You mistakenly have drawn the conclusion that this is a newspaper in the journalist sense. The daily publication was originally produced to promote the South San Jouquin Irrigation District and the local Chamber of Commerce back at the beginning of the last century, and it continues to do so now. It adds a couple of articles on local events so as to call itself a local newspaper, but it's main purpose is obvious through out it.
It's political bias is one that further benefits it's main goal of promoting the local businesses and the laws that effect them.
Unfortunately, your expectations are way to high, and the mere fact that you pay for this publication in the first place only further encourages them to stay the course. If you are expecting journalistic news, you have many more options, if your goal is to support a local business by purchasing this small town paper, keep in mind that it is owned by an out of state corporation with self serving goals.
This blog is moot as well as the blog's poster. It's biased abstract formulation and associated axe grinding construction bear no relevance nor are they in congruence with actual fact.
Don Quixote extracted more favorable results in his vain efforts.
Moot, empty and fruitless clearly define the above bloggers actual posted outcome. Actually very sad.
Hello crimeriddendump, Although this paper does have a conservative slant, in my opinion, it does not censor more liberal "letters to the editor" or syndicated columnists. I don't usually have a problem getting my liberal or critical letters published here. Unfortunately, the Bulletin prints more conservative columnists' commentary rather than a true balance of conservative/liberal syndicated opinion pieces. I like the Bulletin despite this, although I am always hoping for improvement. Mainly, editorials need to be kept on the opinion pages and front page news should not have a detectable bias or slant. The Bulletin definitely needs work in that area. However, it is both unfair and inaccurate for you to claim, "The Manteca Bulletin staff does not care at all about this city". That strikes me as arrogant since I doubt that you are personally acquainted with ALL the Bulletin's staff. Even Dennis Wyatt, who too often, in my opinion, supports questionable decisions by the Mayor and city council and overly promotes their agenda, definitely cares about this city. He is a passionate booster of Manteca. I may often disagree with his attitude or outlook on local issues, but this difference of opinion does not prevent me from recognizing and acknowledging his commitment to Manteca. I just believe some of his priorities are perhaps misplaced or loyalties misguided. But it would be pretty boring if we always thought the same thing. Sincerely, Karen
Perhaps our perplexed blog poster would find him/herself more at home perusing a lunatic liberal rag such as the NY or LA Times. Theres a heads up for you. With a minimal expenditure of online effort one can find all the liberal rags one desires and avoid the disingenuous blog blather.
The thought presented in this blog is akin to walking into a casino and then complaining about the gambling that is taking place.
Hello KarenPearsall ,
When ones combines the heavy bias of this publication with the Mayor holding meetings at Tea Party events, it is not difficult to connect the dots.
Also, it is quite fair to suggest that the management of the Bulletin does not care about the city. The Bulletin is constantly downplaying the city's crime rate, it spun the firing of twelve police officers little over two years ago as a positive, it heavily promoted the wasteful syphoning of police and school funds to developer buddies and consultants etc. etc etc. Are these the actions of a newspaper that cares about the citizens, or, a newspaper that care more about the leadership? Suggesting the above is not arrogant, it is just making direct observations of this publication.
Speaking of Dennis Wyatt, I'll make an analogy; In 'Of Mice and Men' while Lenny only ment good and was a kind person, how did that work out for rabbits, puppies, and Curly's wife?
I'm not suggesting that we all agree, I just think injecting politics into news is wrong, telling the truth is important. But, maybe I have misplaced priorities.
Hello again KarenPearsall,
Today, there was an article wit the headline: "In Shape plans to open second Manteca location" (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/sectio...). Dennis Wyatt writes that the old Sears outlet store will be converted to a new In Shape
Sep, 7 2010 Dennis Wyatt wrote an articles titled "
In Shape plans 2nd Manteca club" (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archiv...). In this article, Dennis Wyatt suggested that building permits were about to be issued. Wyatt further reinforced this with another article on Dec, 9 2010 (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archiv...) writing "In-Shape has plans being reviewed by the city"
This makes a reasonable person ask several questions:
1) What ever happend to the "FIRST" 2nd Manteca InShape? a) Did Dennis invent the whole thing (i.e. he lied to everyone) b) If not, why did Dennis Wyatt not report on the deal falling apart?
2) How can we believe the current report when the past two reports on this same issue have been entirely false?
3) Does Dennis Wyatt think his readers are stupid and cannot remember back two years?
This does not seem like the actions of a professional news reporter. Dennis sound more like a cheerleader making anything up he can to make "his team" look good.
The Manteca Bulletin is NOT NEWS! It is a pair of rose colored glasses designed to fool people into thinking they are not living in New South Stockton.
Hello crimeriddendump, I am a member of In-Shape and heard employees talking about the Orchard Valley Promenade location that fell through. I just heard it in passing, so I don't know why the deal didn't materialize. I agree that, having first reported the supposed planned new location, the Bulletin should have responsibly followed through will an article noting the dissolution of this plan. I am more interested in the 3 part series (starting today) of how the city leaders supposedly secured sales tax through "deals" with the Orchard Valley Promenade developer, Costco, and BLD. It will be interesting to read how this will be presented to appear in a positive light. Giving up 55% of sales tax to the Orchard Valley Promenade developer for 35 YEARS in order to secure Bass Pro Shops and then tying that figure to a supposed "lease" of parking lot spaces for city use is tough for me to swallow. I get the "half the sales tax is better than nothing " mentality of the Mayor, but just be honest. It bothers me that there is this pretend leasing deal (it is a real deal actually, but arranged really, in my opinion, to mask the true sales tax sweetheart deal). At least Bass Pro Shops is fairly unique and so I understand city leaders' eagerness to make a deal. But I wonder what the spin will be on Costco, who also got a deal, when Manteca was the next logical location for Costco to build here anyways. I'll look forward to reading that article. As for BLD, as I have said numerous times both on this forum and in "Letters to the Editor", the only one to truly benefit from that deal is BLD management, with the city getting the "crumbs" of the profits after fronting the lion's share of the building costs. Sincerely, Karen
I am enjoying our discussions.
I know you don't actually, or don't want to see it the way I do, but, I feel what I am talking about and what you are "more interested in" are both part of the same overall problem:
The Manteca Bulletin does NOT accurately report events, facts and figures.
All the points you make are both accurate and supported by the data presented by the Bulletin. The Bulletin, and city, drawing almost opposite conclusions tells me either the Bulletin is just messing up the facts and figures it is reporting, or, someone is telling some lies.
As you say, I am interested in reading the tale they weave over the next three days about how all these deals were worth taking property taxes away from schools and police. Frankly, none of it is adding up.
P.S. The new outlet mall being constructed south of 580 in Livermore is being buit with ZERO help from the city and is at 100% occupancy BEFORE being finished. That is how a real comercial real estate business operates. Every day it looks more and more like Manteca got robbed by a bunch of crooks in suits.
Another day, another set of lies from Dennis Wyatt.
1) First, he claims that Manteca housing prices are up 0.001% This is a lie. Wyatt uses the total receipts and fails to take into account the irresponsible number of homes that were built in Manteca over the same period of time and a differential in solvency. With these items taken into account, I would wager that home prices in Manteca are actually down roughly the same amount as the rest of the region.
2) Dennis Wyatt's Costco article is full of holes. It is odd to me how the data for taxable sales in Tracy and Modesto are available, yet, the ACTUAL sales receipts from the years Costco has been open are seemingly unavailable. Dennis keeps throwing around the $600,000 number that combined Tracy and Modesto tax dollars and i doing nothing but ASSUMING it is exactly the same in Manteca. This is disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.
Two articles from Dennis Wyatt today and two sets of misleading information. Honestly, what would it take to have a newspaper that actually reported facts?
Also, very disturbing how the majority of the "news" reported here seems to just be minuets from the last Manteca TeaParty meeting or announcements regarding the next meeting.
Every day there is some mention of this diminutive Tea Party association. There are less than 100 people associated with this group, why are they so disproportionately represented by this publication?
Combine this clear bias with the missinformation on local issues mentioned above, and it is quite clear that the Bulletin management is just inept, or, is nefariously unscrupulous.
Hello crimeriddendump, As I said before, I don not think Dennis Wyatt is a liar. But I do think he selectively presents something in the best possible light, if it an issue or subject that he supports. It is no secret that he favors the current city leadership and the slant of front page supposed news articles makes that even more clear. What bothered me (among other things) about the Costco article is that Cosrco apparently "told city leaders the Manteca numbers "weren't high enough" yet to locate a Costco in Manteca. They'd consider Manteca, though, if there was some type of "help" in covering the site development". To me, this is little more than glorified extortion. It is like having a staring contest and city leaders blinked first. Of course, Manteca leadership set the precedent with sweetheart deals at BLD and Orchard Valley Promenade shopping center which pretty much sent the message to commercial developers that Manteca could be cajoled into financial commitments with promises of potential sales tax windfalls. It is a pattern that seems to be still in effect with the possible Great Wolf Resort negotiations. Also disturbing is the fact that Costco gave Manteca "access to confidential and proprietary information that is collected by the State Board of Equalization on each business that has taxable sales in California." CONFIDENTIAL??? how confidential is something that can be disclosed in the hopes of turning a profit? This is how they tracked the fact that Manteca residents "spent $6 million in taxable sales at Costco stores in Modesto and Tracy in 2006". Through tracking Costco cards, data showed every time a Costco club member from Manteca spent money at a nearby Costco store. That is how the yearly figure of $600,000 in sales tax revenue was derived. I question the assertion that Costco would have built in Lathrop (smaller than Manteca) before Manteca, since the River Islands project has yet to reach fruition. Also even if the Costco store in Manteca had been delayed, at $600,000 a year in sales tax, it could have been put off for SIX YEARS ($3.6 million) and still have cost the city less money. Also, it is disingenuous to pretend that Costco did not take sales away from other business, whether grocery stores, furniture stores, Target, Wal-Mart, tire stores, florists, etc. Sincerely, karen
Why not ask Dennis Wyatt why the CURRENT sales tax figures from Costco in Manteca are not being used but instead, projections from 2008?
Simple question: Has the Manteca Costco generated even close to the gross $600,000 estimate from 2008? Yes or No? Further, how much of that $3.6 Million has be recovered since 2008? By basic math of the ASSUMPTIONS presented in the article, Manteca should be very close to paying off its obligations to Costco.
As you say, Dennis Wyatt is exceptionally biased. One could easily draw the conclusion that the reason Dennis Wyatt is not presenting the CURRENT figures is that these numbers do not live up to the estimates from 2008.
