Galloway Senate testimony removed from Senate Committee website!

[xiannaix]

where did i say "gw is nasty too" ?

you didn't use the word "nasty." I used it to paraphrase this comment of yours...

you act like clinton is evil, but bush is hardly whiter than white.

the implication is Clinton and GW are culpabale of some bad things which I called "nasty"

how does a sexual assault relating to george bush make anything an admission of guilt with regard to clinton ?

where did i say you were a clinton basher ?

I was making a general comment on yours.

You didn't say I was a Clinton basher - and I didn't say you did claim that. I made the comment to prevent the claim from being made not to retort to you

 

[fubert]

you didn't use the word "nasty." I used it to paraphrase this comment of yours...

so you admit putting words in my mouth and changing what i have said to suit yourself.

the implication is Clinton and GW are culpabale of some bad things which I called "nasty"

i have not implied anything, i merely sourced references.

I was making a general comment on yours.

You didn't say I was a Clinton basher - and I didn't say you did claim that. I made the comment to prevent the claim from being made not to retort to you

good. so you admit you were wrong.

you specifically said...

so don't go accusing me of being a Clinton basher

again, where did i say "xiannix, i am openly accusing you of being a clinton basher" ; or words to that effect ?

you have directly accused me of calling you a clinton basher. which i did not do.

and if you could answer the question you missed :

how does a sexual assault relating to george bush make anything an admission of guilt with regard to clinton ?

 

[pbman]

whoopee do. as usual, what's your point ?

My point is that the liberals control the mainstream media, if they reported clintons rapes and not the charges agaisnt bush. One has merit and the other doesn't. That should be simple enough even for you.

 

[fubert]

My point is that the liberals control the mainstream media, if they reported clintons rapes and not the charges agaisnt bush. One has merit and the other doesn't. That should be simple enough even for you.

i think, if you check, the fcc who regulate the mainstream media in the us is chaired by michael powell. and who's his father again ?

 

[xiannaix]

again, where did i say "xiannix, i am openly accusing you of being a clinton basher" ; or words to that effect ?

you have directly accused me of calling you a clinton basher. which i did not do.

as I explained in the previous post - the comment did not say that you accused me of anything - it said "don't accuse me of...." which is to say "don't accuse me of..." as opposed to, "your accusation is wrong because...."

In the former I am advising you not to do something while in the latter I am reacting to your accusation.

and if you could answer the question you missed :

how does a sexual assault relating to george bush make anything an admission of guilt with regard to clinton ?

you said

you act like clinton is evil, but bush is hardly whiter than white.

You defend Clinton by claiming Bush is "hardly whiter than white"

It is no defense to Clinton to attribute guilt to Bush - that's all I'm saying

 

[xiannaix]

i think, if you check, the fcc who regulate the mainstream media in the us is chaired by michael powell. and who's his father again ?

actually Kevin Martin is the Chair

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/

 

[pbman]

i think, if you check, the fcc who regulate the mainstream media in the us is chaired by michael powell. and who's his father again ?

Regulate?

IN the us?

ROFLMAO

WE don't have bbc type regulations, our press can report any damn thing they want.

And they do.

You might recall the recent newsweek reporting of the mistretment of the koran. Nowere is it said that gov't regulators should have controled it.

Do you remmber dan rathers, recent C-BS memo fiacsco?

Do you think that was regulated as well?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml

 

[fubert]

actually Kevin Martin is the Chair

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/

which is why i said "if you check"

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Don't be stupid, the FCC are regulators.

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

 

[fubert]

Regulate?

IN the us?

ROFLMAO

so they are lying on their website are they ?

 

[xiannaix]

which is why i said "if you check"

which is why I did and why I related the correct information..... rather than let the incorrect information persist


however, your comment was

i think, if you check, the fcc who regulate the mainstream media in the us is chaired by michael powell. and who's his father again ?

Were you not suggesting that because Colin Powell's son used to chair the FCC that the FCC was regulating msm with an eye toward some politcal end?

Or was your comment merely an innocent question?


ignoring of course the fact that as pb pointed out the FCC regulates diddly (other than fining Howard Stern anyway)

 

[pbman]

Don't be stupid, the FCC are regulators.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

They don't regulate political news content,like the post implied.

And that is done at the BBC.

 

[xiannaix]

Don't be stupid, the FCC are regulators.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

I think he may have been suggesting a regulation of substantive content though - if not - why make reference to the former chair with specific mention of who his father is?

If the suggestion wasn't that Michael steered content to benefit the right then there was no need to mention who his father is.

 

[fubert]

as I explained in the previous post - the comment did not say that you accused me of anything - it said "don't accuse me of...." which is to say "don't accuse me of..." as opposed to, "your accusation is wrong because...."

fine. if that is what you choose to think.

now did you base the presumption on that led you to believe there was a possibility of me calling you a clinton basher ?

You defend Clinton by claiming Bush is "hardly whiter than white"

in what way is that jumping to the defence of president clinton ?

It is no defense to Clinton to attribute guilt to Bush - that's all I'm saying

where have i attempted to defend bill clinton over what he did ?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They don't regulate political news content,like the post implied.

And that is done at the BBC.

