Balloon guy 158 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.htmlDuring the last few months, many established media outlets have decided to report innuendo and rumor about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, as long as they have a source they can cite (at least anonymously), or another media player has reported the same.But this new standard in the practice of journalism seemingly does not extend to other political figures, at least not media darlings like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Earlier this month, at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When McCain subsequently apologized to President Clinton, the Washington Post, in its personality section, noted the apology but said the joke "was too vicious to print."The Los Angeles Times, in its Life & Style section, provided an oblique rendering of the joke that did not fully convey its ugliness. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain "is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug." But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.The joke did appear in McCain's hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, so everyone in the press had access to McCain's words. But by censoring themselves, the Post, the Times and others helped McCain deflect flak and preserved his status as a Republican presidential contender.Salon feels its readers deserve the unadulterated truth. Though no tape of McCain's quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."Like I said...the left are vicious on the kids of politicans. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Chelsea Clinton got a complete pass. As will Obama's kidsThe Bush twins were followed and paparazzied, Drunk jokes made about them as a steady supply on SNL and anytime a liberal comedian got a free mike night.Bristol was hounded by the press and is now a catch phrae joke about young teenage girls getting pregnant. She was never given any privacy with regards to her life by the leftisit press who cloak themselves with the catch phrase: "Conservative Family Values" to somehow excuse themselves from the reality that they are attacking children to hurt their parents. In fact most of the liberal press are totally okay with destroying children as long as they become a weight on the necks of their conservative parents.Their hypocrisy is limitless.Anytime you want to compare your confused memory of the past with reality I will be here for you.there is no point. You have a rare ability to block out every shot taken at Chelsea's looks while whining that the Bush twins got exposure for breaking the law.And if Bristol Palin wants privacy, she should ask her mom to stop making her be on TV all the time and stop advocating an agenda by calling her own press conferences.Hypocrisy----going on TV when it suits you, then whining when you are on TV when it doesnt suit you. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Like I said...the left are vicious on the kids of politicans.It was John McCain who made the joke.(did I just fall for a balloon guy level?) Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 there is no point. You have a rare ability to block out every shot taken at Chelsea's looks while whining that the Bush twins got exposure for breaking the law.And if Bristol Palin wants privacy, she should ask her mom to stop making her be on TV all the time and stop advocating an agenda by calling her own press conferences.Hypocrisy----going on TV when it suits you, then whining when you are on TV when it doesnt suit you.No..hypocrisy is trying to excuse your inexcusable actions by somehow qualifying the kids as 'children of family value's parents"Because if their parents are hypocrits, than you are free to be completely scummy in your actions towards them??????Kids are used in political pictures everywhere in the world. That doesn't mean they should be fair game to some nobody comedian, wanna be journalist, or Demcorat in Republican's clothing.Leave the kids alone because they're kids.You want to go after the parents, have fun. but it shows the lowest form of political grasping at power to try to use the opponents kids as fodder for crude jokes and character assasination techniques.Of course, this is a step up for most democrat's morals so I guess I'm placing the bar a little high. Maybe I'm just an idealist Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It was John McCain who made the joke.(did I just fall for a balloon guy level?)I was starting to worry there Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It was John McCain who made the joke.(did I just fall for a balloon guy level?)I think you did!you guys know that they're proposing a health care bill that will cost (early estimates, surely to be too low) ~1.6 trillion dollars right? and that the republicans just want to get it to around a trillion, you know, cause that's better, right? I think we may have better things to talk about than the media's treatment of bristol.(but I will accept pm's of dirty pictures of her. please.) Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think you did!you guys know that they're proposing a health care bill that will cost (early estimates, surely to be too low) ~1.6 trillion dollars right? and that the republicans just want to get it to around a trillion, you know, cause that's better, right? I think we may have better things to talk about than the media's treatment of bristol.(but I will accept pm's of dirty pictures of her. please.)They have to spend the $Trillion+It's the only way to lower the costs.... Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 No..hypocrisy is trying to excuse your inexcusable actions by somehow qualifying the kids as 'children of family value's parents"Because if their parents are hypocrits, than you are free to be completely scummy in your actions towards them??????Kids are used in political pictures everywhere in the world. That doesn't mean they should be fair game to some nobody comedian, wanna be journalist, or Demcorat in Republican's clothing.Leave the kids alone because they're kids.You want to go after the parents, have fun. but it shows the lowest form of political grasping at power to try to use the opponents kids as fodder for crude jokes and character assasination techniques.Of course, this is a step up for most democrat's morals so I guess I'm placing the bar a little high. Maybe I'm just an idealistits not a qualification. Bristol has made the decision to be a political figure. Chelsea did that a few years back and was then open to criticism. Willow has not done that and as such deserves to be left alone. You leave kids alone because you should but if they want to get out there and make themselves part of the circus they need to learn that actions have consequences.None of this even applies to the Letterman joke because it was just tasteless, unfunny, and low. However, having a legitimate discussion or making a joke about Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin's stance on teen pregnancy and sex education is fair game in my mind as they have gone out of their way to put their message out through the media and they deserve to be called on it.You act like Bristol Palin was "just in some pictures" and thats a lie. She has injected herself into a very controversial debate by her own actions (and her mom has been pleased to have her in the spotlight when she thinks it helps her). This is not "if your kid is ever on the television" they are fair game. That's crazy. But if you stump for controversial positions on hot button issues or write your own political blog.....tag you're in.You're not an idealist; you want to have your cake and eat it too. