[NeedKarma]

what connection is there between Fox and the government? There's a logical link missing from your chain of connections.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare

[speechlesstx]

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare

And you think Scott McClellan is a reliable source? He was the butt of every liberal's joke until he wrote his book... suddenly he's a brilliant and invaluable resource?

[NeedKarma]

And you think Scott McClellan is a reliable source?

You mean former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Yea, he's a good source.

[ETWolverine]

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare

OK, I'll accept the LOGICAL PROGRESSION, though not the conclusions... because as Tom has mentioned, Fox is particularly good (for a media company) at keeping their NEWS SHOWS separate from their OP ED shows. Other networks... less so.

However, there's also the fact that Bush is no longer in office. Therefore Fox cannot be said to CURRENTLY be enmeshed with the government (if they ever were), especially given the fact that they are espousing an editorial position that is in direct opposition to the government.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

You're right - they are a shill for the conservative party, not just Bush.

[ETWolverine]

You're right - they are a shill for the conservative party, not just Bush.

That MAY be true. Just as it is true that all the OTHER networks are shills for the DNC.

However, there's a difference between being a shill for a political party and being a shill for the GOVERNMENT. A HUGE difference. One that encroaches on the issue of free press.

Political parties can do things that GOVERNMENTS are not allowed to. Yes, sometimes the line between political party and government entity can blurr. But it is still there.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

You mean former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Yea, he's a good source.

Uh Yeah, that Scott McClellan.

[speechlesstx]

It has since been pulled, but a post on Obama's Organizing For America website called for a phone campaign on 9/11 to fight the "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists" opposing Obamacare. Someone on Obama's own team IS saying the "Conservative Movement is being run like a bunch of terrorists."

[tomder55]

As Elliot said already ;the grass roots movement is leaderless.

Now admittedly there were media personalities who tried to claim leadership this weekend ; but it is just not the case that the estimated 2 million people who showed up the 9-12 rally (according to the Daily Mail... time lapse video here Time Lapse Aerial Video of 9/12 Protestors The Rhetorican)) was marching to anyone's orders but their own . The signs were not mass produced . They showed up on their own time and dime;and they were frankly just as likely to take swipes at the entrenched Republicans in the beltway as the Obots.
I'm not sure if the Republican party will survive or not. But if it does ,it will be because the party embraces the movement.

[NeedKarma]

...that the estimated 2 million people who showed up the the 9-12 rally ...

You're still propogating that lie??

Here are some pictures: 9/12 project Sept. 12, 2009 Washington DC - a set on Flickr What an ethicnally diverse crowd! :rolleyes:

Crowd was much less than that tom: Protest Crowd Size Estimate Falsely Attributed to ABC News - ABC News
"tens of thousands"

[ETWolverine]

You're still propogating that lie?????

Here are some pictures: 9/12 project Sept. 12, 2009 Washington DC - a set on Flickr What an ethicnally diverse crowd! :rolleyes:

Crowd was much less than that tom: Protest Crowd Size Estimate Falsely Attributed to ABC News - ABC News
"tens of thousands"

As I've said before... you just go on denying how many Americans are against Obamacare.

Please keep trying to downplay the numbers, cast them as "a fringe minority" and deny that the Dems have a confidence issue... as in "there is no confidence in them".

The more the Dems do that, the more likely they are to drive people to the polls for the Reps in 2010 and 2012.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
----- Napoleon Bonaparte

Or as I prefer to say it, "If your enemy is in the process of screwing up by the numbers, let him finish."

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

As I've said before... you just go on denying how many Americans are against Obamacare.

I didn't do that. I was pointing out the massive error in the numbers tom used.

[ETWolverine]

I didn;t do that. I was pointing out the massive error in the numbers tom used.

If you say so.

What I think is that over 2 million people showed up yesterday... they just didn't all show up at the same time. The picture you showed is what it looks like when they are all there at the same time.

And what is the purpose of showing your picture, if not to show that there were fewer protestors than Tom claims? What is the purpose of such a denial if not to claim that the numbers are smaller than was reported? What do you get out of minimizing the numbers?

Nah... it was a denial of how large the number of people against Obama's policies is. TWO THIRDS OF AMERICANS are against it, and you are quibbling over how many people showed up at a rally... was it 1 million or 2 million...

So you just keep minimizing.

Elliot

[tomder55]

You're still propogating that lie??

Wasn't me . I was just quoting a reliable news source.

Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online

[NeedKarma]

...and you are quibbling over how many people showed up at a rally... was it 1 million or 2 million...

It wasn't even 100,000.

[NeedKarma]

Wasn't me . I was just quoting a reliable news source.

Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online

I mentioend before that Daily Mail is not a reliable source as you now learn (though I have mentioned it to you before). Why did you have to to the a UK tabloid to get the info? That's because they published the numbers you wanted to see.

[ETWolverine]

I mentioend before that Daily Mail is not a reliable source as you now learn (though I have mentioned it to you before). Why did you have to to the a UK tabloid to get the info? That's because they published the numbers you wanted to see.

Actually, it was because the AMERICAN media won't report the truth because they are in the tank for Obama.

[excon]

Hello:

Who cares? From Wikki:

The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized (though not first used) by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969 speech,[1] where it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not enthusiastically participate in public discourse or the media. Nixon along with many others saw this group as being overshadowed by the more vocal minority.

---------------

I agree with Tricky D!ck.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Actually, it was because the AMERICAN media won't report the truth because they are in the tank for Obama.

It's a conspiracy!!!!!!

[tomder55]

Or maybe the dinosaur media in this country is a bunch of syncophant toadies to the Obots. I've already more than illustrated the number of demonstrable false reports they have filed since I 1st came to AMHD . Why should I rely on sources that only satisfy your description of accuracy anyway . As recently as last week you posted from a cite that headlined truthers.