The BBC is a broadcaster. The FCC is a regulator. These are two completely different things. The BBC doesn't regulate anything. The regulatory body vaguely equivalent to the FCC in this country is OFCOM.

You have a bit of a funny idea about how these things work it seems.

 

[pbman]

so they are lying on their website are they ?

Words have differnt meanings and uses.

Didn't you learn that in the second grade or so?

 

[xiannaix]

now did you base the presumption on that led you to believe there was a possibility of me calling you a clinton basher ?

I think you're asking why I added the "for the record" comment.

And, to avoid being called a Clinton basher is the answer to that. The comment, though made in a reply to your comment, was one of general application not one directed at you specifically - though you've taken it that way. And now - I am through with that discussion....

in what way is that jumping to the defence of president clinton ?



where have i attempted to defend bill clinton over what he did ?

I've explained how the argument form yuo used works... you can reread it until you get it or not... its up to you. For my part I feel no need to type it out again.

 

[fubert]

Were you not suggesting that because Colin Powell's son used to chair the FCC that the FCC was regulating msm with an eye toward some politcal end?

no. i was not suggesting that at all. where did i mention politics or the msm ?

thank you for the update on the fcc chairman. according to at least one account he is more conservative than powell.

 

[pbman]

The BBC is a broadcaster. The FCC is a regulator. These are two completely different things. The BBC doesn't regulate anything. The regulatory body vaguely equivalent to the FCC in this country is OFCOM.

You have a bit of a funny idea about how these things work it seems.

Well i have read here, about the charges being brought agaist the bbc.

Thats not done in the us.

At all.

Now do you want to play word game or just admit that our us news has freedom on content, far in excess of the BBC.

Its not that big a point for you to continue to obfuscate.

 

[xiannaix]

no. i was not suggesting that at all. where did i mention politics or the msm ?

thank you for the update on the fcc chairman. according to at least one account he is more conservative than powell.

So why mention Chairman Powell's father and why mention the political leanings of the current chair if not to suggest that their poilitics influences their "regulating" of the msm?


You're making the oblique claim here and then ducking when confronted with it directly.

 

[fubert]

I think you're asking why I added the "for the record" comment.

no, i am asking you to justify what basis there was for me calling you a clinton basher or thinking i may do that. please answer the question.

And, to avoid being called a Clinton basher is the answer to that. The comment, though made in a reply to your comment, was one of general application not one directed at you specifically - though you've taken it that way. And now - I am through with that discussion....

what foundation do you have for thinking you would be called a clinton basher ? if you were not addressing me specifically then when did you include the paste of my post in your reply and use "you" in a singular context ?

 

[fubert]

So why mention Chairman Powell's father and why mention the political leanings of the current chair if not to suggest that their poilitics influences their "regulating" of the msm?


You're making the oblique claim here and then ducking when confronted with it directly.

perhaps if you read the comment that it follows you will understand why.

 

[pbman]

perhaps if you read the comment that it follows you will understand why.

Looks like this to me.

 

[xiannaix]

no, i am asking you to justify what basis there was for me calling you a clinton basher or thinking i may do that. please answer the question.

You fool. I told you that you did not call me one and that I made my comment to prevent the allegation from being made... not by you but by anyone.

as for supporting Clinton.... I asked questions...I did not assert fact (go reread the post - your comment below suggests you may benefit from that)

If you'd like to continue this line - feel free - I'm not responding to it again

what foundation do you have for thinking you would be called a clinton basher ? if you were not addressing me specifically then when did you include the paste of my post in your reply and use "you" in a singular context ?

Actually I said.....

and for the record.... I voted for the guy, never thought the Whitewater investigation should have ever gotten anywhere near where it got to and found the impeachment absurd... so don't go accusing me of being a Clinton basher... I'm not.

I don't find the word "you" in there in either a single or plural form.....

 

[fubert]

Looks like this to me.

are you personally insulting me pbman ?

 

[pbman]

are you personally insulting me pbman ?

You are weasling in this thread.

I'm mearly pointing that out to you.

 

[Dandred]

It was a compound comment.... more troops to more places. Viet Nam is one place.

But as far as your comment goes - yeah - that was a large deployment of course.



Sure. But the comment was regarding Clinton bombing all over and sendnig troops to many different locations.



I don't know. But both are certainly a lot fewer than the democrats war in Viet Nam.

Looks like on every point you made you backtracked. FNG

 

[fubert]

You fool. I told you that you did not call me one and that I made my comment to prevent the allegation from being made... not by you but by anyone.

we have established that you said it to prevent the allegation being made. i am merely trying to establish what makes you think that it would have been made ?

and you still haven't explained why my bringing up sexual assault allegations against president bush is any way defending bill clinton. nor where i have specifically defended him.

 

[fubert]

You are weasling in this thread.

I'm mearly pointing that out to you.

do the math

 

[xiannaix]

Looks like on every point you made you backtracked. FNG

No, I pointed out some laziness of mine but I made a specific comment which holds - if I had meant that BC had committed more troops I would have restrained my comments to that - but I didn't say that or mean that.

I meant BC sent American troops all over the place putting out fires as an arm of American foreign policy in a way not done before...

Other Presidents sent many more troops - but they were generally limited to specific wars as opposed to lots of little things all over the place...

does that clarify?