You call it "selective", I call it deception.
Hell crimeriddendump, You have a vaild point about why haven't CURRENT sales tax figures for the Manteca Costco store been presented. Maybe they are confidential!!! (Heavy sarcasm). As far as numbers, even if the Manteca Costco was still providing the $600,000 sales tax figure, Costco gets 45% of that so, in 4 years, Costco would be pocketing around $1 million (actually a little over) in its sales tax share or roughly one third of the agreed upon $3.7 million. That is why the deal is projected to be about 10 years.
I welcome your questioning of facts and figures or even writing style presented in Bulletin articles, but your attacks on Dennis Wyatt's CHARACTER go beyond the acceptable. Criticize his writing skills, his opinions, his slanted or selective reporting, or any other PROFESSIONAL aspect of his work, but please leave personal attacks out of the discussion. For me, it distracts from your other thought-provoking points and diminishes the value of your otherwise valid and valuable criticisms. P.S. I know we all have the freedom to use the style we wish, this is just my personal commentary about something I feel strongly about in your posts. Accept it or not, as your choice. Sincerely, Karen
I'm sorry we have differing opinions, but, I find NOTHING professional about Dennis Wyatt's work. I feel quite the opposite as you have noticed. Again, I think that character - or lack there of - is an important part in understanding the message being presented by the Bulletin. I would not call my posts personal attacks at all. It is generally accepted that newspapers should present facts. It is also accepted that editors are the public face of the newspaper. I couldn't care less about Dennis Wyatt personally, I only care about the EDITOR Dennis Wyatt who is obviously not very good at what he does. Would it be a personal attack to say the garbage man is not very good at his job if he spills garbage all over your lawn? No. Same is true here.
What I have done here is post very real, tangible, and verifiable evidence of either apathy or deception from the editor here. You defend the editor with very broad stokes such as "He is a passionate booster of Manteca" and talk about "his commitment to Manteca" yet, you offer no ACTUAL EXAMPLES of these deeds.
I'm not just making this stuff up. Whenever I am critical of Dennis Wyatt I quote direct works from Wyatt and then compare these quotes to other published and accepted data. It then becomes plain as day MAJOR discrepancies exist between Dennis Wyatt's version of the truth and actual reality. Are these discrepancies ALL the fault of Dennis Wyatt? Probably not. But, without US QUESTIONING IT, will we ever know the truth?
Taking your words from another blog comment, where is YOUR verifiable documentation that Dennis Wyatt is actually looking out for us and is a PROFESSIONAL? Honestly, so far, I have seen ZERO evidence to support your position, while, there is MOUNTAINS of evidence to support MY position. On the other hand, I'm a HUGE supporter of objectivity. So, let's be fair. How about you and I KarenPearsal construct a two column list. On one side, we list all the example of ways Dennis Wyatt has mislead, misinformed, lied. Then, the other column can be all the examples of ways he has actually helped the people of Manteca, accurately reported facts, or been what you call a "passionate booster of Manteca." We make this list go item by items and draw rational conclusions based on EVIDENCE rather than relying on emotional response.
I very much welcome your response to this. I very much agree with you that FACTS and not knee jerk reactions are what matter most. Let us then discuss the actual facts and we could put this issue behind us all and get on the same page. If you have a better idea as to how we could objectively get to the bottom of the Bulletin's problem with inaccurate and misleading information, I am 100% open minded on this.
[Concluded below due to character limit]
P.S. To be direct for a second, your attitude is the exact opposite of mine. You are a kind - and seemingly honest - person who traits to see your own positive personality traits in others. I disagree.
P.P.S. Tell me if I'm wrong, but, I think that even if there was an article in the Bulletin one day that said black was white, up was down, and green was stop and red was go, the editor would somehow find your AMPLE benefit of the doubt. How many times, or how egregiously, does the Bulletin need to stretch the truth before you actually care enough to do something about it?
Dude, Drop the hostility. Your unwarranted confrontational attacks have caused Karen to use a word in her response to you that she has never used.
Perhaps self medicating with some THC before you post would put an end to your silly hostilities. Just a suggestion. Peace Love and Happiness Hoff:)
On a second read, it looks like I messed up copy and pasting in my post scripts after I reached the charter limit. While the post-post script is at least a complete thought, the first is not. Allow me to clarify here:
P.S. To be direct for a second, your attitude is the exact opposite of mine. You are a kind - and seemingly honest - person who seems to see your own positive personality traits in others. I disagree and feel that your rose-colored view is unrealistic optimism that does not accurately reflect the selfishness of the average person.
Again, sorry for missing the cut and paste bit. The character limit got me a bit off.
The anger found within your posts directed at the MB editor will harm your health. I know you specialize in axe grinding but I have an old two man saw that needs some attention. Can you help?
Hello crimeriddendump, Here are some examples of Dennis Wyatt's passionate bolstering of Manteca: Almost every day there is an article drawing attention to local businesses (my husband has been featured several times), volunteer groups' actions (the Del Webb fundraising groups as well as Kiwanis, Elk's, Historical Society, church organizations, Friends of the Library, Friends of the Cemetery, etc.), and local residents who have impacted the community in a positive way. I am not arguing with you that Dennis needs to brush up on his investigative journalism skills or look more critically into the numbers and figures provided to him by city staff. I just don't accept that he is a liar or purposely misleading the public. I do think he is guilty of letting his own opinions color the front page articles which, unless human interest stories as previously mentioned, should be objective. He is in a difficult position in that he seemingly has to curry favor with city leadership to get any facts and figures in the first place. I don't have the solution. Sincerely, Karen
I give Dennis Wyatt credit for his editorial efforts. Is he perfect? No. Who is?
Has he become an easy target for some because they disagree with his political views so now they will grind their online axe every chance they get? Without a doubt.
Read between the lines and you will be able to understand the mental impairment that attatches itself to the constant online attacks on the editor.
Thanks for the great response.
See, there is a difference in the subject matter of what you complement verus what I scathe. One is promoting active community members while the other is blindly promoting the ideals and policies of the elected leaders. One is a service to the community, the other is detrimental.
I would suggest that the problem is the "Manteca Bulletin" as published today is actually TWO publications.
One is old SSJID Newsletter. The other is the "actual" Manteca Bulletin.
One is the mouthpiece of a handful of people looking to use the community to their own personal and political benefit. The other is a great showcase of the WHOLE Manteca community.
It wont happen, but, they should just split the two and call it a day.
Also, what does that say about OUR LEADERS if "cooking the books" or "selling your soul" is required prior to being granted an audience to get basic facts and figures on city development? Maybe Dennis Wyatt is just a poor, innocent victim being intellectually extorted by the Manteca "powers that be." But. if that is what is really going on, then Manteca City Hall could very well be one of the most corrupt and insidious elected groups in the country.
Someone is trying to deceive people here Karen. It is obvious, and both you and I see it plain as day. Someone is responsible. If it is not Dennis Wyatt then who? I could accept one or two errors/omissions as human error, but, this level of missinformation is either from a calculated deception, or, just a showcase of horrendous journalism.
You can pick and tell me which.
Hello crimeriddendump, I thought of something that I wanted to run past you. Even if sometimes the articles in the Bulletin are slanted in a certain direction (which we can agree happens), the very fact that they are published for public scrutiny is, in a way, a positive. What I mean is, even a biased article, by the very nature of being in a newspaper and thus in the public eye, can draw attention to a subject that otherwise may go unnoticed or unchallenged by the public. For example, no matter how many time Dennis Wyatt repeats that the city will save maintenance and operational costs for BLD and possibly gain $17 million over 35 years ($400,000 times 35), I see that if the city ran BLD we would get the full amount of the concessions take ($2 million a year if the current 20% rate of Manteca's share is $400,000) or $70 million over 35 years. This does not even include the gate fees (admission charges) or team sign-up fees that BLD pockets themselves. Even deducting the operational and maintenance costs, Manteca would have been farther ahead if the city managed the BLD complex. After reading past "Letters to the Editor" (and writing some myself that point out what I've just noted) and on-line comments on this forum, I know that I am not the only one who sees beyond the hype. In that sense, even with its pro-city slant, the Bulletin is doing a public service because it is up to us readers to take a deeper look and ask probing questions. It would be nice if the paper also did more of that, but it doesn't prevent us from examining issues more fully or writing differing opinions. The Bulletin WILL print critical letters, I know that because occasionally I write them. Citizens, whether from Manteca or elsewhere, need to become more involved in local issues. Sincerely, Karen
Thanks for the response. Again, I agree with the facts of what yo write but dissagree with your conclusions.
I know of several well written letters, so by well known members of the comunity,that were critical of SSJID that have never seen the light of day. I have attack pieces against mayor candidate Ben Cantu or blog regular LarryBacca published regularly.
No Karen, I dissagree. When your well written editorial is in the bottom corner of page 8 once every two months while Dennis Wyatt's missinformation is in bold, above the fold every week you are comparing apples to oranges.
The fact seems to be that the Bulletin will keep force feeding the public misinformation regardless of what anyone says.
Now, does the small and selective letter section somehow make up for daily misinformation, distortion, and incredible bias? I don't think so.
Why would anyone expect a newspaper to be a public nanny? It's up to all of us to become more organized and active within our communites when we recognize a problematic issue. Whining everyday about newspaper content is just barking at the moon.
I found that todays articles regarding Big League Dreams to be more of the same. The article raised more questions than it answered:
"the city could realize $14 million in rent payments over 35 years that go directly to the general fund."
"The city used $29 million in redevelopment agency funds that did not have to be paid back since the original bonds are repaid by property taxes."
The actual number was $30 Million, but, who cares since we are just making everything up anyway ...
So, 29 - 14 = 15. What happens to the OTHER $15 Million spent? Is that just gone? Who is responsable for the dept now that RDA is disolved? What is the bond terms on that $30 Million?
It is really shocking these questions are NEVER officially addressed by this publication.
Hello crimeriddedump, I don't think it is really "shocking" that the paper doesn't raise the questions that you brought up. It is like that old story of the group of blind men who try to describe an elephant by touch only. One man feels the trunk and concludes the elephant is like a snake, one feels the tail and says it is like a rope, while another runs his hands over the elephant's leg and describes it as a tree trunk. While each is partially right, no man has the full or true picture. Such is the BLD reporting - we get bits and pieces of the truth, but we do not see things in context or in terms of the complete picture. Weatherford's "legacy" here is not one that really deserves boasting about, upon further scrutiny. That is MY opinion. I have no doubt that there are people who believe BLD is a real asset to the community. I can see some of the benefits, but the deal blatantly favors BLD management. No amount of Bulletin spin will make me dizzy enough not to recognize that. That deal is done and there is no going back. It is a waste of time to be bitter. Instead, that should be a cautionary tale for future city/private partnerships and development deals such as the proposed Great Wolf Resort. Sincerely, Karen
I like your analogy of the blind describing the elephant. Would you might further distilling your analogy a bit. And please, tell me if I am off:
Would you say the group of blind men are the city leadership and the elephant is city finances and the Bulletin is just calling it like it sees it? OR, are you saying the group of blind men is the Bulletin staff and the elephant is the workings of the city leadership?