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 its not a qualification. Bristol has made the decision to be a political figure. Chelsea did that a few years back and was then open to criticism. Willow has not done that and as such deserves to be left alone. You leave kids alone because you should but if they want to get out there and make themselves part of the circus they need to learn that actions have consequences.None of this even applies to the Letterman joke because it was just tasteless, unfunny, and low. However, having a legitimate discussion or making a joke about Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin's stance on teen pregnancy and sex education is fair game in my mind as they have gone out of their way to put their message out through the media and they deserve to be called on it.You act like Bristol Palin was "just in some pictures" and thats a lie. She has injected herself into a very controversial debate by her own actions (and her mom has been pleased to have her in the spotlight when she thinks it helps her). This is not "if your kid is ever on the television" they are fair game. That's crazy. But if you stump for controversial positions on hot button issues or write your own political blog.....tag you're in.You're not an idealist; you want to have your cake and eat it too.Okay..you think it's okay to harm children as long as it fits your political leanings and they are related to political figures on the opposing side of the aisle.I don't.That's why this country is so great, you can continue to sleep at night with the left's attempts at destroying the children of republicans as long as they have a blog, or say something outloud during one of the 5,000 times a reporter shoves a camera in their face.I am okay with shooting people who do this. With assult riflesFree country Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (but I will accept pm's of dirty pictures of her. please.)IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE ATTRACTED TO ANY HUMAN FEMALE LESS THAN 20 YEARS OLDsomeone arrest this man Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 its not a qualification. Bristol has made the decision to be a political figure. Chelsea did that a few years back and was then open to criticism. Willow has not done that and as such deserves to be left alone. You leave kids alone because you should but if they want to get out there and make themselves part of the circus they need to learn that actions have consequences.None of this even applies to the Letterman joke because it was just tasteless, unfunny, and low. However, having a legitimate discussion or making a joke about Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin's stance on teen pregnancy and sex education is fair game in my mind as they have gone out of their way to put their message out through the media and they deserve to be called on it.You act like Bristol Palin was "just in some pictures" and thats a lie. She has injected herself into a very controversial debate by her own actions (and her mom has been pleased to have her in the spotlight when she thinks it helps her). This is not "if your kid is ever on the television" they are fair game. That's crazy. But if you stump for controversial positions on hot button issues or write your own political blog.....tag you're in.You're not an idealist; you want to have your cake and eat it too. So,a kid gets pregnant, thinks it was a bad idea but is dealing with it, wants to tell others it's a bad idea and because she spoke out it's perfectly okay to make her the butt of who ****ed A-Rod jokes? Okay. Your POV is beyond ridiculous. If what you say makes sense than it would be perfectly okay to picket the Obamas kids school because it's a private school and there dad is against children having that choice. Big giant signs pointing them out with pictures that say "We are better than you" should be perfectly fine. The target isn't really the kids, its the parents, but thats okay because every chance he got he showed his pretty family off to the world, and now they are fair game. Beyond retarded. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Okay..you think it's okay to harm children as long as it fits your political leanings and they are related to political figures on the opposing side of the aisle.I don't.That's why this country is so great, you can continue to sleep at night with the left's attempts at destroying the children of republicans as long as they have a blog, or say something outloud during one of the 5,000 times a reporter shoves a camera in their face.I am okay with shooting people who do this. With assult riflesFree countrydestroying the children? Harm children? easy, drama queen.say something outloud? it is a country wide tour. You are soft-soaping everything they do while pretending that jokes by comedians are a plot by the left to destroy the children of republicans.Paranoia is unhealthy. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Ahh whew, the BG and LMD that we've all grown to love and bicker with are back. I was starting to worry there for a while. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 P.S. I can't help but notice that this somehow became about Sarah Palin and her kids instead of the gaping void at the top of the GOP. But I guess if you don't have an answer then distraction still works pretty well. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 P.S. I can't help but notice that this somehow became about Sarah Palin and her kids instead of the gaping void at the top of the GOP.Those are the same topic. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 P.S. I can't help but notice that this somehow became about Sarah Palin and her kids instead of the gaping void at the top of the GOP. But I guess if you don't have an answer then distraction still works pretty well. Maybe, just maybe, because- for the 300th time- I don't care about the GOP. Now, 301- I don't care about the GOP. All I want is a sensible conservative voice. The 2 party system is part of the problem in my view. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 destroying the children? Harm children? easy, drama queen.say something outloud? it is a country wide tour. You are soft-soaping everything they do while pretending that jokes by comedians are a plot by the left to destroy the children of republicans.Paranoia is unhealthy. Denial is downright dangerous. