Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Irish reporter dares interrupt Bush!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
No irish citizen has to address George Bush as the President... and anyone who thinks different needs to go back to elementary school.


Any Irish Citizen reporter who wants an interview with the PRESIDENT of the United States will be respectful and be polite, or they won't ever be allowed to interview the President or any other person in a powerful position ever again. It's common sense and proper edicit. It's also acting like a grown up and not acting like a spoiled, unschooled, child. and (to quote you) anyone who thinks different needs to go back to elementary school.




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I think this thread has is purely trying to beat the bush to death.

Its all inconsequential. A reporter trying to show she is a big shot by cornering the President of the strongest nation in the world. BORING!



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Is it courage or lack of brain cells? He makes a decision and does it, I give him that, but a lot of times, he has to back peddle because his decision was a stupid one. Unlike Reagan who would take a walk, think over all the options and then make the decision, Bush shoots from the hip and then sometimes wishes he would have taken the shot. Say prison abuse if you doubt what I wrote.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I don't mind that she cornered him with some tough questions...but , lets at least listen to the answers! Thats my point! Dismiss them if you wish or take them to heart. Thats a choice we all have (at least until the militant muslim gets his way). But don't try and supress it. Thats what deny ignorance is all about.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You say prision abuse by 6 wayward soldiers = no courage for G.W.??
That makes NO sense.


You want to talk about abuse. Let's talk about how our liberators were raped, sodomized, beaten, and murdered when captured by the criminals who are trying to over run Iraq. No outrage from anyone over this. However, 6 of our soldiers take nude pictures and have a dog bark at prisioners and it's (shudder) horrid.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I didn't say they didn't have to be polite to get an interview with the president. But then again anyone wanting an interview with anyone else in the free world would have to do the same or we can tell them to pound sand right? So what is your point?

My point is that the President has no title outside of the United States and that is true. Remember the executive branch is to enforce the laws of the US, the Judicial interprets and Congress makes them which means the President is nobody outside the United States as his job is to make sure the laws of the US are enforced in the US not in Ireland, Turkey, Poland...



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
"You want to talk about abuse. Let's talk about how our liberators were raped, sodomized, beaten, and murdered when captured by the criminals who are trying to over run Iraq. No outrage from anyone over this. However, 6 of our soldiers take nude pictures and have a dog bark at prisioners and it's (shudder) horrid."

I thought the we the United States, was always walking the higher ground? How can you preach freedom and human rights to Iraq when our own people are doing crap like Sadaam did before we got there. It doesn't matter how they treat us, we are better right? Are you a dog or a citizen of the United States?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
I felt the reporter in question was both rude and quite frankly incompetent. The point of an interview is to allow your viewers to hear the point of view of the person you are interviewing, not to present your own point of view.

I am quite willing to accept your position. But at the same time Bush showed himself to be both rude and incompetent by allowing a sufficient pause during one of hhis answers which allowed the interviewer to insert another question, and then having the gall to suggest that he had been interrupted when he was not even speaking at the time. As I said in my eariler post, his response in that instance was utterly inapropriate for an interview, and showed his incompetence, and his accusation of interruption (in that specific instance) was in itself rude.
I will accept that the reporter was perhaps disrespectful, although British politician are routinely interrupted when they are spouting bovine fecaes, but my point is that at least one of his complaints showed Bush to be equally disrespectul.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Yog it wasn't a pause, he was taking a breath. In order to talk one does need oxygen you know.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Bush needs all the oxygen he can get with that microcluster of cells he calls a brain!
But, besides his obvious stupidity he lacks a complete understanding of foreign affairs and his lack of tact shows that perfectly. If he is elected to another term in office I pray for the U.S. and the world.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Sigma]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Yog it wasn't a pause, he was taking a breath. In order to talk one does need oxygen you know.


The rest of his speeches/answers were conducted without any such pause to draw breath. Indeed, in most of them he was able to ramble on for a fair few sentences without leaving any sufficient space for a follow up question, and I assume that he was breathing then as well. When he continued his answer, having had his grumble about being interrupted, he began again from the beginning, and left a similar pause in the same place. As such, it can not be seen as drawing breath, but rather leaving a pause to allow the previous sentence emphasis.
I do not expect you to believe it, but that's the way I see it.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Yog the Sloth]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
I thought the we the United States, was always walking the higher ground? How can you preach freedom and human rights to Iraq when our own people are doing crap like Sadaam did before we got there. It doesn't matter how they treat us, we are better right? Are you a dog or a citizen of the United States?


