Tim, the reason I suggested reading the mainstream press is because you seem to be unaware of some of the issues circulating around ENE and the Bush administration.
I've heard all sorts of rumors. I also have heard that Bush received campaign money, and that at least one of the top ENE execs was a friend of GW. What I want is a specific credible accusation of wrong doing by Bush. I have not seen any. If they are all over the main stream press you should be able to state one or link to one.
You need to go back and read what I posted......either intentionally or unintentionally, you are twisting what I said.
As for reading the conservative press, I find the articles you post here to be very
slanted and pitched in a way that reaches a particular conclusion that might not be reached otherwise.
The articles I have posted here are mostly opinion pieces.
Opinion pieces tended to be slanted that's why I choose to ignore them.
I don't see them as any more slanted then the editorials or op eds in the New York Times or Washington Post.
Probably not but I don't post editorials from the Times or the Post.
Furthermore, some of them give the impression of not being well researched. You may feel the same about the mainstream press; the only difference.....the mainstream press is mainstream.
What does mainstream mean in this context and why should I care more about it then other sources? If two sources are biased what makes one called "mainstream" better then another that is not?
Mainstream usually reflects what the majority are thinking. Your lack of interest would suggest that you are elitist? Are you?
I suggest you look at these other sources (besides just what I choose to post here) to give you a different perspective and to better understand where libertarians or conservatives are comming from. If it helps think of it as a "know your enemy" thing.
I am not claiming anything.....
Thank you. You are not claiming anything, you just like making subtle hints and attacking people without even making an accusation, let alone having evidence to back up the accusation.
If I am guilty of what you say, how is that different from what you guys do? For an example.......Clinton has been accused of all sorts of things including rape based on innuendo, hearsay.....none of which is fact. But that's okay because you don't like Clinton. Well you know what Tim, get over it. I am only giving back what you all put out.
All I am saying is that they have had close relations over the years. What will be interesting to see is if any members of the Bush administration share the same values as those of their friends.
I don't see them as closer then politicians frequently are to hundreds of people.
May be not but you are not even willing to look. However, had it been a Democrat, you would have been all over it. And you know what, I suspect there is a lot more to come out over this ENE thing.....so fasten your seat belt.
In many cases you would know little about the values of these type of political friends except their publicly expressed values. One could be a child molester, a killer, or a tax cheat without most (or any) of you circle of friends and acquaintances knowing about it. Or for that matter I doubt most politicians would refuse to accept money from people of bad character unless it was something public, or something that was so bad (for example taking money from terrorists) that any flimsy connection would be enough to hurt the politician, if the connection became public. This would apply to GW, to Clinton, to Gore, and to 99% of the members of congress. In many cases the connection goes beyond taking campaign money, for example many Democrats publicly support Al Sharpton, a few even praise Castro. The ENE executives might have been crooks, but they where not people of notoriously bad character until recently.
Just for the record you don't go bad over night.........ENE execs were always bad but its only coming out now.
ted |
