Ticomaya wrote:nimh wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Because over time, the constant barrage of negative reporting will have an effect. If the average Joe doesn't get a dose of reality, but is simply swallowing what he reads in the Times every day, it is no surprise his opinion will be negative.
Do you
seriously believe that Bush's current negative poll numbers are explainable through referencing the liberal media bias you assert? I mean, are you for real here?
Yes, I am "for real." Do you
seriously believe that negative reporting would not have that effect?
Quote:The odd thing is that last year, in the half-year run-up to the elections, conservatives' complaints here about the vicious slant of the liberal media and those media's unrebating onslaught of negative news reached a screeching zenit.
I confess I don't know what a "zenit" is, much less a "screeching" one.
Quote:But it was during that half a year or so that Bush's numbers actually stabilized. (See
here, not updated since the elections I'm afraid).
Try reading my statements you quoted above again if you are still having difficulting understanding my point.
Lol! I had my post calling you what I think you are when you argue like this removed, Tico.
Suffice it to say that I believe your arguments on this matter to be waste material.
Your "Dlowan believes it ok to lie under oath" is typical of the intellectually bankrupt arguments you and other far right people here often employ.
You know, one criticizes the lies over which Iraq was invaded...this equals "You are a traitor"
One dares to point out the abuses being perpetrated by US troops on prisoners: "You dishonour the troops!" "Why do you hate America!" Terrorist!"
It is interesting how, as time goes on, all the fake horror the right have expressed about these things even being mentioned, and their scandalised denials that Bushco could ever do these things has evaporated to silence and "Clinton is bad!" as the evidence mounts.
You are especially bankrupt in this stuff, Tico, I do not believe I have ever heard you comment reasonably on these things, insted you attempt to derail threads discussing these serious matters with your "I hate Clinton" games.
We KNOW you hate Clinton. Try singing a new song, eh?
Thus, one disagrees with Tico, therefore one is morally bankrupt, supports lying under oath, farts in lifts, kicks canes out from blind people and steals candy from babies.
I do not have the time to reproduce the post, nor do I much feel like bothering with you.
As Blathan said, if you consider lying about consensual sex as less concerning than promoting torture (as Cheney is doing from his bunker as we speak), lying about reasons to invade another country, and running secret facilities in defiance of moral and US laws....so be it. I am a little stunned at your moral priorities...but there you go.
Since you asked, I do not approve of people lying under oath. Not that I expect truth to stop your comments, but nemmind.
By the same token, I do take into account circumstances of the offence.
Hey, I even defended your nasty governator on threads when similar charges of sexual harassment came up about him when he was running for governator.
I suspect he is quite the man in his behaviour towards women, but, as with the accusations about Clinton, the timing of the accusations stank to high heaven of political manipulation.
Clinton appeared in court re the accusations against him. Preesumably it was open for the judge/prosecutors to act re that matter when the lie came out...I gather they have not done so.
Clinton paid reasonably dearly for that lie.
I know you have hit upon a reason why Clinton was asked about a sexual matter when there had been NO hint of sexual coercion, I still do not see it as appropriate to raise consensual adult sex in a trial about harassment. The thing stinks of political witch hunt.
You will disagree. So be it.
I disagree with your moral code, too.
