It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do a lot of people use the drudge report?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
www.drudgereport.com

It's a website that I once used frequently. I've stopped taking it as seriously as I used to in the past. Now I like to frequent other news sources. I find the drudge worthy to just be a compendium of sorts of news articles it thinks are important. I don't see why so many people use it. I think that it's as bad as the rest of the MSM things out there.




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
What news sources do you recommend? I mostly hit Yahoo News, Drudge, and Breitbart.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I think it's because he does seem to get news scoops before many of the traditional organizations like AP. Of course, breaking the Monica Lewinsky story really propelled him to the forefront.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I like using MSN, reuters, www.airamerica.com (since I'm a leftist), I sometimes check out www.foxnews.com (I believe the website is better than the TV-station itself--you don't get the subliminal advertising). I sometimes check out www.comcast.net (I have a comast ISP so that's why). I also am frequenting stratfor (at www.stratfor.com) and I listen to their daily podcasts. Eventually I'll get around to subscribing to them. They seem fairly reliable and non-partisan.

I just don't like the drudge report as much as I used to because I find it limiting compared to other sources of news out there. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I just feel that it lacks coverage in a lot of areas in the news that I think need coverage in.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Okay, but didn't it end up that Bill Clinton wasn't indited? So then shouldn't less people be using the drudge report?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I hit-up Drudge because he does have some breaking news that has perspective, despite being a fedora-wearing fruitcake. I prefer the huffingtonpost, because--unlike Drudge--Arianna exposes both sides of the 2-party system with greater regularity.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Drudge is mainly only another news aggregator; like Yahoo, MSN, Comcast, and the like. He does periodically have a breaking story the MSM hasn't picked up yet that he writes on, like Oprah refusing to invite Palin on her show, which turned out to be true. So, I have his website on my rotation to see if there's anything breaking the MSM hasn't yet or won't pick up.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   


Okay, but didn't it end up that Bill Clinton wasn't indited? So then shouldn't less people be using the drudge report?


I don't follow your logic. Drudge broke the news of the affair Clinton had with Lewinsky. What does that have to do with the lack of INDICTMENT? By your logic, since Clinton was impeached, more people should be reading drudge.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair but they never proved it. Hence he wasn't impeached and was not removed from office. So shouldn't the drudge report be known for spreading false info?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I find it well maintained and updated. Always throw in a few odd stories. And because Bush publicly said he hated Drudge when asked by a reporter.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   


Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair


That is absolutely false. Clinton was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The House approved two of those charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to obtain the 2/3 majority to convict. Having an affair was not a reason for impeachment, nor could it have been. Impeachment requires a much higher standard than fooling around with an intern.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair but they never proved it. Hence he wasn't impeached and was not removed from office. So shouldn't the drudge report be known for spreading false info?


No. Because Clinton lied on the stand, and confessed to the affair in his book after he got out. And Hillary wrote about how he lied to her about his affair with Lewinsky in her book also.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair but they never proved it. Hence he wasn't impeached and was not removed from office. So shouldn't the drudge report be known for spreading false info?


Well, you are right and wrong:

Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.

What's odd about the Bill Clinton impeachment is that while the president was legally impeached, he was never removed from office. The Senate first voted to acquit Clinton and then refused to hold an impeachment trial until the next term. According to Dick Morris (who helped Clinton get re-elected) A "White House secret police" is trying to "dig up dirt," "viciously smear" and "annihilate those who get in the president's way," all with "a wink from the first couple."

Several House investigators are "physically afraid of retaliation" by the administration, with one telling him: "Don't you know the list of the 25 people who have died in mysterious circumstances in connection with this investigation?"

SO

When the Bill Clinton impeachment trial continued by a new congress, the Clinton dissenters failed to gain a two-thirds majority vote to convict and remove a presidential offender.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus


Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair


That is absolutely false. Clinton was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The House approved two of those charges, perjury and obstruction of justice.


Well, not absolutely false...

The two charges that passed in the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings were for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury charge came from Clinton's testimony on he and Monica Lewinsky's relationship.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   


The perjury charge came from Clinton's testimony on he and Monica Lewinsky's relationship.


Yes, but if Clinton had not lied about it, there would have been no charges. My point is that the affair itself was not a reason for impeachment. It was his lying to both the American people, his Cabinet, his staff and Congress that resulted in the charges. The vote, of course, was mostly along Ideological lines.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus


Clinton was impeached under the charges that he was having an affair


Impeachment requires a much higher standard than fooling around with an intern.


You're right, he lied on the stand under oath. However, "fooling around with an intern" should be grounds for impeachment. Like most sexual predators, they use their sphere of influence to gain confidence and access. It is disgusting to think that the person entrusted with the highest office in the land can't keep his #!@& in his pants. What's even more disgusting... She kept the dress with his spooge on it safe and sound for the right day.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


Personally, I agree with you, however the founding fathers didn't see it that way.
Anyway, if a manager or boss did something like that in a business with an intern, or underling, he or she would have been brought up on sexual harassment charges. It is abuse of power by the boss, but unfortunately, does fall short of the bar of "high crimes and misdemeanors". What does concern me is how seemingly, the majority of Americans didn't really see what he did as a problem. That says a great deal about views of morality in this country, unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus



The perjury charge came from Clinton's testimony on he and Monica Lewinsky's relationship.


Yes, but if Clinton had not lied about it, there would have been no charges.


Well he DID lie about it, which is history. Had he not lied about it, who knows what would have happened.

Although not a straight line (somehwere in the middle it goes around a little blue dress) one can still draw a line from his affair to his impeachment.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
And I forgot to say that people know they can rely on Drudge to give them stories about filthy homes with 800 cats, Maddonna crotch-shots on tour, and fashion runway don'ts.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by TheRooster
 


What does concern me is how seemingly, the majority of Americans didn't really see what he did as a problem. That says a great deal about views of morality in this country, unfortunately.


Well, I don't think it was "Americans" so much as it was politicians. In all, 50 senators voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty."

You see, with all these politicians living in one big glass house, they couldn't exactly start throwing stones could they? And yes, the morality of our country is horrible, but what do you expect when you start taking "In God We Trust" out of our daily lives.

[edit on 9/7/2008 by TheRooster]




top topics



 
0

log in

join