Bush uses old stand by of ''your confusing the troops''

this is just getting pathetic,someone impeach this idiot monkey boy allready.

for gods sake,this chimp can barely READ!! why the fuck is this dipshit still president.

all he has is repeating worthless phrases like a trained parrot.

and what exactly IS confusing to the troops about finding about WHY they were sent there?that seems like it would be some handy info for a war and all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As stupid as he is, he never seems to miss a trick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just who might you be referring to, Mars? As I read your post, there's no one named at all ...it just seems to be a angry ranting about someone that you think is not very competent. But who?

There's a gazillion people in the world who aren't competent. Should we impeach them all?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

W was who i was talking about.

 

We'll be enduring increasingly silly doubletalk from this President and his dwindling supporters until this disastrous present era is put to rest. The Neocons never had a rational leg to stand on, but leaned instead on appalling popular ignorance. After such a horrificly expensive education in terms of lives and fortunes, Americans owe it to the fallen to not get fooled again. Cut the Bushit.

 

appalling popular ignorance?
oh
baron max i presume

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For me, it was the scale of it that was most appalling- The number of Americans lacking a basic understanding of history, geography, cultures, and current events. Baron Max, Archie Bunker, any number of individuals holding shallow nationalistic views would not be so conducive to a national rampage and blunder- Unless numbering in the millions.

For me it's the herd mentality, and the way that devastating crusades based in superficialities can take on a life of their own that is appalling. US foreign policy went berserk on the very foundations of international order, regressing into a seemingly-antiquated colonialist and machiavellian modality. Millions of Americans jumped on the War Wagon, wrapping themselves in the flag. Now most of those are quietly slinking away from a monstrous national misreaction. Are they melting away smarter, or primed for the next misguided (or even more misguided) crusade?

It's appalling to contemplate how fast a nation like ours can regress: With the right stimulus, we could apparently in the space of months become as collectively depraved and destructive as any regimes in history.

 

That all depends on how and what the news media wants them to do/think. It's all in how the media presents it ...the media is what's telling us all what to do and how to think and what to think about.

But, Oh, no, I'm not talking about all you super-intellects, I'm talking about poor, dumb, ignorant voters like myself! All of the rest of you are high-level, knowledgeable, independent thinkers with enormous intelligence and knowledge about national and foreign policies.

Baron Max

 

But these same Americans, the seeming majority who took the major media and Bush Administration at their word are now thinking again, and the media is struggling to keep up- The public is in this case leading the media.

As to the relative informedness and awareness of those Americans who did vocally oppose the Neocons' crusade from its very inception, yes they were clearly at the "top of the class" in terms of being informed. Now that the grades are coming in, it is your free personal choice to either catch up or fall further behind- Just as it is your choice to be either constructive or surly.

 

Surely you don't believe that?!

If the media were to stop reporting on the Iraqi war, like they did during the tsunami and the New Orleans hurricane, the American people would forget about it altogether!

You give "the people" much too much credit for thinking. If they were truly concerned, as you'd have us believe, then their entertainment expenditures would fall to an all-time low. As it is, entertainment is at an all-time high! What does that tell you?

Baron Max

 

i think youre wrong to a certain extent. there is no such thing as "the media". they are not one giant conglomerate colluding to define opinions on issues of singular importance to the popular mind. there are hundreds of different media outlets and all of them have different focuses. in some cases, major network news covers situations that they believe are important to the masses because they know it guarantees them ratings. they cover things like natural disasters, school shootings, kidnappings, and the war tirelessly because they have shock value and keep people watching. they dont cover news about landmark events in foreign countries outside of western europe because people in the US dont care about other countries. i would say that the public's tastes dictate what news is covered to a large extent, but theres different levels of news. locally, news coverage is defined by regional tastes and biases, and on the national level, most networks engage in a lot of high priced demographic research, opinion polling, and test marketing in an attempt to approximate what exactly the public attitude is at the moment, and then report the news that they think will keep people watching the longest. in reality what determines the majority news coverage is some transient, shifting ghost of an opinion held by a particular media outlet's target audience. and they pander to it without regard to fairness or "truth" in reporting.
if nobody reported hurricanes than the public wouldnt know about them, but if they just stopped reporting about them after a week instead of two, people are no more likely to forget about them if they were affected by them in the first place. our national consciousness "forgets" these issues once coverage ends because by then, the national news has seized upon some worse, more shocking issue in order to generate ratings from a new fear and hysteria.

