Venezuela is next?!?
POSTED BY: OurMrReynolds
UPDATED: Sunday, October 9, 2005 02:10
VIEWED: 6922
PAGE 3 of 4
Actually, I have it on good authority that Canada is next. They've got oil to, and a pretty decent highway system that actually connects to ours. And also, when Global Warming (which is now irreversable you know) really starts heating things up, It'll be prime real estate up there when the icecaps melt. Oh yah, and they got a lot of beer I hear........
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hee heee heee
I know, I know. My mama always said not to tease the retards, but on occasion it is Highlarious. 
OOOppps, that was'nt very politically correct was it. I meant to say "Mentally Challenged"
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So...you're not at all fearful of being offensive, huh?
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Could have just said dummies or something Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was only trying to stay within the dialogue parameters of the religeous, right wing, war mongering, red neck end of the spectrum, that all the left wingers who would believe the "who is the US going to invade next" crap expect.
Thats part of what makes it so HighLarious.
Don't tell me you don't see the Humor Chrisisall.....
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, the first half was really good...
Allright, Bwahahah Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Has it occurred to you that, maybe, Nightline and CNN have their own agendas?
Originally posted by OurMrReynolds:
See, that's what I thought... Venezuela?!? Really?!? Yer yankin' my chain... but crackpots, even if they do run a country, don't usually end up on Nightline being taken seriously, or on the CNN homepage, which is where I saw the article that started my confusion over this whole mess.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course their agenda is to "sell papers", or advertising or whatever, and Chavez's story is certainly sensational enough to do that, but you don't see crackpots and conspiracy theorists on them much because they have a reputation to protect. That rep is more important to keeping advertisers happy than the sensationalism because more people (or at least more of a certain type of people) tune in and pay attention because of the reputation they have. That's why you don't see the Enquirer/Weekly World News type stories there (normally). I mean, if they ran with every "JFK is Alive!" or "Batboy sighted" story they could, sure, people would sit up for about 5 minutes, but then they would lose respect and change the channel. By the same token they don't grant interviews or run stories about every crackpot and tinhorn despot that says the US is out to get him. That's why I think this story merits a little more scrutiny.
If instead you're going for the "liberal media" or "Anti-Bush bias" slant, I gotta say I don't buy it. They tore Clinton a new 
about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, etc. And Bush is getting torn a new one too. Is it because they hate him? No because people in power ing up "sells papers", and is legitimate news.
Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.
"I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes. Clinton was a fratboy. And the media loves to point out the failings of presidents. Studies, however, have shown that they love to point it out more for Conservative presidents then Liberal presidents.
As for how this fits into the Chavez thing, I don’t know. I didn’t see Chavez on the news so I can’t say out it was depicted.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Studies, however, have shown that they love to point it out more for Conservative presidents then Liberal presidents.
I think there are too few subjects for any study to be conclusive.
In Clinton's case, the problem was the media had a few choices:
- Oral sex, lying under oath.
- Corruption in a complicated real-estate deal.
- Explain the intricacies of the chicago mercantile exchange enough so people recognize that Hillary took a bribe.
I think the media was wise to go for door #1. The other two just aren't sexy enough to be worth printing.
-Jeff
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They will go for what gets attention and ratings.
Originally posted by jaif:
I think the media was wise to go for door #1. The other two just aren't sexy enough to be worth printing.
With Clinton & Lewinsky (sounds like a TV show about sexy lawyers, doesn't it?) there was no misunderstanding, they did naughty stuff.
With the whole WMD lie, it was complicated, and could be spun into "We just haven't found them", and then into oblivion where no one is talking about it any more. It's not sexy, exciting, or easy to comprehend, so- no follow up.
But C&L went on and on and on.....
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Too few subjects? You don’t watch the news much do you?
Originally posted by jaif:
I think there are too few subjects for any study to be conclusive.
Interesting, isn’t it. Clinton had to commit perjury in a federal court in order to get bad press. All Bush had to do is be in office.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME