slanting the story to suit their viewership.  That includes Fox News.
> 
> That Obama is our first black president also had much to do with the coverage.  And Bush was almost universally reviled.  That didn't hurt, either.



does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs?  My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world.  Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media


----------



## granfire (Feb 21, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs?  My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world.  Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media



Yes, it does.

Because the media is known to stage their own ralleys and protests.

Just because they say it's 10.000 does not mean that many actually showed up. ^_^


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2011)

I hear all the time how obama is hated.  I hardly believe that to br true but it does go to show you the right leaning bias of american media.  Oh wait.  You don't call the media outlets you read and watch media.   Its something else.   





ballen0351 said:


> does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs?  My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world.  Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I hear all the time how obama is hated.  I hardly believe that to br true but it does go to show you the right leaning bias of american media.  Oh wait.  You don't call the media outlets you read and watch media.   Its something else.



What is it then oh wise one?


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2011)

How the hell should I know?   You seem to conveniently exclude any right leaning media when you allege that american media slants left.   You tell me.  It's clear you have a different definition of media than most.   What is fox news if not a right wing media outlet?  Whatabout the washington times or the new york post?  Wall street journal?  Or those blogs and news sites you guys consistently link from?  You know, the ones that advertise anti liberal tshirts.  What are those?  Id call them conservative biased media.  But you're alleging that american media is liberal.  So, are you saying that your news outlets are not media or that they're not american?


----------



## Carol (Feb 22, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :shrugs:  So, it seems, I officially don't comprehend populist politics in America .



I think you're doing a fine job.  Remember, Americans as a whole largely do not agree on anything  

My former husband used to have a headline from  the Boston Herald in his office, the headline read "93% Blame Koresh", in reference to the deaths associated with Waco, Texas cult leader David Koresh. (Links belowaq)  His comment was that this was perhaps the only time you'd see 93% of Americans agree on anything. He's right.

http://www.culteducation.com/waco.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Yes. He'll be remembered as the man who went to war over lies. Especially now that curveball has come out.

I tend to stay out of political discussions these days, however just a quick clarification. George Bush is not being lauded by European media or Europeans themselves. There is one person who wrote an article in a German magazine. That's it. And perhaps contrary to how US journalism works, magazines and newspapers not always have outspoken left or right leanings. They are often a combination of both.

So before the US right goes jubliant about this: this is not representative of the media or Europeans in general who on average still think Bush was an incompetent cowboy. Using this 1 article to validate Bush is like pointing to Fred Phelps and claiming that he is representative of what the US thinks.

In other words: a gross misrepresentation of actual reality.


----------



## Scott T (Feb 22, 2011)

Amazing how these people try to say an American is owed for this while completely minimalizing the Egyptian population's apparently insignificant contribution. (and yes, I've been hearing the same accolades for Bammers)

Boggles the mind.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> How the hell should I know?   You seem to conveniently exclude any right leaning media when you allege that american media slants left.   You tell me.  It's clear you have a different definition of media than most.   What is fox news if not a right wing media outlet?  Whatabout the washington times or the new york post?  Wall street journal?  Or those blogs and news sites you guys consistently link from?  You know, the ones that advertise anti liberal tshirts.  What are those?  Id call them conservative biased media.  But you're alleging that american media is liberal.  So, are you saying that your news outlets are not media or that they're not american?



Little defensive huh?

Lets see
ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR = Left Leaning
Fox= right leaning
by law of averages US Media is more left then right.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2011)

Ballen, I'm not defensive at all.  The entire idea of a left leaning media is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind.  Multiple times every day, Big Don, billcihak or you post a link to a conservative media outlet.  Whether it's BigJournalism.com, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, townhall.com, Fox News Online, Drudge, Coulter or Malkin's blogs, or the dozens of other examples, you'll often cite one of these conservative media outlets and in the same sentence allege that media in the USA is liberally biased.  It's either intentional or a pretty awesome example of cognitive dissonance.