 

Somewhat changing the topic, of course, but.....

I've often wondered how the public would react if news were to be aired 30 days after the said event? I.e., wait 30 days, then report it as "...30 days ago, the continent of Africa sank beneath the ocean, killing billions of Africans." Would we still be as quick to wring our hand in agony and demand that the government do something immediately? Or "...30 days ago, a massive earthquake in northern Pakistan killed thousands of people." See? After 30 days, we could see that it didn't affect our lives at all ...not in the least. As it is, there's a sense of urgency because we can see it right there in full color.

In the old days, it took weeks for "world news" to get from, say, England to America. And any "action" necessary might take another few weeks to get back to England ...so it gave people more time to digest the news AND to respond intelligently, instead of hysterically.

Baron Max

 

excellent
progress
congrats pal

 

sure there is. it is howver not as monolithic as you exaggerate it to be. the biases are not so much political ideology raher than corporate. for instance. if war is profitable to the media conglomerates, you will not find editorials speaking out against war.

 

The war itself is NOT profitable for the news media ...but selling papers and advertising IS. And sensationalist news sells much better than old, worn-out "news" .....so the media cranks up the sensationalism in their reports, it sells wonderfully, so they continue it.

Notice the exact same thing occurs with natural disasters. The Pakistan earthquake was big news, big sensationalims, but the "sensationalism" wore off (even tho' they tried with silly-assed "reports" of helicopters being fired upon, etc). The New Orleans disaster was milked for all it was worth ...including slanting the news to show racism, etc.

As soon as a subject looses it's "sensationalist appeal", they drop it. Look at the Valerie Plame "leak" deal ...it's so 'old hat' now that you almost don't hear anything about it anymore. The new reports of Iraqis torturing Iraqis isn't much sensationalism, because it's not Americans doing it. The news about it almost over before it began ...no one gives a shit since it's not sensational.

Baron Max

 

It's funny, really. You hear about "ignorant masses" and how people can be so easily led astray, and you're all "nah, Americans aren't that stupid." Heh, guess we are.

 

youre wrong. whats profitable for "the media" as a whole is to create a tug of war between to polarized sides of an issue so that everyone reads newspapers and watches tv news and listens to radio pundits and gets mad and keeps tuning in or reading because its exhilarating and they are passionate about it. but the kind of sensationalism that creates a polarization of political ideologies is a sort of inherent natural aspect of the news industry, and not a conscious decision made by some large consortium.

 

perhaps
i will research nbc and its parent compony ge for malfeasance
so far i can only make some rather nebulous connections and unverifiable assumptons

 

Roman: "people can be so easily led astray, and you're all "nah, Americans aren't that stupid." Heh, guess we are."

But eventually we all do face reality. The Iraq misadventure is now being recognized by the American majority as a mistake. This is not because those in power have changed their tune, or that the major media has changed masters. The change is occuring because it is impossible to indefinitely postpone realization with less than total information control.

From here on, Americans will have no choice but to come to grips with the fact that we rashly, naiively intervened in Iraq. Americans will come to understand the hard truth that we have irrevocably destroyed Iraq's viability as a state. Americans will inevitably have to face the reality that over 2,000 KIAs, untold numbers of US wounded, and untold numbers of innocent victims were all sacrificed for a colossal delusion. Disgrace is hard to accept, but gradually we will do just that and move on.

 

Exactly how does this relate to anything being discussed in this thread?