We voted Obama in because we thought he was a change from Bush...

[88m3]

Now we're getting into the Toure arguments.

"The people who are criticizing this hate Obama"

"These are racist people who have racial motivations"

"This happened under Bush"



Just absolute clowns.

Those are valid points of concern.

 

[Nefflum nigga]

Privacy will be totally eliminated


And any type of anti government rhetoric will get you detained indefinitely...


Edit: @BarNone who do you work for? And what color is your mother?

 

[Type Username Here]

Paragraphs attacking TUH

You keep presenting anecdotal evidence as truth, without citing proper sources or laws.

I don't care that you work for the government. I don't care who your professors are or who you meet at Democratic functions and events.

When you make a statement like "they didn't care about this during Bush's first presidency" I expect you to cite some examples properly.

You keep just throwing shyt out there as if you are some form of authoritative figure on these matters without citing ANYTHING.

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

I voted for him because he was black, simple as that. Of course this was before I came into the knowledge of self. Now I vote for nobody. Peace to Obama though, he's still a member of the black nation regardless of whom or what.

 

[88m3]

I voted for him because he was black, simple as that. Of course this was before I came into the knowledge of self. Now I vote for nobody. Peace to Obama though, he's still a member of the black nation regardless of whom or what.

​

 

[Nefflum nigga]

I voted for him because he was black, simple as that. Of course this was before I came into the knowledge of self. Now I vote for nobody. Peace to Obama though, he's still a member of the black nation regardless of whom or what.

knowledge of self... Made you realize what?

 

[Good Guy Guevara]

Obama deserves a lot of criticism for his policies but you can't fully blame one person for a institutional problem.

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

knowledge of self... Made you realize what?

It sheds light to a lot of things. For example there are people out there with knowledge looking to lead the people in the wrong direction so they can use & rob them. Governments are part of this group. Doesn't matter who's the head, the president has a job. And it will be fulfilled by whoever it is.

 

[Type Username Here]

BarNone, I'll be waiting for your links about the media not challenging the Bush Administration on civil liberties.

We all know they bent over backwards for the War in Iraq. Can you show me where they failed to report on these matters regarding Civil Liberties?

2001:
Patriot Act draws privacy concerns - CNET News
Bush’s jihad against civil rights - Salon.com
DOJ's Already Monitoring Modems
Patriot Act is merely excuse for 'legal' spying | The Daily Beacon

 

[No1]

You keep presenting anecdotal evidence as truth, without citing proper sources or laws.

I don't care that you work for the government. I don't care who your professors are or who you meet at Democratic functions and events.

When you make a statement like "they didn't care about this during Bush's first presidency" I expect you to cite some examples properly.

You keep just throwing shyt out there as if you are some form of authoritative figure on these matters without citing ANYTHING.

Keep embarrassing yourself, I won't stop you, I don't give a fukk about what you expect me to cite to. No one has to cite to general knowledge, especially when you take my statement in the context of that conversation. Apparently, no one ever taught you that. You tried to break down my reasoning, so I broke down yours. What you called "personal attacks" (then I don't know what you call, calling everyone stupid and clowns in one of your weekly bytch fits is) is me actually talking about the way you argue and reach conclusions, and why the support for your point was not support at all. Most of all, I wasn't talking about professors, I was talking about professionals that you keep calling heroes and yet you never absorbed any of what makes them heroes (that's a personal attack). Basically, don't waste my time quoting and misrepresenting me again until you can act like an adult.


Yet, another pointless argument brought to you by TUH and the good folks at "copy and paste first. reason and critically analyze later" records, and I'm done with this thread

 

[88m3]

It sheds light to a lot of things. For example there are people out there with knowledge looking to lead the people in the wrong direction so they can use & rob them. Governments are part of this group. Doesn't matter who's the head, the president has a job. And it will be fulfilled by whoever it is.

your attitude is that of someone of the ten percent

 

[jackswstd]

Republican or Democrat they're about themselves. You really think either side gives a fukk about you?

 

[Higher Tech]

we got sort of free health care.

Exactly. All you gotta do is pay for it.