In your opinion, are the eyes of the Bulletin closed by actual blindness, or, are they knowingly and willingly closing them as tight as possible?
Again, I'm enjoying our dialog and feel we are actually getting to foundations of some very interesting issues.
Hello crimeriddendump, I would probably say your second analogy is closer to the point that I was trying to make. The Bulletin articles are not giving us the full picture, in my opinion. Whether to characterize the Bulletin's failure to present the BLD background and repercussions in a larger context as due to unwillingness or simply inability would be pure speculation and unproductive. I do not pretend to know exactly what goes on in the minds of the reporters or the paper's editor.
I believe that this is more a perception issue. To use a different analogy: It is like two people looking at a zebra. One person describes it as a white animal with black stripes, while the other believes it to be a black animal with white stripes. Both people SEE a black and white horse-like animal, but they INTERPRET what they see in entirely different ways. Dennis Wyatt is focusing on what he sees are the positives of BLD. I don't question his $17 million figure, but only want him to acknowledge that if he is going to include the money supposedly saved by the city in operational and maintenance costs, he needs to put that in the proper perspective and context by including what the city actually GAVE UP, in profits, for this so-called "savings". Something that was new (at least to me) in this latest article was the implication that city staff could not have run BLD as efficiently as the private BLD management is doing. His reasoning behind this assertion seemed shaky and unsupported (as well as insulting to city workers) to me. But as I am no means an expert in city staff's management skills or abilities, I could be mistaken here. Sincerely, Karen
Thank you for the followup and continuation. Let's use your second analogy. We both seem to believe that Dennis Wyatt sees both the black animal and white animal, yet, refuses to even talk acknowledge the black one. Where we differ is you feel this is an innocent spin, I say it is morally reprehensible.
Let's look at a different issue, CRIME. Dennis Wyatt often "distorted" crime statistics. How much of Dennis Wyatt's "distortions" ended up justifying the layoffs of TWELVE POLICE two years back? I would argue that if Dennis Wyatt could see both the black animal and white animal as we think, yet his CHOICE was to only talk about one side of the story. From this, couldn't one make the case that Dennis Wyatt is partially responsible for the increase in crime? If his distortions ended up distorting the views of the people who vote, isn't that wrong? Or, do you think it perfectly moral and just to print whatever distortion or spin one likes and it is the fault of the uneducated reader for being fooled? Does a city newspaper have no responsibility to tell the full truth to its readers?
You know how I feel.
Hello crimeriddendump, You misunderstand me or I did not make myself clear. My zebra analogy was not about Dennis Wyatt seeing BOTH color options, but only one, while I see the different one. I am not saying that he purposefully deceives the reader, just that he presents the side he believes in. In my opinion, what a great newspaper would do is OBJECTIVELY present both sides of an argument or issue and let the readers decide what position they favor. If Dennis Wyatt is committing any "sin" here, it is the sin of omission. As far as crime statistics distortions, I would figure (but could be wrong) that Wyatt got these statistics directly from city hall. If there was any "cooking of the books" or spin, I would look at city management and leadership who had a definite agenda. Step one seems to be keep the press on your side. If citizens BLINDLY follow what is printed UNQUESTIONINGLY, even when it flaunts common sense, I would lay the responsibility with the public. Most of us are capable of using critical thinking skills. If we are unwilling to exercise them, that is not Dennis Wyatt's fault. He COULD be PART of the problem, but not all the fault lies with him. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Dennis Wyatt because I think we have reached an impasse concerning his alleged character flaws. It is too tiring and unproductive to go around and around defending him when you appear unwilling or unable to cut him any slack and seem to feel I am hopelessly "Pollyanna"-like in my assessment of him. Let's focus on important issues for our discussions. I think that would be far more rewarding and less exasperating for us both. Sincerely, Karen
First, I 100% agree that Dennis Wyatt is definitely not the full problem. It is my opinion, but, I do believe that Dennis Wyatt puts his relationship with his "friends" in the city above the health, safety and well-being of his fellow Manteca residents by consistently editorializing the crime statistics as well as other city dealings.
Now, forget Dennis for a second, I am talking about either real deception regarding crime depiction, or, a "sin" of just blindly reprinting whatever city leaders want without question. How many months of headlines reading "Crime is down" in Manteca? How many of the articles when actually read ended up telling a much different picture of crime with violent crime UP in almost all reports? I could post links, but, I confident you already know what I am talking about.
In most cases regarding issues of the public being mislead by elected leaders, the easiest way to get to bottom of things is to follow the money. Who stands to benefit the most from the one-dimensional portrait that has been painted?
- AKF Development
- Poag & McEwen
Notice how the people of Manteca are not on that short list.
Hello crimeriddendump, We may not agree on everything, but your "follow the money" strategy is definitely sound advice. I would not take issue with your list (although AKF has changed to either ANF or ANK, I can't remember which, with Art Nunes partnering up with the other two in that development group) other than suggest that additional organizations such as BLD management be included on it. It is a sad fact that money doesn't just talk, it dominates the conversation, and the most powerful groups in Manteca (both residential and commercial developers, for instance) clearly have the city leadership's ear (if not other body parts!). Things will not change until we get qualified candidates with good ideas to run for city council and the public shakes itself out of its lethargy to get involved and informed. Sincerely, Karen
While by no means concluded, I am glad I think that we can come to some base mutual understandings. Seemingly as with the times, I feel we are on polar sides of assessing responsibility of local media. As you say, I wish there were simple and easy answers, however, so long as money is speech, the people who have the money will be able to purchase their own versions of the truth.
How is it that we can help make the Manteca Bulletin a better newspaper? I have obviously tried shame, you have tried encouragement. Niether seem to work. Is this as good as it gets? Maybe the Lathrop Sun-Post (a far superior publication in almost every imaginable way) had to leave. I think the people of Manteca do not want to hear objectivity, they only want to further justify their bias. Anything that disturbs the balance gets run out of town.
sublime/hidden/chump or grump
Hello crimeriddendump, From the blog "What Government Line Should I Stand In", Friendo offered this valuable post dated 7-14-12 at 22:57 p.m.: "Seems it is not good enough for some here to firmly disagree, they must include remarkable rudeness as well. A bellwether of their personal character." He also added this pertinent quote by Eric Hoffer, "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength". I am glad that we have been able to discuss issues in a civil manner, even when we don't see eye to eye. To those who are unable to achieve Friendo's high standards here, I will try to follow your example of not bothering with such posts.
One more idea that I hope you find worth contemplating: Even with an obvious slant, the Bulletin articles DO provide the pertinent facts for those who are so inclined to draw the lines to and connections between them and make their own conclusions and judgments. My own Letter to the Editor which are critical of city council decisions or policies are all based on facts mostly gleaned from Bulletin articles and an application of common sense. Sincerely, Karen
First, I agree, let us not lower the rather high standards of conversation we have set for ourselves.
Second, I do not disagree with how you describe the Bulletin as a bit of a puzzle. However, I am not entirely convinced the majority of the readership share our mutual desire to put the puzzle together.
And like I said, while you seem to have no problem getting your letters published, many, many, MANY others are quite frustrated with the editor consistently refusing to publish well thought out and well written letters in favor of the nonsense he instead chooses to publish. Maybe we should all just send our letters to you and then have you send them to the Bulletin?
Seriously though, I think there needs to be more of a "people's voice" in the printed Bulletin. How we can achieve that is still a mystery to me.
How do you feel about the suspicious lack of mentioning the TeaParty in the story about Bruce Lownsbery convincing the City Council to tie up the budget?
Seems the TeaParty calls the shots with the Mayor, the City Council and the editor of the Bulletin.
Hello again KarenPearsall,
Looking at the "Opinion" section today, one would see the following:
- A cry-baby piece from Frank Aquila about no one should care about Mitt Romney not releasing taxes because Obama never released his school records from college transcript to KINDERGARDEN (I'm not making this up or exaggerating) registration.
- An column titled "Obama is clueless on the economy"
- And, a letter from the local TeaParty ironically complaining that two development companies got more say then they did over how their community is run. I say ironic since the TeaPArty has often fought for the rights of corporations as "people too my friend."
South San Joaquin Republicans
National GOP column
Manteca Tea Party
That was the opinion page today.
The Bulletin is not even hiding it EXTREME bias now.
Hello crimeriddendump, I don't think that Bruce Lownsbery's request for a budget delay reflects the Manteca Patriots' position. In fact, in covering this story, I felt that Dennis Wyatt unfairly portrayed Lownsbery as gumming up the works of efficient city governance. The very language he used throughout the piece ("lone citizen" and "municipal services for 69,000 residents over the next 50 weeks (put) on hold Tuesday...all so one citizen could have more time to look over the $27 million budget") gives the reader the impression that Lownsbery, in a single handed manner, caused a huge inconvenience and delay of city capital improvement projects. Later articles suggest that he caused a possible pink-slipping of 8 Community Development employees. Buried deep in the article is the admission that the city manager did not properly inform the city council of the delayed budget ramifications. So I don't see the Tea Party as "calling the shots" with the Mayor, city council or Bulletin Editor. Frankly, this whole situation just shows (sadly) how little the city is used to actual citizen input and involvement, in general (with the exception of a few staunch city leadership critics, who often regrettably seem to go unheeded).
Here is my take on the Opinion pieces: Aquila's letter compares apples to oranges. BOTH candidates should release their tax returns. However, expecting the notoriously secretive Romney to release his financial records to general public scrutiny seems unlikely. How best to distract from this glaring omission? Demand that President Obama provide a list of information (some of which he already has) only designed to question and cast doubts on his actual citizenship (those "birthers" are a persistent lot). One can be frustrated at Aquila's tactics or laugh at the transparent methods. I choose, in this case, to laugh and just shake my head in disbelief.
The columnist who wrote on Obama and the economy is only one in the Bulletin's stable of conservative syndicated columnists (Elder, Bosell, North, Schafly, Bucchanan are some others - sorry for the probable misspelling of their names). Estrich, Martin, and Hightower represent the few syndicated liberal columnists printed in the Bulletin. The representation is definitely lopsided.
