100 years to recover from Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. '100 years to recover from Bush'
    14/06/2008 14:13 - (SA)

    Madrid - It will take the United States a century to recover from the damage wreaked by President George. W Bush, US writer Gore Vidal said in an interview published on Saturday.

    "The president behaved like a virtual criminal but we didn't have the courage to sack him for fear of violating the American constitution," Vidal told the El Mundo newspaper.

    The author, a trenchant critic of the US-led invasion of Iraq, said it would take the United States "100 years to repair the damage" caused by Bush.

    "We live in a dictatorship. We have a fascist government ...which controls the media," he said.

    Vidal also said presidential aspirant Barack Obama was "intelligent" adding that it would be a "novelty" to have an "intelligent" person in the White House.
  2. Vidal says 100 years to recover from Bush. Jesus said the Dow will trade at 100,000 within 45 years. Personally, in 46 & 101 years I predict a logical contradiction, available in the Nutmeg Alamanac sold in discriminating book stores everywhere.

    Predictions named above may contain information that is
    confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
    persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour.

    No animals were harmed in this predicition.

    Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this predicition backwards.

    However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you. and your pets. If you believe these predicitons in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly and let it stand for 2 hours before icing.
  3. This just in: Vidal is truly an Idiot. One of those irrational leftists who likes to go abroad and speak out of his ass.

    Gore Vidal, Liberal Elitist and very grumpy old man. Much like the original poster.

    I wonder if Vidal has ever been proud of this country...at least Michelle Obama is, albeit that's a very recent development.
  4. Possibly the most moronic thing ever published on the internet. Other than FOX News, almost all of the media is extremely skewed to the left, and anti Bush.

    There are conservative blogs, and the Washington Post is right leaning, but I bet 95% of them are left leaning. They criticize the President virtually non stop! If he does anything good, you surely wouldn't hear about it.

    I don't like Bush at all, but to claim he controls the media is ignorant at best.
  5. Do you honestly think the mainstream media did its job following 9/11 and the push to war in Iraq?

    Or do you forget how the media played a part in trumping up the war?

    We went through a period of several years following 9/11 when we saw nothing that even resembles decent investigative journalism when it came to this administration.

    The Patriot Act was never exposed by the mainstream media.


    Because they were afraid of the tide of patriotism and fear following 9/11. They were complicit.

    Those journalists who criticized Bush and Congress following 9/11 were demonized as being unpatriotic, etc.

  6. The economy has done well under Bush
  7. Whether or not the media was afraid of a patriotism backlash is not the issue, although I could believe this.

    The fact of the matter is that most of the media is left leaning, hates Bush, and is in no way controlled by him.

    There would be ZERO conspiracy crap out there if he controlled the media. Instead, there is an entire industry that is based on it. Moveon.org certainly wouldn't exist.

    Seriously ZZZ, if you spent half as much time trading as you do digging up anti Bush material, you'd be pulling in 7 figures I bet.
  8. "Whether or not the media was afraid of a patriotism backlash is not the issue, although I could believe this."

    Of course it was and is an issue.

    Without a truly free and fearless investigative press, there in no watchdog to control the natural impulse to abuse power by those who have gained power.

    The Bush administration has been one of the most secretive ever, and it is the job of the press to pierce that veil of secrecy to keep the people informed effectively.

  9. Fear of a patriotic backlash by the public, and CONTROL of the media are not related in any way. The media can print any damn thing they wish. If they are pussies and afraid of the public response, that is their own fault.

    The internet media industry does not suffer from needing to sell papers, and thus can piss off the public all it wants, which is probably why 99% of the conspiracy crap originates from there. This is still the media however, and completely FREE!

    If the Bush admin controlled the media, he'd have every one of these conspiracy sites shut down. Many of them are mainstream with their location and owners widely known, and completely tolerated.

    Controlled media my ass. The fact that you agree with Vidal, who couldn't be any further left, says a bit about your thought process.
  10. First, I have not said I agree with Vidal on all that he wrote...you could provide a quote to prove me wrong if you wish.


    "Fear of a patriotic backlash by the public, and CONTROL of the media are not related in any way. The media can print any damn thing they wish. If they are pussies and afraid of the public response, that is their own fault."

    The mainstream media is funded by advertising revenue. It is a business. Were the media to appear unpatriotic to the masses, their bottom line would suffer. Image is very important to the media, one of the many negative side effects of being a business rather than a public service.

    The major media outlets compete for viewers, not because they care about informing the public, but because they are run as a business first and foremost.

    None of the major media outlets would dare risk alienating their audience by taking a stand against Bush following 9/11 and the runup to the Iraq war. Just like the congressmen and senators who rubber stamped the Patriot Act without even reading it.

    The press was envisioned by the founders of this country to be free of the influence of government and corporate media, to serve the people as a watchdog so that they could make more informed decisions on the actions of their government.

    The media was fully complicit in giving Bush a free pass following 9/11, for fear of alienating their audience and their sponsors.

    We don't have transparency in our government, maybe the worst it has ever been.

    Clearly the dems who promised to do something about it following the 2006 elections have not had the balls to stand up to Bush, and the media is still frightened and timid and always looking to see what will bring in the most viewers and advertising revenue....not reporting the truth.

    The whole "left leaning media" is a croc.

    It is a corporate media animal, it is about profits, profits, profits, not political leaning or principle.

    The rise of websites and blogs both left and right who are not beholden to the corporate structure and profits are probably doing the best job of investigating and uncovering the lies of the Bush administration.

    #10     Jun 15, 2008