So, again, if these aren't conservative media outlets, what would you call them?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> So, again, if these aren't conservative media outlets, what would you call them?



Freedom Outlets?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Ballen, I'm not defensive at all.  The entire idea of a left leaning media is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind.  Multiple times every day, Big Don, billcihak or you post a link to a conservative media outlet.  Whether it's BigJournalism.com, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, townhall.com, Fox News Online, Drudge, Coulter or Malkin's blogs, or the dozens of other examples, you'll often cite one of these conservative media outlets and in the same sentence allege that media in the USA is liberally biased.  It's either intentional or a pretty awesome example of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> So, again, if these aren't conservative media outlets, what would you call them?



I didn't say there were no conservative media sources I said most of the Major, main stream, on every TV across the land, basic stations lean to the left like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.  Most newspapers LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, Baltimore Sun, New York Daily news, are all left wing.
The only media form dominated by the right is talk radio.  The left keep trying to start stations but they go under.  So since they cant beat them on the radio they want to shut them up with the fairness doctrine.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't say there were no conservative media sources I said most of the Major, main stream, on every TV across the land, basic stations lean to the left like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.  Most newspapers LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, Baltimore Sun, New York Daily news, are all left wing.


You didn't say this.  You said, "Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media."  A blanket, unqualified statement. 

You're pulling the victim card, but for that to work, you'd have to show that there is no conservative voice.  Clearly not the case.  Just taking into consideration Murdoch's media empire that includes the NY Post, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and a literal alphabet soup of media and financial outlets all over the globe, you've also got a very savvy, well developed network of online media outlets already mentioned (and many, many not mentioned).  These include Drudge, Media Research, WorldNet Daily, and the American Daily Review.  There are also newspapers including the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner, conservative magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review and, as you mentioned, a thriving voice on talk radio.  

Spare me the pity party.  You guys are not under represented in media.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Spare me the pity party.  You guys are not under represented in media.



Hell, the "conservative" media you quote is hardly that - it's an odd mix of reactionary and revolutionary.  The "leftist" media decried here is itself fundamentally conservative.  Not in the "Republican Party" sense, but in the "defenders of the status quo" sense.  Profoundly cautious, profoundly deferential to government power, deferential to traditional social structures and mores, unwilling to question any of the underpinnings of our society and government, unwilling to rock the boat and potentially lose audience, and always aware of the bottom line.  Most individual reporters may be Democrats or even leftists of some stripe, but the business itself is conservative to the core.  When you start seeing a news station or newspaper calling for the dismantling of capitalism, questioning the role of the nuclear family in society, or railing against the Patriarchy, then you'll know you've found yourself a leftist media source.  Until then, the media is a craven creature of the conservative center.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You didn't say this.  You said, "Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media."  A blanket, unqualified statement.
> 
> You're pulling the victim card, but for that to work, you'd have to show that there is no conservative voice.  Clearly not the case.  Just taking into consideration Murdoch's media empire that includes the NY Post, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and a literal alphabet soup of media and financial outlets all over the globe, you've also got a very savvy, well developed network of online media outlets already mentioned (and many, many not mentioned).  These include Drudge, Media Research, WorldNet Daily, and the American Daily Review.  There are also newspapers including the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner, conservative magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review and, as you mentioned, a thriving voice on talk radio.
> 
> Spare me the pity party.  You guys are not under represented in media.