As to the supposed Tea Party letter, although both men co-founded the Manteca Patriots organization, I believe that, in this instance, they are representing themselves and fellow residents of their Union Road development community on the subject of LMDs (Landscape Maintenance Districts). They have valid points. The current agreement between the city and developers scams new residents who mistakenly believe that homeowners' votes have a real impact on whether a neighborhood enters a LMD agreement. When a developer owns the majority of unfinished lots in a development and can vote as a bloc, the few current residents lack power. Sincerely, Karen
Again, thanks for your response, but, I disagree. To use an extreme example; if President Obama and Vice President Biden co-authored an opinion piece for the NYTimes and omitted their titles in the closing, would any reasonable person say that opinion piece was their "personal" opinion and not reflective of either of their offices?
To use your own comments about the Bulletin, you suggest that with the lack of real journalism in the Bulletin, readers are sometimes forced to connect the dots themselves. This article seems a great instance of that notion as it is clearly a local Tea-Party issue, as described in the Bulletin's first article about the local Tea-Party:
"According to Marks, Lownsbery – who will head up the group – became extremely disenfranchised when after lobbying extensively to lift the fees of the Landscape Maintenance District"
The whole reason Marks and Lownsbery started the TeaParty was fighting LMD. Lownsbery and Marks co-authoring a letter IS TeaParty . The only question remaning is did Dennis Wyatt purposefully omit that part, or did he just not feel like connecting the dots himself yet again?
Today, we had the weekly bit of propping up SSJID. When will we see the pieces promoting AKF Development and Poag & McEwen? Tomorrow? Saturday?
The Bulletin does not print news. They take any news items and then twist them into promoton items for the organizations Dennis Wyatt supports. A newspaper should not be predictable.
Hello again KarenPearsall,
Would it just be coincidence that Jeff Shields wrote a letter to the editor on water rights the exact same day that Dennis Wyatt chose to write an editorial on the same topic? Wow, these two seem to act as a left and and right hand, don't they? What are the odds?
Hello crimeriddendump, The Bulletin has printed numerous front page articles and editorials, in the past, supporting the SSJID's bid for local electrical control and backing SSJID positions and endeavors, in general. It was not surprising to me to read Dennis Wyatt's editorial on water rights. Perhaps reading Shields letter inspired him to add his own thoughts or echo the letter writer's points. Since these were both on the Opinion Page, that is perfectly acceptable, whether I agree or disagree with their assertions. I do not like it, however, when the opinions filter onto the front page articles and color those pieces. I am old school in the belief that, with informational articles, the reader should not be able to discern a detectable bias or slant. This is one of the areas that the Bulletin needs to improve on. I sent in a "Letter to the Editor" on LMDs, which hasn't been printed yet, although Dennis wrote his own take on the situation in his column today. Sometimes a letter or just the subject itself can spark people to offer their thoughts on an issue. My feeling is, the more something is discussed and brought to light, the better. Even if someone twists things, readers can often pick up on that and it ends up drawing even more attention to the subject. What did you think of Dennis Wyatt's column? I think there were some "apples to oranges" comparisons going on, among other logic failings. Please read it and let's discuss. I could be overly harsh in my perception of the way he handled the topic. Sincerely, Karen
I did read the article(s) and was also felt there were far too much of Dennis Wyatt's opinion in the "news" article and too many logical faults in the opinion column. This is however a very terse description of my feelings on the subject.
I have said it before, I enjoy our conversations here. I would very much like to start a regular set of postings where we (you and I) could discuss articles in an intellectually honest fashion. Others would be welcomed to contribute so long as our high standards of courtesy and honesty are adhered by. I feel this blog post is getting long in the tooth and more specific conversations would be beneficial.
Let me know if you agree and I will start another posting on the LMD issue. Otherwise,give a simple indication you would like to keep our conversation here so I know where to provide a more verbose response to the LMD issue.
Hello crimeriddendump, I think your idea of starting a blog on a different subject is a good one. I will look forward to reading your thoughts on LMDs. I hope my letter will eventually get published in the Bulletin, without deletions (but it is a long one, so it may get edited).The idea of LMDs is, in itself, not a bad one, but the way it has been implemented and handled in some cases leaves much to be desired. Sincerely, Karen
Sorry, I have not had the time in the past few days I thought I would have. I will try to get something put together for the weekend.
Also, I found the "news" article titled "
Manteca engineer takes global warming theory supporters to task" (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/sectio...). I struggled to find any "news" in this article at all and have no idea why it is not an editorial. It is quite sad to see that Manteca Bulletin blur the line more and more everyday between FACTS and OPINIONS. You and I both agree the Bulletin has a major problem with this, but, it would seem the problem is getting worse instead of better.
P.S. "News" piece about SSJID two days ago , now, "news" promoting the TeaParty. This type of journalism where opinions equal facts is not ethical in the least. It is sad that Jason Campbell is following Dennis Wyatt's horrible example.
Hello crimeriddendump, I believe that it is an important service of the Manteca Bulletin to inform the public, in a timely manner, of upcoming events such as city council meetings and school board meetings, as well as gatherings of Republican, Democrat, and the Manteca Patriots (Tea Party) groups. However, coverage of the meetings themselves and the topics discussed perhaps is best limited to city council and school board events. Otherwise, it gives the appearance that some non-governmental gatherings are being promoted, while others are left to languish in obscurity. Sincerely, Karen
Another day and another set of obvious GOP bias from Dennis Wyatt. Here is today's article:
"Democrats honor labor with exception of farm workers" (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/sectio...)
Anyone else growing tired of the obvious bias and partisan nature of this SSJID newsletter?
The people who buy this paper are the same type of people who are in the 10% who approve of this failed Congress. You keep hoping its going to improve, but...
What is the worst is how little the Bulletin focus on actual local issues. And when they do, it is all SSJID propaganda.
I do find it useful to use this publication as a type of litmus test to gauge extreme conservative behaviors.
Today's GOP Biased Headlines:
"Godless party expels the Creator"
"Ex-Demo not voting for Obama"
"Backs Denham effort to sell unused federal buildings"
UNREAL!!! I propose a new title for this publication given the articles it publishes:
"The SSJID Newsletter: Fair and balanced, we report, you decide!"
If you want things to be better.... Quit buying the MB.
And I keep telling you that it was started as a promotional pamphlet for the SSJID so why are you always surprised when they print prapaganda for the SSJID? That is what their purpose is.
These are not headlines. They are opinion piece titles and letters to the editor.
1. Title of newspaper article: a caption printed at the top of a page or article in a newspaper, usually in large heavy letters and often summarizing the content that follows it.
2. Line at top of page: a line printed at the top of a page of a book or document giving the page number and sometimes other information such as the title or the author's name.
3. Main news items: the most important items of news covered by a newspaper or a news broadcast.
You find the Manteca Bulletin so distasteful and propagandized. Perhaps the Santa Rosa Press Democrat would be more to your liking?
I believe both "Fair and balanced" and "We report. you decide" are already copyrighted by Fox News Corp.
I have watched Fox News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the BBC, as well as the three major network news. Both "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide" are Fox News' slogans and principles.
I don't see conservatives on the staffs of the other cable news. I see few Republicans and conservatives interviewed on Fox's competitors. Most of the time both sides of an issue are presented on Fox, where other news outlets are far more selective. Fox News fact checked the prime speakers of both conventions, finding there was lying on both sides. MSNBC never questioned anything from the Democratic convention but took both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to task. Not at all fair or balanced. Perhaps that is why Fox News leads the competition in ratings year after year.
I recognize that Fox does have its biased commentators, but so do MSNBC and CNN. When it comes to principles, most news organizations seem to lack them. Non-conservatives just seem to prefer to pick on Fox News over anyone else.
Sorry Bull153, seems like you took my joke a bit too seriously. The whole point was to connect the bias of the Bulletin to the bias of Fox. Too bad you did not seem get that joke.
Also you saying "MSNBC never questioned anything from the Democratic convention" shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Here is a whole video from MSNC called "Fact-checking the DNC" (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-ne...). What about "Morning Joe" that criticized the DNC one even calling Obama's speech "socialist?" Do you often make sweeping statements without any factual backing? Oh well Bull153, again, seems like your imagination trumps reality.
EDIT: Ooops, it was someone named 44Magnum and not Bull153 that posted the above comments. Sorry, they sound allot alike ...
I wasn't aware you were joking. Nothing you said seems funny. Please remember that Fox News is not the only organization that is 'biased'.
My apologies. I missed the MSNBC piece on fact checking the DNC. An oversight on my part. I also do not watch "Morning Joe", Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or other partisan pundits.
I make statements based on my beliefs and on the information I have at the time. I will research some items that interest me. Mostly I only offer an opinion. Fox News is not the only reliable news source available, but it is the only one that has a conservative base.
In the future, if I make a fact based statement, I will be sure to provide the facts to back it up.
I certainly did not expect a Conservative to say anything different, and you did not let me down. If you reread what I wrote, you will be hard pressed to find the letters M, S, N, B, C, let alone in that order. So why would you bring it up since I commented on what you wrote, and you made no comparison between Foxnews and MSNBC at the time? Typical Conservative.
Here is a link to a video from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who has been known to be fair and balanced with his mocking of both political parties taking Foxnews to task for their less than fair or balanced approach to the conventions. It does make one smile at the blatant hypocrisy in the slogan and their actions.
I would have to say the main reason you "see few Republicans and conservatives interviewed on Fox's competitors" is mostly because they are all on Foxnews. Its all Conservative all of the time, and yet they want to be taken seriously which is why Americans, I mean "Non-conservatives" pick on it.
I will say this about the other new sources on TV, cable or network, or in the press, is that they are corporate owned, and are chasing the all mighty buck. They go where a story is regardless of whether it is a story of merit or not, and they will beat that story to death as long as it continues to bring them a rating. It doesn't have to be true or factual, as say, when the Supreme Court handed down their decision on the Healthcare Law, and we saw CNN run with the wrong decision. As a matter of fact, I believe your propaganda chann..... your favorite cable entertainment channel broadcast the wrong information as well.
I can see the news starting to do the same for Romney now since he saw no bounce from the convention and the President seems to have received one. You know how those sharks are when they smell blood, they all start tearing at the story for any bit they can sink their teeth into. I am now seeing headlines like "Romney campaign stating they aren't losing," or "knows it's losing and that Ohio is slipping out of reach." Once they start picking at that scab its hard to change the subject. You know better than me that its all about perception, and if the press is presenting a perception that one candidate is losing, the press will look for any sign to substantiate that perception.
