Flight Service wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Are you laughing with him or at him?
Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.
Flight Service wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Are you laughing with him or at him?
Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Flight Service:Flight Service said: Did she die in a private plane crash?Too clever by half... Here, enlighten yourself: http://www.c-span.org/video/?319889-1/qa-sharyl-attkisson It's an hour-long interview with someone who has deep insight into the current state of journalism and its' interaction with government.Flight Service said: About Politifact, time and time again people have tried to prove them biased and they just aren't. They compare what is said to base factsI'm not questioning the accuracy. I'm questioning the choice to view hyperbolic, partisan rants as "news". FOX programming leans heavily on personalities and in its' own twisted vision of "balanced", includes liberal guests with "extreme", opposing views. Is Politifact using that kind of crap in its' analysis? If so, that means the "lies" come from both sides and FOX gets credited with broadcasting looney toon views from conservatives and liberals.Flight Service said: I think fighting over the legitimacy over the amount of lies each has just because your side gets called out is silly.So quit doing it...Flight Service said: That just tells me that people who care about the truth are liberal. I don't think that is the message the attackers are wanting to send, but that is a consequence, and many a liberal has picked up on it.Maybe you should hang with fewer liberals and learn something about those you choose to ridicule. Do that and someday you might be able to answer the question "Why does a fish not know its' wet?".
Flight Service said: In the end, as long as people are looking for facts I would be happy, but by looking at the ratings of the biased news agencies, they just want their opinions spewed back at them in a different voice...At least on that, we can agree!
I don't know how you can read the HTML code without going cross-eyed to do that. I never get it right so I will just reply here.
The Private Plane crash joke was in reference to the people testifying against Clinton in the Whitewater scandal. (for those unaware)
I acknowledged the lies on both sides, I put up the MSNBC numbers, the FoxNews liberal twin. The FoxNews "liberals" are far from it when it comes to the few hosts they have. Their guests get yelled at and talked over. I don't see a true liberal on a single show. I will give MSNBC that, they actually gave a Republican Rep from Florida his own show, Joe Scarborough. I wouldn't say he is as far right as the Tea Party, but he is a conservative.
I wasn't fighting over the legitimacy just posting a retort to a previous quote questioning the source, which has been attacked by multiple conservative groups who don't like the answers.
I hang with both Liberals and Conservatives. This election cycle I have door tagged and called for both Republican and Democratic candidates. (I actually participate in the political process. Strange huh? LOL) I switched from GOP to Dem after Bush Jr. I was a little late on the Bush hating trail, but I am there now. (For the record I still think the Dixie Chicks were wrong. They disrespected the office and they did it on foreign soil. You can hate the man but you respect the office.) So maybe you should hang out with more liberals??? I am about the most "balanced" in any political network I know. I am right of most Libs and left of most Republicans. I will say this a southern Dem and a northern Dem are completely different. Same goes for Republicans.
I was laughing at the YouTube video which was referring to not feeding the trolls, which, by timing, content, and placement, I think he was referring to you? Which apparently I can't stop doing. Funny video.
Just an observation. This has been a surprisingly civil conversation.
oldsaw wrote:Flight Service wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Bwahahahahahahahaha!Are you laughing with him or at him? Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.
That's potentially the most inaccurate description I've ever read that's been written about me. But funny..
I counter with something equally as outrageous..
"You're so conservative, that..."
I'm sorry I lost my train of thought because I was called to do something more interesting. Wiping my 3 yo's bottom after he went poop.
oldsaw wrote: Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.
What if it's a dark cloud?
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:oldsaw wrote: Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.What if it's a dark cloud?
That can't be racist then.....
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:oldsaw wrote: Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.What if it's a dark cloud?
It would piss all over the people in the parade, threaten it with lightening, and when the police clouds came in to arrest it, would cry racism and try and punch them in the face. Then when it was killed, the people in the parade getting pissed on and threatened with lightening would sue the police clouds.
In reply to Flight Service:
Flight Service said: The Private Plane crash joke was in reference to the people testifying against Clinton in the Whitewater scandal. (for those unaware)
I get it but I would have gone with something less obscure. Vince Foster perhaps?