Maybe you've had too much 4:20 time or been in 1 too many Triangles if you think you can compare the Drudge report to NBC.  For your argument to work you would have to believe Drudge, and World net were on par with NBC and CBS.  Most people have no idea what the Drugde report is.  So when 4 of the major 5 tv stations are left leaning and 75% of all written  news publications are left leaning then its not a blacket statement  to say American media slants left. Look no farther then the Wisconsin protesters coverage compared to the Tea Party, or as called on MSNBC Teabaggers or CBS called a Tea Party rally "a Weekend full of un-civility"  Diane Sawyer called tea partiers "A violent gang roaming the streets of Washington DC".  Joy Behar on her CNN show called pro-life people "Evil, unethical, immorale, and stupid."
So no pity party here bud just facts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> When you start seeing a news station or newspaper calling for the dismantling of capitalism, questioning the role of the nuclear family in society, or railing against the Patriarchy, then you'll know you've found yourself a leftist media source..



I think that MSNBCs mission statement


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 22, 2011)

I am so glad to hear others voice the disbelief I have often felt when it is claimed that American media is Left of Centre!

If you place your 'centre' somewhere around Hitler or Ghenghis Khan then maybe that is so ... in fact didn't I read someone on here trying to say that the Nazi's were Socialists the other day!?  Beggars belief into penury when I read things like that.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Hell, the "conservative" media you quote is hardly that - it's an odd mix of reactionary and revolutionary.  The "leftist" media decried here is itself fundamentally conservative.  Not in the "Republican Party" sense, but in the "defenders of the status quo" sense.  Profoundly cautious, profoundly deferential to government power, deferential to traditional social structures and mores, unwilling to question any of the underpinnings of our society and government, unwilling to rock the boat and potentially lose audience, and always aware of the bottom line.  Most individual reporters may be Democrats or even leftists of some stripe, but the business itself is conservative to the core.  When you start seeing a news station or newspaper calling for the dismantling of capitalism, questioning the role of the nuclear family in society, or railing against the Patriarchy, then you'll know you've found yourself a leftist media source.  Until then, the media is a craven creature of the conservative center.



Heh.   True.   I was going with ballen's definition of conservative.   I'm trying to speak the native language.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Heh.   True.   I was going with ballen's definition of conservative.   I'm trying to speak the native language.



Let me see if I can break this down so even you can understand it:
A-mer-ican             me-dia            s-lants        left.              Lo-ok              no             far-th-er       then         the               Wis-con-sin                 pro-test-ers          cover-age com-pared          to             the             Tea           Par-ty,               or            as       call-ed          on            MSNBC            Tea-bag-gers            or           CBS             call-ed a           Tea                  Par-ty               ral-ly              "a         Week-end            full      of                 un-civ-il-ity"                Di-ane        Saw-yer          cal-led           tea          part-iers            "A             vi-o-lent        gang               roam-ing           the        st-reets of              Wash-ing-ton              D-C".                  Joy               Be-har           on              her                 CNN               sh-ow                 call-ed                pro-life              pe-op-le "Ev-il,                    un-eth-ical,          im-mor-ale,              and               stu-pid."


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 22, 2011)

-Yeah, and that "Leftist" media called me unpatriotic when I disagreed with the boy king.

Andrew


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 22, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs? My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world. Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media


 
Camera angles and zoom-in functions can work wonders to make 1,000 look like 10,000, or make a small crowd seem to fill a parking lot.  I cannot say with specificity whether that went on in the coverage you're talking about, but just want to point out that if it _appeared_ to be a large rally, that may very well have been the point.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Let me see if I can break this down so even you can understand it:
> A-mer-ican             me-dia            s-lants        left.              Lo-ok              no             far-th-er       then         the               Wis-con-sin                 pro-test-ers          cover-age com-pared          to             the             Tea           Par-ty,               or            as       call-ed          on            MSNBC            Tea-bag-gers            or           CBS             call-ed a           Tea                  Par-ty               ral-ly              "a         Week-end            full      of                 un-civ-il-ity"                Di-ane        Saw-yer          cal-led           tea          part-iers            "A             vi-o-lent        gang               roam-ing           the        st-reets of              Wash-ing-ton              D-C".                  Joy               Be-har           on              her                 CNN               sh-ow                 call-ed                pro-life              pe-op-le "Ev-il,                    un-eth-ical,          im-mor-ale,              and               stu-pid."