Take a look at the video, and see just how "Fair and Balanced" Foxnews was with the conventions. It may bring a smile to your face, I know I was smiling. I hate being manipulated, don't you?
I am confused. You seem to be saying one thing and then something completely different next:
"Fox News fact checked the prime speakers of both conventions, finding there was lying on both sides. MSNBC never questioned anything from the Democratic convention"
" [I] do not watch "Morning Joe", Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or other partisan pundits."
Just to be clear; you realize "Morning Joe" is a show hosted by Joe Scarborough .. right? Out of curi osity, who is the most liberal host on Fox?
Back to the topic of this blog; Dennis Wyatt's GOP bias is clear. Would you argue against that point?
It is quite obvious that you are not interested in anything I have to say. I am a conservative, and you are quite plain in your distaste for conservatives. Comments such as "...Americans, I mean "Non-conservatives" show your disdain. I won't waste your time trying to answer a question for which you plainly have already decided the answer.
I don't find anything that Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert says funny. You are welcome to enjoy their antics, I don't.
I do hate being manipulated. You can stop trying.
I am sorry you are confused. I explained I did not see the items you referenced about MSNBC fact checking the DNC. I provided a comment regarding headlines and I have responded to those who have commented to me.
I am not familiar with Mr. Scarborough, I don't watch his show, and the ones I listed were examples. There are others I do not watch as well.
I have no idea who the most liberal host on Fox News is. Nor do I particularly care.
I have no desire to argue with you on any point. You expressed your opinion regarding Mr. Wyatt. Nothing I say is going to change that.
Again, I am confused. First, the whole point of this blog is discussion.
So you watch Jon Stewart and Colbert? Or do you watch them in the same way you watch "Fox News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC ..." but "do not watch "Morning Joe", Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or other partisan pundits ??" As I said, I get confused when someone says something and then something different.
Also, you say "I have no desire to argue with you on any point" which struck me as odd given that your whole first post here was wholly devoted to arguing seemingly inconsequential semantics. Again, it confuses me when someone says one thing and then does another.
I'll say again - as I have before - I welcome any and all reasonable, fact based discussions.
You are correct, what possibly could you say that I would be interested in? I tend to move away from those that have lost credibility, and I see nothing credible from Conservatives. Just look at what you said, "finding there was lying on both sides." so you are willing to accept that, why aren't you are calling out the Conservatives for lying? So you really don't have "values" then, if you are willing to turn a blind eye to honesty. Win at all costs, even if it means accepting that you have to vote for a liar. Doesn't speak highly of you, and what's to say your liars aren't lying to you?
I didn't think you would watch the video, but then it really wasn't for your entertainment, anyway. It is hard to face reality, especially when everything your movement stands for is not based in reality.
"Fair and balanced', it's just a slogan, not a principle.
If you would not overthink what I say, you may not be so confused.
I did not argue. I expressed that your reference to headlines was different than mine. You did not question it. I made my point. There was nothing to add or discuss. I have also answered your other questions.
I have seen some of Stewart's and Colbert's skits. I do not watch their programs. I watch the news on the various networks. I don't watch the political pundits. For example, you can watch CBS and not watch some of their programs. There is a difference.
I'm sorry you were confused. Hopefully this cleared it up.
I see why some have a disagreeable opinion of you. Fox News' slogan is their principle as well. None of their employees are running for public office. As far as I know, neither are the employees of any other of the national or cable news services. In my opinion, while the politicians and even the political pundits have been caught being dishonest, these news organizations are as trustworthy as any public entity.
Your insulting my opinion and me doesn't do much for your 'values' either. It certainly doesn't encourage further discussion.
Hello 44Magnum, Fox News is often on at the gym where I work out, as is MSNBC (sometimes). BOTH are blatantly biased. I do not consistently watch Fox News or MSNBC, but from my exposure to them at the gym, NEITHER TRIES (much less succeeds) in being either fair or balanced. To have a "token liberal" (whoever that is) on Fox News is not what I consider to be "balanced". My interpretation of that term means equal time and objective coverage of BOTH SIDES of an issue, not "lip service" by one against a panel or straw arguments which are fraudulently constructed only to be easily demolished. It is actually too bad that you don't watch Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". Although a comedy show, it is much more informative and objectively skewers any side much more than supposed "news" or informational channels do. Jon Stewart has a definite liberal slant, but he will relentlessly satirize Democrats as well as Republicans. His coverage of the Democratic convention did have me squirming, at times. But I had to admit that the needling was justified (asking delegates about "tolerance" which they espoused while showing themselves to be seemingly obliviously intolerant of those whose values they did not share), just as was the ribbing of Republican delegates (about abortion and Romney's "right" to make his own "individual choice" to disagree with the official Republican party platform's take on the subject, all the while the irony of denying women the right to individual choice seemingly escaping these same delegates). "The Daily Show" is a pointed commentary that is not sparing in its judgment or call for truth and standards. I respect Jon Stewart, even when I don't always agree with him. Unfortunately, I can't say that about many actual news commentators or political pundits. Sincerely, Karen
Interesting how much different things can be when opinions - such as yours - are made using actual ife experiences and facts as opposed to others who seem perfectly content jut IMAGINING things the way they are all pretty sure they should be thanks to prejudice.
Unfortunately, 44Magnum is being very much like Bull153 here making broad sweeping allegations that instead of being based on fact are simply based on his /Fox news' perception of the world.
Bias, such as the type displayed by Dennis Wyatt and 44Magnum here has a simple cure: REALITY!
Both Dennis Wyatt and 44Magnum/Bull153 here simply don't care what anyone else thinks. They have seemingly subscribed to the Football view of politics where the obstinately root for "their team" regardless of the circumstances, facts, or even impact to themselves.
It really is sad to see how close-minded and hypocritical these people can be.
Wow 44Magnum, I think you got caught in a BIT OF A LIE!
In one post you say you watch MSNBC and the next you make all kinds of excuses and qualifications. Which "non pundit" shows do you 44Magnum watch on FOX and MSNBC? Which ones SPECIFICALLY? Also which ones on FOX do you watch SPECIFICALLY! Frankly, I think that 99% of your posts are just hyperbole and have zero substance. I would really like to clarify this since you seem to be having an incredibly difficult time articulating yourself consistently.
It seems to be an ongoing pattern from the supporters of conservative politics to EMBELLISH the TRUTH! I'm curious why it is that conservative feel that telling the truth is less important than pushing their agenda?
The only liar here is CRD. When you don't play these people's 'gotcha' game, they try and insult and goad you into saying things you wouldn't under normal circumstances. He's not confused, he's calculating. I think 100% of CRD's posts have zero substance and are designed to be degrading. He doesn't want clarification, he wants more ammunition. It doesn't make a bit of difference what you would answer, he'd find a way to accuse you of lying and being dishonest. That's why I ignore him. Perhaps you should too!
Thank you for your comments. There is no doubt that Fox News leans towards the conservative side in their political coverage just as MSNBC leans towards the liberal side. There is no doubt the political pundits are biased as well. It is my opinion that the news coverage is fair and balanced even when the political coverage isn't. You disagree and are certainly entitled to your opposing opinion.
I've been subjected to clips of Jon Stewart's show, as well as clips of Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher. They are entertainers, they provide what their writers write and their producers produce. I don't personally care for any of them. The same could be said of the Rachel Maddows and Bill O'Reillys out there.
We seek our news and commentary from different sources. You accept yours and I'll accept mine. You believe who you choose, and I'll believe who I choose. Enjoy your week.
Just how have I lied?
I have clearly explained the points you try and bring up. My viewing habits are none of your concern. You are simply attempting to engage me in some convoluted 'gotcha' moment. It won't work.
I think 99% of your posts are just attempts to anger me and take me down to your level. Your post makes little sense. If you cannot understand simple answers to your silly questions, that is your problem.
I have told the truth and I have no agenda. Why are you trying to push yours?
I'm not trying to insult at all, I am just trying to get a straight answer from you:
All want to know is the SPECIFIC SHOWS you watch on Fox and MSNBC.
Why you seem to think that question is offensive and designed to anger is beyond me. For someone who claims to "news and commentary from different sources" this should be a softball question. Easy. No-problem. You have already said "do not watch "Morning Joe", Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or other partisan pundits" so you KNOW what you supposedly DON'T watch, now, just tell us what you DO WATCH.
Again, should be a softball question. Why you are struggling with it? Why not just answer this very basic question?
How about answering my question: "Just how have I lied?"
Comments such as "...I think you got caught in a BIT OF A LIE!"; "I think that 99% of your posts are just hyperbole and have zero substance."; and "... supporters of conservative politics to EMBELLISH the TRUTH! I'm curious why it is that conservative feel that telling the truth is less important than pushing their agenda?" are insulting and untrue.
So once more tell me, how have I lied?
You know what this is about and your dodging the question just further proves my point. You clearly DON'T do what you say you do. You said that "MSNBC never questioned anything from the Democratic convention" right between saying you watch MSNBC and FOX and then saying you don't watch anything biased.
I asked you a very simple question to clarify you posts by saying which shows do you watch specifically? Why not just tell me instead of putting up this very Bull153 like melodrama? Why is it so difficult for you to just directly answer a simple question?
Until you can back up your statements with facts, you are not telling the truth. You are just making things up like your MSNBC statement without any real substantiation or evidence, just your "GUT." It's much like we are seeing with current conservative politicians such as Paul Ryan and locally as well. It would seem the TRUTH does not matter to some as much as trying to convey a political message; such as what you did in your post.
I very much welcome your opinions in the future. Just don't be offended when I point out that some of your "opinions" are not based in reality.
Still working on that 'gotcha', are you?
What part of this answer do you not understand? "My apologies. I missed the MSNBC piece on fact checking the DNC. An oversight on my part." It turns out it was shown on the NBC Nightly News, not MSNBC.
Please quote where I said I don't watch anything biased. I said quite clearly that I do watch Fox News and MSNBC, those are both biased, according to you and your supporters. I am selective in what programs I watch, that goes for any network I choose. It is also none of your business.
You make accusations without facts. Other than my one comment about MSNBC, what statements have I made that are not supported by facts?
Quit trying to engage me in a battle of insults, it won't work. Just don't be offended when I point out that some of your "comments" are not based in reality.
I'm still confused why you REFUSE to clarify which TV programs you actually watch. Why is asking that simple question "insulting" to you? You claim to watch MSNBC and FOX yet not biased pundit. If you can't name the actual programs you watch - and so far it looks like you can't - then you are just making things up.