 

[Type Username Here]

@BarNone

Are you seriously going to delete our conversation and then supplement your own edit?

Reason: takes the thread off its wheels and is pointless

BarNone
This message has been deleted by BarNone. Reason: Is it general consensus that the media did not go properly vet the Bush administration after 9-11 in the expansion of NSA pow

It is NOT general consensus. I have posted media sources after sources showing that this is NOT true. The burden is on you to provide proof.

Where are your citations?

 

[No1]

@BarNone

Are you seriously going to delete our conversation and then supplement your own edit?



It is NOT general consensus. I have posted media sources after sources showing that this is NOT true. The burden is on you to provide proof.

Where are your citations?

Look guy, I didn't supplement any edit. I gave you 15 minutes to start a thread and told you to ask the question that is posted as my reason. I said if not, then in 15 minutes, I would delete both of our posts because they derail the thread into a long ass side argument. So unless you're going to do that, then this and the any other post between the two of us will get deleted. But you know what, I'll play your game for once to show you what an argument looks like and what an article supported of one's stance looks like. NOt that cumulative mish-mash you gave us. (Note: I always provide links to legitimate questions when asked and not personally attacked, see TheReal and the prison industry complex, etc.)

The assertion that the media wasn't soft on Bush early on is so ludicrous I'm offended that you're asking me to cite to it, and why I dared you to make a poll. But here you go, something from either my junior or senior year of high school of freshmen year of college.

Source: From the American Journalism Review: Are the News Media Soft on Bush?</i> *|*American Journalism Review, and it's a slightly longer but very detailed read.

On March 17, Bush ordered Saddam Hussein to leave within 48 hours or face invasion. The next day, Washington Post national security reporter Walter Pincus and White House correspondent Dana Milbank wrote that the administration was preparing to attack Iraq based on a number of allegations "that have been challenged--and in some cases disproved--by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports." Among the evidence "refuted by subsequent discoveries": Bush's assertion that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. The story, headlined "Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq," was buried on page A13, while coverage of Bush's ultimatum appeared on the front page--but it was one of the few stories to challenge the administration's evidence at the outset of war.

Although reporters lacked access to intelligence reports and security briefings, they should have treated administration declarations more skeptically--even emphasized that some claims could not be independently confirmed--and published and aired dissenting international voices more prominently.

"Did the media do their job in the march up to the war?" asks former CNN Vice President Sesno. "I certainly don't think the broadcast media were sufficiently rigorous. There was not sufficient discussion as to why the French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese and Turks felt as they did. There was not sufficient healthy skepticism as to why the administration's case was not strong.... I was told flat-out by a network producer that there were not more international voices put on the air because it would have been a ratings killer."

But Sesno qualifies his remarks by saying, "Certainly post-9/11, there has been some excellent and even heroic journalism."

New Republic Editor Beinart says the press "really needs to take a step back and look at the way in which certain claims and statements were repeated so often that they were just taken as fact." At some point, the media dropped cautious phrasing about weapons programs that Iraq might have, opting for assertions such as "they have" or "they possess."


....

Complaints also have surfaced over White House treatment of reporters who annoy the administration. Robert Kuttner, coeditor of the liberal American Prospect, argued in a July 16 Boston Globe piece that "the press has given the administration an astonishingly free ride." Kuttner contends the Bush team is "very effective at pressuring and isolating reporters who criticize Bush, so working reporters bend over backwards to play fair. And the administration benefits from a stage-managed, right-wing media machine that has no counterpart on the liberal left." In an interview, Kuttner cited the dogged Milbank as "the classic example. They freeze him out. They don't return his phone calls." (Milbank says his calls are returned, although he can't judge whether White House officials return them as quickly as those of other reporters.)

Second Source from 5 seconds on Google: The Coverage of Bush Sign In
- An article by Jane Hall an Assistant Professor at American University which points out the media's lack of criticism of the Bush administration leading up to his initial election and after he was president. Important to note because she was also a Fox commentator.

Don't be mistaken, you never met your initial burden of proof, I just did this to get you to stop quoting and @ me. I have no idea why you're obsessed with starting pointless arguments on pointless tangents. I'm tired of it, I won't participate in it any further.