Sorry, but you're allegation isn't that some media is left leaning.   You allege that "american media" is left leaning.   I've tried to use your definitions of conservative to show you that there is a large, sophisticared, powerful conservative media network.  You're just simply not victimized.   

But if all you can do is be snarky and sarcastic, I understand.  Its your  MO.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 22, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe you've had too much 4:20 time or been in 1 too many Triangles if you think you can compare the Drudge report to NBC. For your argument to work you would have to believe Drudge, and World net were on par with NBC and CBS. Most people have no idea what the Drugde report is. So when 4 of the major 5 tv stations are left leaning and 75% of all written news publications are left leaning then its not a blacket statement to say American media slants left. Look no farther then the Wisconsin protesters coverage compared to the Tea Party, or as called on MSNBC Teabaggers or CBS called a Tea Party rally "a Weekend full of un-civility" Diane Sawyer called tea partiers "A violent gang roaming the streets of Washington DC". Joy Behar on her CNN show called pro-life people "Evil, unethical, immorale, and stupid."
> So no pity party here bud just facts.


 
You must have either missed or ignored the part where Empty specified what he meant by "conservative". He was not meaning it in the context of donky v. elephant party lines. Conservative and republican, and for that matter liberal and democrat, are only synonymous in that context. Empty specified that by "conservative", he meant the literal definition of the word: cautious, status-quo oriented, and resistant to change or averse to boundaries. 

I point this out because your response seems to focus on the narrow party definition of liberal/conservative that Empty was deliberately distancing his comment from.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> You must have either missed or ignored the part where Empty specified what he meant by "conservative". He was not meaning it in the context of donky v. elephant party lines. Conservative and republican, and for that matter liberal and democrat, are only synonymous in that context. Empty specified that by "conservative", he meant the literal definition of the word: cautious, status-quo oriented, and resistant to change or averse to boundaries.
> 
> I point this out because your response seems to focus on the narrow party definition of liberal/conservative that Empty was deliberately distancing his comment from.



And you must have missed or ignored the part where I was talking to my pal Steve in the post you quoted. 

However I read what Empty wrote and I do not agree not when Major News reporters like Dan Rather put out lies about President Bush and get fired for it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

We're *sniff* pals? 

Funny that you pick Drudge and NBC.  I never compared the two, but you're working hard.  So, I'll back up a little to try and be more clear.


You allege that American media has a liberal bias.
I point out that you, billcihak and Big Don get your news from somewhere.
You pull the victim card.
I explain that there is a sophisticated network of conservative media outlets, and gave many examples across multiple platforms.
You got sarcastic and snarky, and then called me your pal.

I have intentionally ignored the red herring you're throwing around about whether NBC or CBS or any of the other outlets are liberal.  It's debatable, but completely irrelevant.  Even if they were all as liberal as can be, you'd still have to establish that your team has no voice in the media, and that's demonstrably untrue.  At best, you can assert that some media outlets in America are liberal.  I'd agree.  

But at least I know now that it's not intentional.  I believe now that it's really an awesome example of cognitive dissonance.  I'll point to this thread in the future when someone wants to know what that means.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 23, 2011)

For all of you saying "It's just one guy..." You do understand that guy isn't the boss, and had to clear his article through multiple layers of editors and publishers, don't you?


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 23, 2011)

It's just one journalist putting his thoughts down on 'paper', not "just one guy", Don.  I don't see why it's something that causes any surprise at all .  

Papers and magazines are known to publish articles that generate comment and interest; it's their business after all.  The point is that trying to depict it as evidence of a general European consensus on the wonderfulness of Mr. Bush is not really something that is going to fly.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> It's just one journalist putting his thoughts down on 'paper', not "just one guy", Don.  I don't see why it's something that causes any surprise at all .
> 
> Papers and magazines are known to publish articles that generate comment and interest; it's their business after all.  The point is that trying to depict it as evidence of a general European consensus on the wonderfulness of Mr. Bush is not really something that is going to fly.