Again for like the fourth time now, all you have to do to clarify this is name some shows and times from FOX and MSNBC to back up your comments. Why is that so difficult?
Also just to be clear, we all seem to be in agreement on the bias of the Manteca Bulletin - correct?
Still working on that 'gotcha' moment, huh?
Why is asking that simple question so important to you? What will it prove? I'll bet if TheSovereign or KarenPearsall had said they watch MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, ABC, and CNN for their news you wouldn't blink an eye.
Just to be clear, I repeat: "I have watched Fox News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the BBC, as well as the three major network news." and "I watch the news on the various networks. I don't watch the political pundits. For example, you can watch CBS and not watch some of their programs. There is a difference."
If you are still confused, then I might recommend professional help. By the way, you still haven't answered what I have lied about. Why is that so difficult? Perhaps the simple answer is that I haven't.
Also, just to be clear about the Manteca Bulletin - I said:
"You find the Manteca Bulletin so distasteful and propagandized. Perhaps the Santa Rosa Press Democrat would be more to your liking?" and "You expressed your opinion regarding Mr. Wyatt. Nothing I say is going to change that."
So, you decide.
Why are you having such an incredibly troublesome time with the direct question of which show on MSNBC and FOX do you watch? Frankly, I don't get it. It seems like it would be far less effort for you to just name two specifics and be done with it. I really don't understand why you are being so unnecessarily difficult.
Why are you having such an incredibly troublesome time with the direct question of what I have lied about? Frankly, I don't get it. It seems like it would be far less effort for you to just admit that I have not lied and be done with it. I really don't understand why you are being so unnecessarily difficult.
For now the FIFTH TIME, if you can't clarify which shoe you watch on MSNBC and FOX then you lied about saying you watch them. So far, it is looking like you keep making excuses and dodges to not answer the question. I don't know why anyone - except a liar - would have such a difficult time with this.
Again, you are making a HUGE fuss to avoid answering a very simple and direct question. It does not make you look good at all.
On a side note, the only other poster here I know that immaturely repeats back what other write is Bull153. Frankly, it is odd how much you read like Bull153. Why is that?
Oh well, forget it. You can't even answer a simple question like "what news shows do you watch at what time." If you can't answer such a basic and simple question about your own life, why should we think you are capable of articulating more abstract ideas?
You will have to go elsewhere to find your "gotcha". I normally watch shows on TV, not my shoes.
For the fifth time, what I watch and when I watch is none of your business. If TheSovereign said he watched MSNBC, that would be enough for you. I am not having a difficult time with this, you are. I couldn't care less how I look to you or anyone else.
What show and when I watch is irrelevant to this discussion. A better question is how have I lied? You have conveniently ignored and refuse to answer it. That is far more germane, and you avoid it like the plague. That makes you a liar. It does not make you look good at all.
Any resemblance to Bull153 is coincidental. Perhaps it is just another issue only you have difficulty with.
I see the sharks are continuing to circle Romney, here is what I read today:
Mitt Romney Media Criticism Continues: 'He Looks Like Richard Nixon,' 'The Character And The Policy Were Both Revealed'
"Romney looked weak today,""'He looks like Richard Nixon.'" - Peggy Noonan Wall Street Journal.
Now we all know that the only thing lower than being compared to GW Bush is to be compared to Nixon.
There are some in the media that don't seem to agree with you.
'Yesterday morning, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and President Obama all made statements on the death of Ambassador Stevens. To my eyes and ears, Romney was by far the strongest...'
'Only Romney had the guts to take questions from the press, which were nearly all hostile. He stood his ground, and looked strong.' - Thomas Lifson
Mr. Obama turned his back on press corps questioners, then flew to Las Vegas for a fundraising event. Now that's leadership!
Who is looking for the media to agree with me, what a dumb remark!
The media is feeding on Romney's inability to gain any traction, and now his inability to act presidential. For someone who is slipping in the polls, gaffes like these just feed the beast. Better hope the Nixon comparison doesn't stick, Americans do not want to vote for Nixon or Bush again, but then, that is the best Conservatives can give us.
My comment is not as dumb as "Now we all know that the only thing lower than being compared to GW Bush is to be compared to Nixon."
Polls are irrelevant. If you don't like today's, wait a couple of weeks.
Some people might say this isn't about electing Bush or Nixon, it's more like reelecting Carter/electing Reagan.
Polls seem to be relevant to Romney since he is reacting instead of acting.
Not some people, just Foxnews watching Consrrvatives, the ones who are responsible for giving us Nixon and Bush, two low water marks in Presidential history. Funny how much Romney has in comparison with Nixon with all of his lying and cheating. Americans don't look fondly on supposed leaders who cheat and lie.... Or hide their taxes.
You want to talk low water marks? These three low water marks were brought to you by liberals!
Lyndon B. Johnson, lied to the American people about the alleged North Vietnamese attacks on the Turner Joy which directly lead to the huge increase in combat personnel and the widening of the Vietnam War. He continued to support the corrupt South Vietnamese government and officials even as our young troops were fighting and dying.
Jimmy Carter, whose failed foreign policies resulted in the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and our hostages being held for 444 days. Had he been reelected, our hostages would have been held for much longer. Generally recognized as the worst US President of the 20th Century.
What about Mr. Obama's poster boy for his reelection campaign, Bill Clinton? He cheated on his wife and lied to the American people about it. Of course, being a liberal he was given a pass and all was forgiven.
Your opinion is noted. So is my disagreement with it.
The Vietnam war was a lie promoted by our government and perpetuated by both parties. So why blame Johnson? Congress has the power to declare war, not the president. Besides, Eisenhower warned us, and everyone still played along.
Oh yeah, the Clinton deal, I love the feigned indignation from the right on that one. Who cares if he cheated on his wife, and it wasn't any of our business in the first place,
The Europeans were laughing at us because of the rights uptight phoney puritanical ethic. In Europe they see it as a sign of virility and manliness if a leader is able to have msteresses. Just look at Burlisconni, he was flaunting his womanizing and kept getting reflected.
And you are correct, he was given a pass because he is a liberal. Not like Senator Vitter, no pass for the hooker chaser! LMAO!,!!!
Stick around Bull, I love reading your feeble postings, it makes me laugh!!! I love the way you guys are able to feign at the drop of a hat. You Consevatives are such drama queens, it cracks me up to think you were in the service. LOL!!!
Two quotes from 44Magnum:
"I watch the news on the various networks. I don't watch the political pundits."
"[W]hat I watch and when I watch is none of your business"
It's like someone saying the just bought a brand new car and then when asked to see, they say what I drive is none of your business. Almost, Bull153isean hypocrisy there .. almost.
This is just absolute comedy! I never knew asking someone to clarify which TV shows they actually watch was such a controversial/offensive topic. Then again, I guess I would be pretty upset too if I just got busted making things up.
"Why blame Johnson?" - Easy! Eisenhower wanted nothing to do with Vietnam after the mess in Korea. JFK had taken a cautious approach to Vietnam, limiting US involvement to military advisors and military aid. But Johnson created a fictitious attack on two US destroyers in order to get Congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized Johnson to use US Forces in Vietnam. He flat out lied, and we saw what happened.
Johnson's Escalation of the Vietnam War - Bill Moyer/PBS - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/112...
"What we won when all of our people united must not be lost in suspicion and distrust and selfishness and politics. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as president." - Lyndon Baines Johnson
As for Clinton, the American people cared, and it boils down to the integrity of the office of the President. You know, integrity. You mentioned Burlusconi, it wasn't until his third term that his misconduct and integrity were questioned. He resigned before that third term ended.
The Berlusconi sex scandal explained - http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/...
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. It was because he lied about it. There's that pesky integrity thing again. You know, integrity.
"TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 24, 2012 at 16:35 PM - How can we "Trust" someone who comes up short of lying but does distort the truth.... No integrity, no principles, just "tell me what you want to hear, and I will say it."
"TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 04, 2012 at 17:38 PM - Actions don't seem to line up with the words. Where is the credibility and the integrity?"
"TheSovereign commented on Saturday, May 12, 2012 at 16:51 PM - So how is he bringing socialism? "We do not want a President who goes around for appologizing[sic] for our Nation" - its called integrity. If you are to lead, you need to have it."
"Character is a journey, not a destination." - William Jefferson Clinton
Odd that someone who follows the party of Nixon, Bush, and now Romney would want to speak of integrity. It is obvious that lying and dirty tricks, fabrications, and not meaning what they say shows integrity to you, I was raised to have higher standards than that. Too bad for you.
Bull153' hypocrisy seems to be limitless. Honestly, I don't understand how EVERYTHING someone posts can be hypocritical. Amazing how Bull153 can so easily criticize past democrats for lies, yet, seems to have zero problem defending Paul Ryan's pile of lies.
I think the people who justify the lies are more a part of the problem then the actual liars.
Is this the best you can do? When you can't defend yourself, attack the opposition.
It is even more odd and downright disingenious to make false accusations when you can't defend what you yourself have posted. You're the one who brought up integrity, and you now have a double standard. You condemn conservatives, yet don't condemn the same behavior from liberals.
" Americans don't look fondly on supposed leaders who cheat and lie.... " (Unless they are not conservatives)
What is that called again? Right...hypocrisy!
I tired looking back at the comment history here for the blogs and news for TheSovereign comments from the 1960's. Unfortunately, the internet was not yet invented. Similar thing with Clinton's term only the Bulletin seems to have not yet put their website together.
Also Bull153, how childish is your defense? It's a "well he did it too!" argument usually made by five year olds. Why not defend your opinions with objective fact rather than relativistic moralities?
I do also find it ironic that you are preaching integrity after your long history of bending the truth. Again, another Bull153 post, another pile of hypocrisy.
It does make me laugh; in trying to defend his "facts" Bull153 shows us all just how his positions are void of any real substance and are nothing more then the ranting of pure prejudice.
"He did it too" is the Consevative motto. I never expect more from them, and I am never let down.
It would be hypocrisy if I was promoting the Democractic Partys cause, which I am not.
If you are a Conservative, you have no integrity. It is what it is.
The topic of this blog is the Manteca Bulletin's HEAVY GOP bias and somehow Bull153 seems to think it's about him. I think I might know what it going on here: Bull153 is suggesting that the MB is not biased because it is clearly not as biased or prejudice as he.
I still must dissagree with Bull1
The topic of this blog is the Manteca Bulletin's HEAVY GOP bias and somehow Bull153 seems to think it's about him. I think I might know what it going on here: Bull153 is suggesting that the MB is not biased because it is clearly not as biased or prejudice as he.
I still must disagree with Bull153. Even though is his prejudice and biased, the Bulletin is still just as wrong.