Flight Service said: I acknowledged the lies on both sides, I put up the MSNBC numbers, the FoxNews liberal twin. The FoxNews "liberals" are far from it when it comes to the few hosts they have. Their guests get yelled at and talked over. I don't see a true liberal on a single show.
That kinda makes me wonder on how you define "liberal". As far as guests getting yelled at talked, yeah, you're right and I'd say that O'Reilly and Hannity are the biggest offenders. The problem is that O'Reilly is a self-serving megalomaniac (who occasionally takes a stance I agree with) and Hannity is a partisan blowhard. I recommend limited exposure while possessing a dose a skepticism and a shaker of salt.
Flight Service said: I wasn't fighting over the legitimacy just posting a retort to a previous quote questioning the source, which has been attacked by multiple conservative groups who don't like the answers.
Is that a reference to Politifact or NPR? I only question the former's methodology as it seems to consider "opinion" with the same regard as "news"; to me, that is just wrong. I can't accuse NPR as being blatantly liberal because it isn't. My observation is that when bias occurs it is subtle and NOT conservative.
Regardless, I'd have chosen a less inflammatory approach in a rebuttal; ymmv...
Flight Service said: I switched from GOP to Dem after Bush Jr. I was a little late on the Bush hating trail, but I am there now.
Understood, but I recommend you check-out the Attkisson interview. You should have looked that gift horse in the mouth six years ago.
Flight Service said: I am right of most Libs and left of most Republicans.
Right there with you! I look at both sides and just shake my head. In it's current state, I consider the GOP/conservative side as pond scum. Alternatively, the Dem/Liberal side is the fecal matter that covers the pond's bottom.
Flight Service said: I was laughing at the YouTube video which was referring to not feeding the trolls, which, by timing, content, and placement, I think he was referring to you?
Of course it was aimed at me. The irony is that you seem to be unaware of FBC's, nee Ignorant's, history. Him referencing trolling is funny in the pot-meet-kettle way. Oh, and hypocritical, too.
Flight Service said: This has been a surprisingly civil conversation.
Yep; it can be done!
In reply to HiTempguy:
Buwahahaahhaahahahaahahahahahaha
I need to drain my keyboard now, +eleventy internetz for you good sir.
In reply to oldsaw:
Ha! Very nice retort.
I would define a liberal as someone who is interested in People above corporations, fact above fiction, and believes in a level playing field for everyone. Non-Isolationist and don't believe we should bomb every country that pisses us off. The "liberal" guests I have seen on F.N. are more GOP thinkers in a blue tie than a liberal.
I helped coordinate and was the emcee for the local Democrat festival. The local Dems are so frustrated right now with the national party, we put up things that define us as a local group. Much more common sense, solutions based not rhetoric based.
I was referring to Politifact. I understand your point, but I disagree.
I was not aware of FbC's position. Thanks I will watch with much enthusiasm.
I will check out the Attkisson interview, thanks for the recommendation.
yamaha wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:That can't be racist then.....oldsaw wrote: Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.What if it's a dark cloud?
Now THAT'S funny
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:oldsaw wrote:That's potentially the most inaccurate description I've ever read that's been written about me. But funny.. I counter with something equally as outrageous.. "You're so conservative, that..." I'm sorry I lost my train of thought because I was called to do something more interesting. Wiping my 3 yo's bottom after he went poop.Flight Service wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Bwahahahahahahahaha!Are you laughing with him or at him? Asked because Iggy would label a cloud as "racist" if it cast a shadow over a MLK Day parade.
Your so Conservative you started 501C(3) to support Putin for President?
My favorite joke at the expense of a GOPer is Your so ugly Dick Cheney shot himself in the face.
In reply to Flight Service:
And you point out a great point I've been basically going blue shouting at people over.....party doesn't matter, there are people on both sides that don't give two E36 M3s about us. Locally, we have our fair share of idiots on both sides, but there are also good people who want to do the best they can on both. That pretty much sums up how my entire state is to be honest. Local elections could be all over the place, gov could end up Dem(note, the last few have been Rep), but the state goes Rep for prez.....obviously there are a lot of people here that haven't bought into the us vs them line of bullE36 M3 everyone is starting.