Is there anything more likely to be glaringly wrong than a general consensus?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> We're *sniff* pals?
> 
> 
> You got sarcastic and snarky, and then called me your pal.


I wasn't being snarky I was trying being funny since you made the comment about speaking my language i was making a play off that.  I guess it didn't come off as funny as it did in my head.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You allege that American media has a liberal bias.
> I point out that you, billcihak and Big Don get your news from somewhere.
> You pull the victim card.
> I explain that there is a sophisticated network of conservative media outlets, and gave many examples across multiple platforms.
> You got sarcastic and snarky, and then called me your pal.



#1 yes when more then half of the media is Bias then it fits.  Just like saying Obama is our first black president when in only his dad was black.  When I said American Media leans left I'm speaking in terms of the majority not the absolute.  There are no absolutes in this world there's always an exception.  However when I say media I am speaking of main stream media stuff your mommy would know like major news stations Im not talking about fringe groups like Media Matters, Drudge, Blogs, Internet chat rooms.  Im talking about main stream nation wide news outlets.  Like Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN.
#2 I get my news from all sources I watch MSNBC, FOX, ABC, local news channels.  I listen to the Left and right stations on Sirius Radio.  I cant speak for anyone else.
#3 I pulled no victim card I'm just giving my opinion 
#4 you gave 1 major media source which was Fox News.  Again you cant compare NBC to Hannity.  You can compare NBC to FOX because they are similar size and function.  You cant compare a major Media station to a small time website its not a fair comparison.  Its like comparing  great dane poo and a pug poo sure they are both came from dogs but they are way different size.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> #1 yes when more then half of the media is Bias then it fits.  Just like saying Obama is our first black president when in only his dad was black.


Hold the phone. WHAT???  Are you saying Obama isn't black?  Groundbreaking news here, folks!  You heard it first on MartialTalk.  

Of all of the ballsy allegations I've seen casually tossed around, this one is at the top of the heap.   





> When I said American Media leans left I'm speaking in terms of the majority not the absolute.


Majority is impossible to quantify.  Network news is dying.  Print media is dying.  I could easily argue that the internet presence that the conservative media has, couple with the Murdoch empire that includes a major cable news outlet reaches more people than any of the television networks you mentioned.  





> There are no absolutes in this world there's always an exception.


EXACTLY!





> However when I say media I am speaking of main stream media stuff your mommy would know like major news stations Im not talking about fringe groups like Media Matters, Drudge, Blogs, Internet chat rooms.


I would recommend that you keep my mom out of this.  Seriously.  I am perfectly okay taking some personal barbs from you, but you're approaching a line I'd appreciate you respect by not crossing.  





> #2 I get my news from all sources I watch MSNBC, FOX, ABC, local news channels.  I listen to the Left and right stations on Sirius Radio.  I cant speak for anyone else.


I get my news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live.  





> #3 I pulled no victim card I'm just giving my opinion


The entire "left leaning" media argument is just conservatives playing the victim.  





> #4 you gave 1 major media source which was Fox News.  Again you cant compare NBC to Hannity.  You can compare NBC to FOX because they are similar size and function.  You cant compare a major Media station to a small time website its not a fair comparison.  Its like comparing  great dane poo and a pug poo sure they are both came from dogs but they are way different size.