I favor having much more conservative opinion printed in the MB. I find the MB's conservative coverage to be on the light side. Sometimes you just have to take what you can get.
Today, the Bulletin printed a piece on Republican candidate Kristin Olsen. Where is the Bulletin's piece on her opponent Christopher Mateo?? I doubt the Bulletin will EVER run one. Just the same as the Bulletin runs adds, articles and almost ANYTHING for Jeff Denham, yet, runs next to noting on Jose Hernandez.
The EXTREME bias of Dennis Wyatt and the Bulletin is disgusting to say the least.
Another day, another GOP advertisement masquerading as news at the Bulletin.
This "article" reads far, far more like a political advertisement than anything. Sad and pathetic to see such obvious bias.
Here is todays' GO article in the Bulletin:
How many more FREE ADVERTISEMENTS will Jeff Dunham be getting from the Bulletin??
...And never a word was spoken concerning the enormity of the pathetic and obvious liberal media bias on a national level. We will just all close our eyes and pretend it's not there. Wink, wink. Nod, nod.
Why complain about a rubber raft when you can complain about an aircraft carrier?
So Friendo, you AGREE that Dennis Wyatt is incredibly biased. Thanks for that voice of support.
Unsurprisingly, the Manteca Bulletin has given ZERO coverage to Jose Hernandez. I wonder why ...
Sad to see Jason Campbell stoop to Dennis Wyatt's low example of objective journalism. Getting a response on the debates from JUST the Manteca Tea Party is in no way helpful, objective, or, representative of Manteca. It is ONLY representative of that particular group and yet another example of the Bulletin's extreme favoritism toward that group.
I'm quote disappointed see someone who had potential like Jason Campbell try and imitate the biased style of Dennis Wyatt.
Today, the Bulletin profiled GOP candidate Ricky Gill http://www.mantecabulletin.com/sectio.... So far, the Bulletin has run NUMEROUS "articles" about GOP candidates without ANY similar articles for Democrats Jose Hernandez and Jerry McNerney.
The EXTREME bias of the Bulletin should be extremely obvious. Dennis Wyatt should be ashamed as it seems the Bulletin is just trying to be a mouthpiece for the local GOP interests rather than a real newspaper.
At what point does the Bulletin's "articles" get considered to be free advertisements?
No Hoffman I don't think Dennis Wyatt is incredibly biased. I think Dennis is very fair to everyone. Somethings are just not newsworthy.
Todays example is a column in the Bulletin titled "Axis of Liberalism: Re-elect Obama" This one is great because it is so politically biased it uses a Hitler reference!
I'll stop this whole column the second Dennis Wyatt prints a column that is positive about a Democrat or negative about a republican for something other than being a "RINO." So far, he hasn't printed a single one ...
Todays MAnteca Bulletin BIASED articles:
"Obama: Playing the liar card"
"Hell is paved with Obama’s intentions"
Hey Hoff, It's not BIASED when it's true. U jus gunna haff ta deel wit it.
Here is something positive about democrats...I am positive that Obama the Liar in Chief will not be reelected.
Thanks for illustrating the problem Frendo. You - like many people apparently - can't seem to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
Just how sure are you of your assertion there Friendo? And is that whole election taking place in your imagination with imaginary rules, or, are you talking about the real election with an electoral college? I would appreciate you clarifying your rhetoric.
Hoffy, It's not rhetoric when it's true. Obama is history. The security failure at the US Embassy in Libya was the final nail in the coffin coupled of course with the regular amount of constant presidential ineptitude and deception.
Oh, so you are basing this on what exactly? Obviously not poll data or electoral college projections. Could you elaborate on how this is "true" and not just a baseless opinion of yours?
You do know we have an electoral college right? Do you know how it works?
I've also decided to call Frendo "Wilma" since he can't seem to use the given names here.
What do you say Wilma? Do you know how the Electoral college works? Do you know how many electoral votes it takes to win? How many would you say Obama has verus Romney?
No, Pebbles, me don't no nuttin bout no electric college. Is affirmative action used by the electric college to allow unqualified applicants acceptance there?
Funny how MB advertiser Jeff Denham get a "news" article written about anything he does, yet, his opponent Jose Hernandez gets no such treatment from the Bulletin. Heck, the Bulletin will hardly even mentions Hernandez's name or that Denham even has competition! The bias of the Bulletin is obvious and a disgusting example of unethical journalism.
"Denham speaks on veterans issues today at Ripon VFW"
Sacramento's FOX 40 interviewed Mr. Denham during the morning news today and let him correct and then shred Mr Hernandez's campaign lies to pieces. It was good television and fun to watch. You would have liked it Hoffy.
Maybe you think FOX 40 is biased as well.
Best quote of the night, "Gov. Romney, we don't have horses or bayonets either, we got these things they call Aircraft Carriers where planes land on them and we got these ships that go under water, Nuclear Submarines, this isn't a game of "Battleship" where we count each others ships Governor..".......The Real Commander-In-Chief....Barack Obama .....I love it when I wake up and Barack Obama is STILL PRESIDENT!!!
The best quote of the night was from Mitt Romney: "Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East..."
By the way, our present Commander-in-Chief missed the point. We do in fact have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but we also still use bayonets and horses. Every Marine and Soldier is issued an M9 bayonet as part of their basic equipment issue. All USAF Security Police personnel assigned to air base defense are issued the bayonet. Besides the various ceremonial units in Washington DC, near Ft. Bragg a unit of horses is used to help train US Special Forces deploying to Afghanistan where horseback is often the only mode of transport.
Spero News editor Martin Barillas had this to say about Mr. Obama's comment to Mr. Romney: "Obama's quip was true enough and certainly would have made points among high school sophomores. But he did not indicate clearly how he will deal with China, aside from talk about "pressure" and engagement... Obama's dismissiveness may have won some points with his followers, and he still might pull off this election. But Obama should bear in mind that witty remarks such as his are lost in a world increasingly violent and unpredictable. Unfortunately, his words will not be as persuasive with China - or Iran - as the point of a bayonet."
Well said, Mr. Barillas!
Noce copy and paste job there Bull153! Odd how you seem to have forgotten to apologize for your hateful and insulting comments posted several weeks ago.
One would think it would be the moral and mature thing to apologize instead of hiding out for over two weeks pretending it never happend and hoping the community forgets your transgressions.
Hello Bull153, It is interesting that Romney does not hold himself to the same standards that he sets for President Obama. If "attacking" the other candidate "is not an agenda" or "is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East", then how are Romney's OWN attacks and criticisms (the "apology tour" dig) of the President seen as furthering productive discussion? I was amazed, during the third debate, at how much Romney seemed to mirror Obama's positions and foreign policies but with the caveat of the boastful 'I would have done it faster and better'. Especially surprising was Romney's apparent turnabout to now embrace the 2014 concrete timeline for leaving Afghanistan, when a few months and even mere WEEKS ago, both Romney and Ryan were criticizing this policy as dangerously telegraphing our moves to the enemy ("the Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars", to paraphrase Romney). But now Romney sounded almost as emphatic about the ending timetable as Vice President Joe Biden did during his debate. Incredible!
By the way, (another favorite Romney phrase from debate night),it is YOU, not the President, who missed the point with the horses and bayonets comment. He DID NOT claim that we had NO bayonets or horses in the military, merely LESS than in 1919. This was to underscore the fact that the military and technologies are constantly evolving and military might or readiness should not be judged on simply the number of navy ships that we currently have. His point was well-taken and effective, in my opinion. It was not to denigrate the use of horses or bayonets by our military forces, but to demonstrate the shift in weaponry and support equipment. You and the dismissive Mr. Barillas obviously disagree with me. Mr. Barillas' last statement, "Unfortunately, his words will not be as persuasive with China - or Iran - as the point of a bayonet" seem to me a perfect example of "saber rattling" and echo the earlier (pre- third debate) foreign policy stance of Romney that President Obama cautioned against. Sincerely, Karen
Wrong Fredo Baca. Obama didn't say 'we don't have horses or bayonets either' Another MYSTAKE Fredo...You got the quote wrong...But look on the bright side Fredo Baca, You are smart and you can do things...You can cast your vote for a proven FAILURE.
Wilma, your mocking technicalities rather than commenting on ideas goes more to show your lack of substance than LarryBacca's.
Here is the full quote:
"You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.It's not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'"
What's far more important than bayonets, binders, and big bird is the point made by Mr. Barillas... What is the current President's plan in using all that technology he mentioned?
The sad fact is that he has no plan, his foreign policy has been a failure and continues to be so. Mr. Obama can only spike the ball for the killing of Bin Laden so many times. What the American people want to know is WWBD? (what would Barak do?) There is a lack of trust of the US Government. Iran continues to be a threat. Terrorists continue their attacks on the US and Mr. Obama can't even keep his story line straight. Four Americans are dead in Libya and more than a month later NO ONE in the current administration can tell the American people what happened and why it happened. That is far more shameful of this president than his condescending snide remarks about bayonets to Mr. Romney.
Hello Bull153, If Obama's foreign policy "has been a failure" according to you and Romney, why did Romney parrot Obama's policies and stances in the third debate? As far as Libya, it is being investigated and we can make judgments when we have ALL the facts. It is not so much "keeping his story line straight" as learning and confirming shifting impressions and intelligence as it becomes available. In a complex situation, we can not nor should expect instant explanations that are set in stone. Sincerely, Karen
Bull, can you explain why Willard has done a complete 180 on just about everything he said BEFORE the debates?
For example, he said time and time again that announcing a timeline for leaving Afghanistan was "Dangerous to our troops", yet in the last debate he said we would leave on that same date. Please answer that one then we can move on to the others, there are many as you know.
KarenPearsall wrote "In a complex situation, we can not nor should expect instant explanations that are set in stone."...especially if forthcoming factual explanations involving situational events were not cleverly manipulated by the current administration and were made public before the presidential election and would only serve to prevent obama from being reelected.
Hello Frendo, Please enlighten us more with your imagined conspiracy theories. It appears that no matter what the eventual explanation, you are determined to see it as some vast government manipulation or cover-up. The sad unescapable fact is that four Americans are dead, whether from a planned terroist attack or an out of control protest. Second guessing or arm-chair quarterbacking is always easier than making decisions or ferreting out accurate information in the heat of the moment. Sincerely, Karen
Hello KarenPearsall, Do you know what is even easier and more politically motivated than second guessing and arm chair quarterbacking the Benghazi attack? It's the I support Obama and therefore will bury my head in the sand approach because the facts currently known regarding the attack have become an Inconvenient Truth just prior to Obama's false HOPE for reelection.