In reply to yamaha:
And I believe that in each party but the voters are something else. Shockingly roughly 90% of the population says "I don't like XYZ from GOP/Dems but I refuse to vote for a Dem/GOP.". So we truely get the same BS year over year.
Some how the local population doesn't corelate their anger with government to their elected officials.
12% approval rating for Congress yet incumbents will overwhelming win year over year.
We truely are our own worst enemy.
Watched the Attkinson interview along with a few that she did for FoxNews and CBN. I think she hit the nail on the head that the producers don't want to upset the powers that be. Weather it be a corporate sponsor or political organization. Put that with the conflict she openly states about that journalists should ask and answer more questions than social media is asking is interesting.
I took a few things away from the interview.
1. A freedom of information act request for everythin is BS
2. Fox is still holding on to the whole Benghazi and Obamacare thing and she is right there with them. (She wanted to know when the administration knew what. That is all she could come up with on Benghazi. And there was a top IT official in the government that wouldn't sign off on Obamacare. Two big smoking guns there. Strangely she didn't mention the GOP majority on the Security committee that cut embassy security funding.)
3. The executive producer of CBS is related to the chief of communications for the white house.
Other than that it is the same ole same ole. No surprise.
Flight Service wrote: I took a few things away from the interview. 1. A freedom of information act request for everythin is BS 2. Fox is still holding on to the whole Benghazi and Obamacare thing and she is right there with them. (She wanted to know when the administration knew what. That is all she could come up with on Benghazi. And there was a top IT official in the government that wouldn't sign off on Obamacare. Two big smoking guns there. Strangely she didn't mention the GOP majority on the Security committee that cut embassy security funding.) 3. The executive producer of CBS is related to the chief of communications for the white house. Other than that it is the same ole same ole. No surprise.
Flight Service said: 1. A freedom of information act request for everythin is BS
All those FOIA requests are necessary because someone lied. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI
Flight Service said: 2. Fox is still holding on to the whole Benghazi and Obamacare thing and she is right there with them.
They're investigating the lies used to protect a Presidential campaign and cover-up the ineptitude of the State Department. Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI
Flight Service said: Strangely she didn't mention the GOP majority on the Security committee that cut embassy security funding.)
You can blame the GOP senators for cutting funding but the State Dept decides where and how to allocate the funding. The GOP didn't decide on the security levels needed in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and it didn't lie about the events that occurred that day.
Flight Service said: 3. The executive producer of CBS is related to the chief of communications for the white house.
They are brothers and the CBS exec lied to Attkisson's face about airing one of her productions.
Flight Service said: I think she hit the nail on the head that the producers don't want to upset the powers that be.
Which serves to prove that a majority of NEWS executives and journalists have abandoned their role as governmental watchdogs.
Flight Service said: Other than that it is the same ole same ole.
Except the journalists have universally claimed the current administration is the least transparent - ever. Which is directly at odds with this proclamation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI
Flight Service said: No surprise.
Nope, I'm not at all surprised at your tepid assessment of journalistic and administrative malfeasance.
I don't believe they were covering up anything other than they had leads on who did it. The right haven't, at any point, trying to find out anything. They were using it as a political tool. Remember the "we don't leave soldiers behind"? First off, yes, we do. Historically a E36 M3 ton. Second, they were not soldiers, but mercenaries er., contractors getting paid much more than a U.S. soldier would have, (Humm, I wonder why they would use private contractors when they are more expensive?) Yes the budget committee does not direct line item everything, but when the state department asks for more money to defend the embassies and then there is an issue. You don't get to wipe your hands clean. You are responsible for the short fall and the issue as well. I don't give your GOP (which this is the most biased post I have read from you yet,) a pass. Sorry, they are as guilty as anyone because they knew the funding was short and could have corrected the problem easily, but decided to play politics instead.
Attikinson never made any accusations of deliberate interference or intentional pulling of her stories due to sensitivity, (In any of the interviews I saw.) She did say that multiple stories were pulled from her and other reporters due to time lapse and that those did correlate with higher powers. Once again your bias is showing.