And once again, I ask you, are you saying you don't have a voice?  That the new brand conservatives, including the tea party, has no media presence?  I disagree.  You're not alleging that there are some liberal media outlets.  You continue to allege that there is an overarching media bias.  I have given many, many examples to the contrary.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Hold the phone. WHAT???  Are you saying Obama isn't black?  Groundbreaking news here, folks!  You heard it first on MartialTalk.
> 
> Of all of the ballsy allegations I've seen casually tossed around, this one is at the top of the heap.   Majority is impossible to quantify.  Network news is dying.  Print media is dying.  I could easily argue that the internet presence that the conservative media has, couple with the Murdoch empire that includes a major cable news outlet reaches more people than any of the television networks you mentioned.  EXACTLY!I would recommend that you keep my mom out of this.  Seriously.  I am perfectly okay taking some personal barbs from you, but you're approaching a line I'd appreciate you respect by not crossing.  I get my news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live.  The entire "left leaning" media argument is just conservatives playing the victim.  And once again, I ask you, are you saying you don't have a voice?  That the new brand conservatives, including the tea party, has no media presence?  I disagree.  You're not alleging that there are some liberal media outlets.  You continue to allege that there is an overarching media bias.  I have given many, many examples to the contrary.


Oh no not the "dont talk about my mom" thing.  I was not saying anything negative about you mom.  It was an example to say most normal people have no clue what the Drudge report is.  Change it to my mom if it makes you feel better I didnt know we were still in middle school and the mere mention of the word mom was grounds to meet after school on the play ground to fight it out.

As for Obama being black to just totally deny his mother and grandparents that actually raised him just to serve some milestone in history is pretty silly.
Conservatives playing the victims huh at least they dont come up with things like the "fairness doctrine" to shut down left leaning media.  

And the Tea Party coverage proves my point. Look at the difference in how tea party rallies and Left leaning causes like the union strikes in Wisconsin are covered.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh no not the "dont talk about my mom" thing.  I was not saying anything negative about you mom.  It was an example to say most normal people have no clue what the Drudge report is.  Change it to my mom if it makes you feel better I didnt know we were still in middle school and the mere mention of the word mom was grounds to meet after school on the play ground to fight it out.


Or you could just not do it.  You like to play pretty close to the ToC on the site, flirting with namecalling and petty insults.  If you don't want to pretend you're still in middle school, you probably need to take a serious look at your rhetorical style.  Every post you write is filled with snide, backhanded insults just like the smartaleck bullies in middle school used.  I didn't put up with it then, and I'm certainly not going to do so now.  





> As for Obama being black to just totally deny his mother and grandparents that actually raised him just to serve some milestone in history is pretty silly.


Okay.  So, Obama isn't black.  What's the basis for this allegation?  Are you suggesting that caucasian is a state of mind?  Being white isn't actually about color, it's about who raised you?  Are you saying that he's not legally black?   I think you're on some pretty shaky ground here.





> Conservatives playing the victims huh at least they dont come up with things like the "fairness doctrine" to shut down left leaning media.


I didn't say Conservatives.  I said YOU are pulling the victim card.  I make a point of avoiding sweeping generalizations and labels.  You are playing the victim.   "ZOMG!  American media is leftist.  Here's a link to an article that talks about how left the media is!  And Michelle Malkin just blogged it, too!  It's so left that Fox News quoted a story published in the NY Post that quotes the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, and references a book by Ann Coulter!  It PROVES that the media is liberal!  Poor me.  I have no way of getting news and information that caters to my political belief!"


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

Some day Ill learn the multi-quote thing



stevebjj said:


> .I didn't say Conservatives.  I said YOU are pulling the victim card.


"left leaning" media argument is just conservatives playing the victim.   Your words not mine


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Some day Ill learn the multi-quote thing
> 
> 
> "left leaning" media argument is just conservatives playing the victim.   Your words not mine



Ah, you're right.  I should have been more specific.  When a conservative pulls the "left leaning media" card, as you did, he or she is simply playing the victim.  Better?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Or you could just not do it.  You like to play pretty close to the ToC on the site, flirting with namecalling and petty insults.  If you don't want to pretend you're still in middle school, you probably need to take a serious look at your rhetorical style.  Every post you write is filled with snide, backhanded insults just like the smartaleck bullies in middle school used.  I didn't put up with it then, and I'm certainly not going to do so now.