Obviously we ARE taking the higher ground. SIX US service personnel took nude pictures and let dogs bark at hooded prisioners. While those were wrong things to do, they in no way even came close to the atrocities that Saddam and his regime inflicted upon milliions of Muslims for 30 years. So no ... our own people ARE NOT doing crap like Saddam did... not even close.

Saddam's Regime - 30 years of mass murder, use of WMD (ethnic cleansing of the Kurds), rape rooms and thousands are raped, mass torture, millions dead from wars started by Saddam to overtake his Muslim neighbors in Iran and Kuwait, families torn apart, payments of $50,000 to each homicide bomber family in Israel - thus causing more murder and maiming

Our soldiers - 6 US Service personnel took nude pictures and had dogs bark at hooded prisioners.

Not even close. We are definately taking the high road. Six people got out of line. They are being punished.

As far as your 'are you a dog or a citizen of the United States?' ... that is strange and I have no idea what that means, nor do I think I care to know.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
My point is that the President has no title outside of the United States and that is true.


Not really. The Queen of England is not the queen here in America, however it is correct edicit to refer to her as 'Your Royal Highness' or 'Your Majesty' when addressing her in conversation. The King of Jordan (a very nice guy and down to earth from all accounts) is not our king, but all reporters and all people talking with him address him as 'Your Majesty'. When Tony Blair visits, the reporters address him here properly. etc. etc.

President Bush may not be the president of Ireland, but he is still the President of the United States. That is his official title. No matter what a person thinks of others carrying a title, they still have that title.

Example - I have NO IDEA why people in England continue to pay taxes to a monarchy that does nothing for them except tax their hard earned money and then spend it on lavish royal lifestyles. However, the Queen of England is still the Queen of England and if I ever met her I would still say 'Your Majesty' if I was to address her in conversation.

There is a proper conduct and respect that is expected for all to follow.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Yog have you ever considered that maybe he wants people like you to think hes stupid? After all if you dont respect your opponent he has an advantage.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   


TextYog it wasn't a pause, he was taking a breath. In order to talk one does need oxygen you know.


Occurs he needed oxigen, he needs it more than the commun people after years of starving his brain with drugs and alchool.

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction

Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined

A review of a dry drunk symdrom

www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
marg6043 can you please post an example of President Bush exhibiting each of those symptoms you lsted?


df1

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Yog have you ever considered that maybe he wants people like you to think hes stupid? After all if you dont respect your opponent he has an advantage.


You have me laughing off my rear. I have this image in my mind of "Rainman II" featuring 'gw bush'.

bush: "10 mintues till Hannity... hehehehheheheh".



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
marg6043 can you please post an example of President Bush exhibiting each of those symptoms you lsted?


Actually he was confused. Those are the traits that Michael Moore exhibits on a daily basis, not George Bush. Considering the numerous spelling errors (or were they typos) that mwm1331 exhibited in his post - I can see how he'd be easily confused.



[edit on 6/30/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Imho it would be a good thing to politics if reporters would be allowed to bash (to a degree) them without having to worry about losing their positions or jobs. That would be a great way of getting rid of these politicians who always write/read speeches, never take a dumb without asking some advisor for it's benefits and so on. It should be good journalism to let the reporters debate and challenge politicians in interviews so we would really know which ones are smart and worthy of being voted to offices. And if they wanna make speeches let em do it without masquarating a 'press confrence'.
Another utopian idea from me



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
No irish citizen has to address George Bush as the President... and anyone who thinks different needs to go back to elementary school.


Any Irish Citizen reporter who wants an interview with the PRESIDENT of the United States will be respectful and be polite, or they won't ever be allowed to interview the President or any other person in a powerful position ever again. It's common sense and proper edicit. It's also acting like a grown up and not acting like a spoiled, unschooled, child. and (to quote you) anyone who thinks different needs to go back to elementary school.


first, as i've already mentioned in this post, the irish reporter called President Bush "Mr. President" at all times. this thread has confused two seperate interviews.

second, how was this reporter not respectful? i am sad to see how many of my fellow americans, perhaps too used to the american media, have forgotten the difference between a *speech* and an *interview*. an interview involves give and take. it involves being asked questions, often presented in rapid fire and often difficult and biased. this is not wrong, and if it is 'disrespectful' then proper journalism is disrespectful, if only because no one who claims to represent the people of a country with a free press should be able to claim his title protects him from the free press.

the reporter was respectful but stern and determined to get her questions out. if bush can't handle that he should take some lessons from tony blair and maybe learn to read newspapers to see what he should be expecting.

-koji K.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join