Everybody says this one is worse than the last one. I think that is B.S. Although I look at Obama's Presidency is a failure as a Democrat and for America. I don't think he is the worst, but he has not kept his word on transparency. Which he campaigned on. We went to war with a sovereign nation based on trumped up data. That trumps not telling you it was a terrorist attack in the transparency issue.
Your last comment was just being an shiny happy person. Don't do that. This has been civil.
Flight Service said: I don't believe they were covering up anything other than they had leads on who did it. The right haven't, at any point, trying to find out anything. They were using it as a political tool.
Republicans do not get a pass on using Benghazi as a political weapon. Neither does the administration for lying about facts they had hours after the attacks. For weeks after, a frenzied mob motivated by an offensive video was touted as the force behind the attack. Why? Because an Al Queda-affiliated terrorist group launched an organized attack on a consulate 7 weeks before a Presidential election. Revealing those facts would punch holes in a campaign largely based on crowing about successes with foreign policy.
Both parties are guilty of despicable behavior. One to curry political power over the next few years, the other to further its' own power for four more.
BTW, it's interesting that you consider a US ambassador a mercenary. No, I don't believe that was your intention but it was written that way.
Flight Service said: I don't give your GOP (which this is the most biased post I have read from you yet,) a pass.
Not my GOP regardless of how you choose to perceive my political leanings. The onus is still on the State Dept for allowing/sending an ambassador to a poorly defended consulate in an area know to be a hot bed of terrorist activity.
Flight Service said: Attikinson never made any accusations of deliberate interference or intentional pulling of her stories due to sensitivity, (In any of the interviews I saw.) She did say that multiple stories were pulled from her and other reporters due to time lapse and that those did correlate with higher powers. Once again your bias is showing.
My "biased" claim is based on her accounts of stories getting buried because of relentless administration and corporate pressure to stifle unflattering reporting.
Flight Service said: Everybody says this one is worse than the last one. I think that is B.S
You're right and everybody else is wrong; got it.
Flight Service said: We went to war with a sovereign nation based on trumped up data. That trumps not telling you it was a terrorist attack in the transparency issue.
I understand your sentiment but to trump a video to extend (what you admit) a failed presidency is a damn close second place.
Flight Service said: Your last comment was just being an shiny happy person. Don't do that. This has been civil.
Duly noted and apologies extended. I will also add that if you expect higher standards in personal discourse, you should expect higher standards (and performances) from journalists and the organizations that employ them, which is what that last comment was all about.
I hold people accountable to the standards they advertise for themselves. Any higher and I would stay disappointed more than I am now.
As far as me being right and everyone else being wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Seriously look it up. Everyone has been complaining about less and less access after every administration. It makes sense when you think about. You have the same team of schmucks doing it over and over and over. Eventually they will get it right. Not an excuse mind you more of an observation. I don't think Obama is any less secretive than anyone else ever has been. Your opinion and the people hocking books and air times not with standing.
Funny the ambassador wasn't who they brought up so much as the guards that were killed. That was my point.
Flight Service wrote: As far as me being right and everyone else being wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
I like this guy
In reply to Flight Service:
They were former Navy Seals weren't they?
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Flight Service wrote: As far as me being right and everyone else being wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.I like this guy
Of course you would...
But then you're the guy who asked for help with a simple question.
Thankfully, that thread has received its' deserved demise but it raised suspicions about self-proclaimed superior intellect or the denial of a subtle approach to starting some e36m3.
oldsaw wrote: it raised suspicions about self-proclaimed superior intellect
In reply to yamaha:
Yes, Tyrone Woods Retired in 2010 from the Seals. Glen Doherty left the Seals in 2005 and had worked for a few private security firms and published a book.
Both are officially listed now as CIA contractors in the incident.
In reply to Flight Service:
That response was aimed at FBC, nee Ignorant, whose history you do not know. I commend him for willfully changing his board persona in spite of his recent and occasional relapses.
Ass U Me nothing...
In reply to oldsaw:
You'll need to log in to post.