Or you can grow up act like an adult and read the post as its written since I said nothing negative about you or your mommy and take the internet Rambo BS someplace else.  If you dont like what I post don't read it or don't respond. 



> Okay.  So, Obama isn't black.  What's the basis for this allegation?  Are you suggesting that caucasian is a state of mind?  Being white isn't actually about color, it's about who raised you?  Are you saying that he's not legally black?   I think you're on some pretty shaky ground here.


I didn't say he wasn't black I said he also has white mother  and was raised by white grandparents and to ignore that does a disservice to that side of his family who played more of a roll in the man we see today then his black father.  



> I make a point of avoiding sweeping generalizations and labels.  You are playing the victim.   "ZOMG!  American media is leftist.  Here's a link to an article that talks about how left the media is!  And Michelle Malkin just blogged it, too!  It's so left that Fox News quoted a story published in the NY Post that quotes the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, and references a book by Ann Coulter!  It PROVES that the media is liberal!  Poor me.  I have no way of getting news and information that caters to my political belief!"


Im not playing any victim Ive given you facts and you choose to ignore them since it goes against your argument so instead you compare Major broadcasting companies to some internet Blog because it helps make your point yet you refuse to compare apples to apples because you know it will show your argument is false.




Wow I figured this multi-quote out.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Ah, you're right.  I should have been more specific.  When a conservative pulls the "left leaning media" card, as you did, he or she is simply playing the victim.  Better?


Oh so your making a sweeping generalization huh.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh so your making a sweeping generalization huh.



No.  That was pretty specific.  If/then.  If  X, then Y.  For example, if you don't understand the distinction, then I can't help you.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Or you can grow up act like an adult and read the post as its written since I said nothing negative about you or your mommy and take the internet Rambo BS someplace else.  If you dont like what I post don't read it or don't respond.


So, you're trying to be offensive?  





> I didn't say he wasn't black I said he also has white mother  and was raised by white grandparents and to ignore that does a disservice to that side of his family who played more of a roll in the man we see today then his black father.


You can't have it both ways.  You said he isn't the first black president of the USA.  It's a simple yes or no question.  Which is it?  Is Obama a black president?    


> Im not playing any victim Ive given you facts and you choose to ignore them since it goes against your argument so instead you compare Major broadcasting companies to some internet Blog because it helps make your point yet you refuse to compare apples to apples because you know it will show your argument is false.


You're right.  You win.  American media is liberal, and you can prove it by posting all sorts of links to articles about it!  I give up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> So, you're trying to be offensive?


Nope I said nothing offensive.  You might need thicker skin.



> You can't have it both ways.  You said he isn't the first black president of the USA.  It's a simple yes or no question.  Which is it?  Is Obama a black president?


No hes not hes the first bi-racial president.  



> You're right.  You win. .


See just remember that and we will get along just fine


----------



## elder999 (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> No hes not hes the first bi-racial president.


 
Which pretty much makes him *black, *especially if _that's how he identifies himself._


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope I said nothing offensive.  You might need thicker skin.


Hehe.  If I'm offended, then you said something offensive.  That's what the word means.  But just so it's out there, I wasn't offended.  You've got a pretty well documented temper, and when you get frustrated you start keyboard raging and type things for which you eventually apologize.  I was nipping it in the bud BEFORE you said something you would regret.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Hehe.  If I'm offended, then you said something offensive.  That's what the word means.  But just so it's out there, I wasn't offended.  You've got a pretty well documented temper, and when you get frustrated you start keyboard raging and type things for which you eventually apologize.  I was nipping it in the bud BEFORE you said something you would regret.


Ive never apologized for anything and I have no temper this is an internet forum after all its not real.  For all you know I'm a 11 year old girl and your a 95 year old man so trust me I have not become frustrated with anything on the internet. I don't take anything on here serious.  I enjoy seeing what others think but take none of it serious.


----------