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 can't ****ing believe sarah palin has clawed her way back into the spotlight. jesus christ people, just forget her.PROTIP for republicans: find a woman who can believably say she wants to reduce the size of government. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I also disagree that TARP was just handouts to companies that supported Bush, because it wasn't.this is correct, but the issue itself needs more attention in my opinion. I'm just gonna quote someone who said it better than me:Paulson was instrumental in bailing out AIG. Goldman was one of AIG's largest counterparties (if not the largest) in many dealings. Paulson showered his friends with government money, saving them billions. As treasury secretary, he made sure his friends and ex-firm were kept above water, while simultaneously allowing a few of Goldman's best competitors to fail. And as further conjecture, you don't become treasury secretary in the middle of a president's second term by accident. It would surprise me if, somewhere in the future, GW Bush doesn't gain financial benefit indirectly from Goldman.the stuff that continues to come out from that period of time is kind of sickening. it doesn't take much digging to realize how utterly corrupt our government is.and this concludes my catchup. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Strat, I just want to point out that Goldman was strong armed into taking 10 Billion in TARP money. They had a 100 Billion cash reserve when they took it. It sat in a separate account since the day it got there, until the day they are paying it back. Not sure if it has physically been paid back yet. It was actually bad for GS to take the money because it made them look weaker than they are, and their stock suffered because of it. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Strat, I just want to point out that Goldman was strong armed into taking 10 Billion in TARP money. They had a 100 Billion cash reserve when they took it. It sat in a separate account since the day it got there, until the day they are paying it back. Not sure if it has physically been paid back yet. It was actually bad for GS to take the money because it made them look weaker than they are, and their stock suffered because of it.do you understand the direct impact it has on GS when rivals (lehman, bear) are allowed to die and their biggest debtor (AIG) is infused with billions of dollars? this isn't some kooky librul conspiracy theory. it's literally staring you in the face. re: stock price, if your story is true (and I've done zero research on this $100B fund claim) then I question why they had preferred stock offerings with the expressed intent to pay off TARP debt. it could very well be that they did have this money on hand, I'm just sayin'. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 do you understand the direct impact it has on GS when rivals (lehman, bear) are allowed to die and their biggest debtor (AIG) is infused with billions of dollars? this isn't some kooky librul conspiracy theory. it's literally staring you in the face. re: stock price, if your story is true (and I've done zero research on this $100B fund claim) then I question why they had preferred stock offerings with the expressed intent to pay off TARP debt. it could very well be that they did have this money on hand, I'm just sayin'.First: The biggest mistake the US Government has done was let Lehman fail, If AIG failed, because of the Credit Default Swaps they had outstanding, it would have brought down hundreds of other financial institutions.Second: I talked to a couple executives, one who worked directly under Paulson for awhile, they had the money and the reason they did the stock offering to pay back the TARP money was 100% for publicity. The US government told them they could not pay it back, so they wanted to say "look we just raised billions of dollars to pay you back", even though they already had the funds. The executives at GS, did not want the FED meddling in their business and limiting their compensation. That is why they did it. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 First: The biggest mistake the US Government has done was let Lehman fail, If AIG failed, because of the Credit Default Swaps they had outstanding, it would have brought down hundreds of other financial institutions.Second: I talked to a couple executives, one who worked directly under Paulson for awhile, they had the money and the reason they did the stock offering to pay back the TARP money was 100% for publicity. The US government told them they could not pay it back, so they wanted to say "look we just raised billions of dollars to pay you back", even though they already had the funds. The executives at GS, did not want the FED meddling in their business and limiting their compensation. That is why they did it.1. I don't disagree with you on either point... anyone who does could probably be labeled a masochist.2. after a quick glance at their financials, yeah it does seem entirely possible that they could have had $100B waiting in the wings. still, I don't entirely buy that their stock getting pounded along with every other firm in the financial industry is substantial evidence against the crony capitalism theory. I would feel a LOT more comfortable with it if it were anyone but a former exec helping to decide whether lehman should go.regardless of whether this particular situation was squeaky clean, I know you and I agree that no person should be put in a position to make these decisions. there are ways to avoid it, yet I haven't really heard much about reform since a month or so after Obama took office. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Don't confuse what I am saying with how I feel. I did not like the bailouts and TARP, but they were necessary, for some of the firms.It could have been handled better, but the government rushing through a plan never will get is completely right. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 First: The biggest mistake the US Government has done was let Lehman fail, If AIG failed, because of the Credit Default Swaps they had outstanding, it would have brought down hundreds of other financial institutions.Second: I talked to a couple executives, one who worked directly under Paulson for awhile, they had the money and the reason they did the stock offering to pay back the TARP money was 100% for publicity. The US government told them they could not pay it back, so they wanted to say "look we just raised billions of dollars to pay you back", even though they already had the funds. The executives at GS, did not want the FED meddling in their business and limiting their compensation. That is why they did it.PLUS when Lehman failed, they screwed up the financing on a Ritz Carlton redo being done by Gencon, who stopped the remodel, which hurts some property I own and is causing me to carry a debt load that is strangling me.80% completed and now I get to make payments on a loan for 18 more months that I want to dump. GG $6500 a month Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now