Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
What is hard for you to understand that networks appeal to both sides and both would take up arms to blast the other side if there was even the
slightest possibility this might be true? You must really be living in a dream world.
So again, your stance is that the media are all back stabbing conniving Bush haters that would spin any story to destroy him, and yet they are
unwilling to report on things like the Kucinich impeachment because its so uncredible. Your a riot. I know talking to you is like talking to a wall,
but if thats the case, why has the media refused to report the CIA story we've been discussing?
Your blind faith in the media, which you yourself admit is shady and incredibly biased is disturbing. Why even bother to comes to sites like this
then. Obiously, any alternative news is wrong because the media isn't reporting it. You are adding nothing to a conversation on here by simply
stating if its not mainstream, its not true. The only thing this contributes is showing people how blindly some people follow what there told.
Please learn the definition of ad hominem attacks before you use the phrase. The definition of a crazy person is someone who does the same thing time
and again expecting different results. This is exactly what Kucinich does by repeatedly attempting to impeach just about everyone he can in order to
get people like you excited. It is not a true statement that Bush had intelligence which said beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no connection
between Iraq and WMDs. That is the nature of intelligence: your going to have conflicting messages - what the facts DO show is that intelligence
reports were conflicted, and it certainly wasn't clear that Bush was wrong when he made the decision.
Yes, you are issuing ad hom attacks by calling Kucinich and all those who listen to him "woo-woo's and nuts". You say he is clinically crazy
because he impeaches people over and over again, well then can you tell me how many people he has attempted to impeach? Two to you is over and over?
Well, then I guess all the Republicans that impeached Clinton are half crazy right.
What I want to know is who are you to decide Kucinich's motivations? All you have displayed on this board is a unique stubbornness to only believe a
MSM that you don't trust, and the ability to tow the Republican party line. You seem to be so quick to call me partisan insinuating that it is
anti-educational, but you yourself exhibit all the characteristics of a partisan Bush supporter (as opposed to me who hates both parties).
Give me example of Kucinich flip flopping or something to pander to the public. As far as I can see, his voting record has been very consistent,
which would lead me to believe that he actually believes in what he is doing.
You then say there was no definitive connection between Iraq and WMD's, but that not what I said. Kucinich's impeachment is about meeting with
inteligence officials on one day who told him there was zero connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, and then Bush the next day telling the American
public there was. This is the story the inteligence officials and their briefs they filed told, and no one is claiming thats not true.
That fact that MSNBC and CNN don't spend all day catering to your rabid need to blame George Bush for everything does not change the facts. The facts
are every time some woo-woo liberal attempts to impeach bush to start a political circus, they do get mentioned. Every time. Why? Because the mass
media is feeding your bush-hating propaganda needs. In fact, every time he pulls this impeachment stunt I've always seen it covered on every major
Again, I don't blame Bush for everything, I hate both parties. You claim you heard every media outlet talk about this, then please post videos. I
heard Olbermann mention it i passing the day Kucinich passed them, and that was it. No one has addressed the 35 allegations he brings up. I would
venture a guess that the average new watching American either has no idea impeacment proceeding were filed against Bush, or if they do have no idea
what it was about, and I will also guarantee that even more people have no idea proceedings were brought against Cheney.
Also, heres some media watchdog groups and other sites that talk about how the impeachment was not discussed.
Now i know, instead of providing me with examples to back up your claims that they were discussed, you will just call these sites biased, but I just
wanted to give you an opportunity to see how you might be wrong.
Oh please. He was given coverage when he was viable, and was dropped when he was no longer viable. I am a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter, and
even I am not going to join the delusions on this. Sadly, why Ron Paul lost was due to his rabid supporters. I loved Ron Paul, not the Paulbots.
I knew you would say this, so all I can say is your wrong, and to ask anyone reading this to ask themselves if they think Ron Paul got fair coverage.
The fact that you say this, then claim to be a Ron Paul supporter is ridiculous. Prove this with evidence. Again, I will post media watchdog sites
that claim Paul did not get fair coverage.
of particular note as they are a highly conservative organization)
I could go on and on. The point is that you don't want to hear the truth. You watch the same media as everyone else, and you claim to see things
that just aren't there. You have shown through your posts an utter failure to comprehend the media, and yet you blindly assume that anything they
don't report can't be true. You have provided no evidence for you claims and refuse to look at what evidence is provided to you. All you have
managed to accomplish on this thread is making the OP seem all the more plausible by showing how people can be duped by the system. I truly wish you
the best, and encourage you to try to keep an open mind.