If you wish to disregard the White House malfeasance that contributed to the deaths of four americans that's your choice. One's suspension of judgment concerning the implausibility of the contrived White House narratives concerning the Benghazi attack only serve to politically polarize an already divided nation.
Hello Friendo, I was wondering about your take on the 9-11 attacks. Do you hold President Bush accountable for failing to protect over 3,000 American citizens as well as visitors on U.S. soil? There were warnings about very plausible threats at that time, too. Yet I do not think that Bush could have accurately foreseen the attacks on the World Trade center, Pentagon, and Flight 93 (not sure of the number). But you attribute the Bengahazi attack to President Obama's supposed "malfeasance". It is not the SUSPENSION of judgment that serves to "politically polarize an already divided nation", but rather the EAGERNESS of partisan pundits to ascribe nefarious motives and murky conspiracy theories to a tragic event. Americans should be united in their resolve to stand up for our ideals and not be cowed down by terrorist acts of any means, rather than be obsessed with blame games and trying to second guess or even make up who knew exactly what exactly when. Uncollaberated reports and unsubstaniated claims can not be taken at face value until they recieve the scrutiny and due diligence they require. Sincerely, Karen
No one is giving the "straight" answer because most of the details are CLASSIFIED as we found out when Rep Issa accidentally let most of the cat out of the bag before being reeled in.
It's especially pathetic since national security used to be the supposed GOP strength ...
Karen, Fredo is still working on the Trade Center failure. Like Willard he will probably do a 180 about now...:-)
Mr. Romney may share my opinion of Mr. Obama's foreign policy failures, but I am not championing him nor can I explain his debate performance...you'll have to ask him.
I don't want all the facts... it may take a long time to get all the facts. What I do want and expect from our president is the truth. That was sadly lacking from day one. The American people would have been satisfied with a statement from Mr. Obama to the effect of "This was a terrible tragedy and we are investigating. We don't know at this time who is responsible but like any potential terrorist attack or hostile action against Americans, we will bring to justice those who committed these horrible actions." That is far more presidential than a generic statement on terrorism followed by days of claims by senior Obama staff blaming an internet video when it was well known at the time (by subsequent news reports) that there was NO protest and it was in fact an attack. So many untruths have been told that it is no wonder no one in the current administration can keep the story straight.
I will tell you what I just told Karen... I am not championing Mr. Romney nor can I explain his debate performance...you'll have to ask him.
Hello Bull153, I did not claim that you were "championing" Romney, only that I found it curious that you (and Romney) take Obama to task for his supposed foreign policy ineptitude when, during the third debate, Romney MIRRORED the majority of President Obama's decisions and foreign policy stances (except for the boastful, I'd do it better, faster, more effectively, spin). I just think it is amazing that someone can criticize another person while simultaneously co-opting the very same positions and ideas. It was like Romney was trying to outdo Jesus for the "Prince of Peace" title in his new-found love of diplomatic solutions and apparent sheathing of his saber (to be rattled at a later date?).
You say that you don't want all the facts. That is unfortunate because all the facts present the truest picture. When you don't have "all the facts", you get "what seems to be at the time", which often turns out to be inaccurate. So, we were told information thought to be correct at that particular time, even though there were con*flicting accounts that hadn't been verified. It appears that what we NOW know, that has been confirmed up to this point, is that the attack was not related to the video but was a planned terrorist attack. The saddest part is that no matter which scenario is accepted, four Americans tragically lost their lives. The REAL question is whether security was willfully insufficient and if this administration had confirmed intelligence that a definite attack on this compound was imminent. This part of the investigation is still ongoing. Unlike you, I am VERY interested in hearing and learning about ALL the facts before I make any final judgments. Sincerely, Karen
Bull153 has NEVER wanted "all the facts," he only cares about his unwavering bias. I have said as much before; he seems to be agreeing with me now.
Further to my above point; has Bull153 yet said his insulting comments directed at another poster here was outrageously wrong? If he has, I haven't seen it.
I never said you claimed I was championing Mr. Romney, I simply wanted it clearly understood that I was not. I've been accused on more than one occasion of supposedly knowing what others think or why they do certain things. I simply wanted to clarify that I am not clairvoyant as well. There are enough people here putting words in my mouth, I don't want it to appear that you were.
I think anyone running for this nation's highest office needs to comprehend there are times when diplomacy is required and time when the saber is more effective. In my humble opinion Mr. Obama has not learned this valuable and necessary trait.
Regarding the Libyan incident, once again I misspoke. It should be obvious to anyone with more than two working brain cells that of course I (along with every American) wants the facts. I am willing to wait for a full and proper investigation. But as I pointed out, it is OK to admit it when you don't have the facts and are willing to wait for a full explanation. One should still provide a reasoned and objective response based on what is known. As you have pointed out so well, there are many questions yet unanswered. One thing is for certain... Mr. Obama failed miserably in his initial handling of this incident by being deceptive in what was being reported not only by his staff, but in his own pronouncements. There doesn't need to be an investigation of that, it has become unfortunately very clear already.
"I am willing to wait for a full and proper investigation."
"There doesn't need to be an investigation"
Which is it Mr. Double Talk??? No wonder you champion Mr. Romney; you two must have the same double-talk decoder ring!
Second: "Anyone running for this nation's highest office needs to comprehend there are times when diplomacy is required and time when the saber is more effective. In my humble opinion Mr. Obama has not learned this valuable and necessary trait."
And you are telling me Romney has these qualities? Could you elaborate?
And third: The words I WISH I could put in your mouth is a ernest apology for your vulgar and rude comments you posted before your sabbatical of forgetfulness. Thanks though for proving me right when I said your over in*flated ego would prevent you from ever apologizing for your classless comments.
Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Thursday, Oct 04, 2012 at 17:37 PM:
"You know it's a sad day when you have to insult the person to get a response to what I said...I guess that works though, just call Bull a coward and he'll actually respond. Yes I said what I said in hopes that Bull would get mad and actually respond and keep the discussion going, so I don't mind that he said stfu just like I did or called me ignorant. Thought I'd make that clear,..."
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." - George Bernard Shaw
I figured you would display the moral cowardice you always have and avoid owning up for your horrible comments. Thanks again for proving me right.
Also, I like how you completely ignored my other two points about your hypocrisy/double-talk. Are you just saying I'm right there too?
Please stop with the bigoted double-speak.
The next time you come up with something you think is humorous that you want to share - don't...
Your lame attempt to insult me to make me mad like Capitalists_Nightmare did isn't going to work. You aren't nearly half the man he is.
"Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity." - Spider Robinson
Like I said Bull153 - you again lack the courage to take responsibility for your actions. Again, thanks for proving me right.
I do think it is funny how Bull153's double talk and hypocrisy is almost the same brand as the Ryan/Romney ticket he champions.
"People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous." - Moliere
Congratulations, you've accomplished both!
Hello Bull153, Thank you for clarifying your "not championing Romney" remark. It's good to be understood for our real intentions and opinions, not for accidental or inadvertent misstatements. When you tie "not championing him" with your perplexity over his debate performance ("you'll have to ask him"), it appears that you are linking the two. I only brought up Romney's debate stances, not if you supported him. Now we are clear. However, when you admitted that you "misspoke" when you stated, "I don't want all the facts", that should have been sufficient. But instead of leaving well enough alone, you felt compelled to add the insulting, "It should be obvious to anyone with more than two working brain cells that of course I (along with every American) wants the facts." It was YOU who misspoke, I took you at your WORDS. Please don't ridicule me for believing that you actually mean what you say. That shifts the "blame" to the reader (as in: how could the reader be so stupid as to take your words as a true reflection of your opinion?) when you, as the writer, should assume responsibility and accountability for what YOU ACTUALLY PRINT on this forum. I try to treat you fairly and respectfully, constructively criticizing your opinions or pointing out logical flaws in your arguments, but not getting into an individual's perceived shortcomings. Why retaliate with pointed ridicule?
You say that you "are willing to wait for a full and proper investigation". Again, I'll take you at your word. If this is your TRUE intention, I suggest that you actually do so, rather than offer unsubstantiated accusations (claiming Obama "failed miserably" and was being "deceptive"). I find it astonishing that you, who claim not to be "clairvoyant" and seem to resent being "accused on more than one occasion of supposedly knowing what others think or why they do certain things", continue to fall into the trap of doing the very same thing of which you supposedly want to distance yourself from, by acting as if you have the insider scoop or intimate understanding of President Obama's motivations and actions concerning Libya. The President DID provide "a reasoned and objective response based on what was known". There WERE con*flicting initial reports over what set off the Libya incident, but there were also NUMEROUS violent protests and demonstrations in SEVERAL countries over the video in question. It was not unreasonable to think that this video could have had some impact in the Libya situation. It is now clear that it did not. The initial explantions were mistaken. Why try to make it some devious cover-up plot on President Obama's part? Unlike you, I do not believe that "every American" wants the facts. Some partisan pundits (not you) have shown by their actions and words that they are quite content to let both sly innuendo and overt assertions, no matter how far-fetched and lacking in logic, sway people's minds and emotions. Sincerely, Karen
I'm glad we are clear on Mr. Romney, you are welcome. I apologize for my insensitive remark regarding facts and brain cells. It was not my intent to insult anyone, just to clarify that everyone should want all the facts regarding the Libyan tragedy. I do mean what I say, but as has been pointed out time and time again, the written word is perhaps the worst form of communications since the receiver cannot hear the tone nor see the facial expressions of the speaker. I can't help but believe that if we were having this dialogue over a cup of coffee (or your preferred beverage) at Starbucks, there would have been less misunderstanding on both sides. It seems to me that I am losing the fine art of communication I learned in the service and in law enforcement over the years. I did misspeak, and meant no ridicule towards the readers. For that I am sorry.
Regarding the incident itself, much like the shooting by a Manteca police officer last year, everyone wants answers now and everyone knows what happened... at least if you read the papers, look on the internet, or watch TV. I have an advantage over most folks, in my military career I was involved in anti-terrorist activities, security planning, and working with other US and international agencies. I know a lot about intelligence gathering, threat assessments, contingency planning and the like. While it is very true that I am not privy to the specifics of the Ambassador's murder and the killing of the other Americans, I do feel qualified to render an informed opinion. That is why I am so adamant about the failure of Mr. Obama in the initial stages and am positive Mr. Obama failed miserably in his initial handling of this incident by being deceptive in what was being reported not only by his staff, but in his own pronouncements. In my opinion one of two things had to have occurred. (1) Mr. Obama was not given the information that was available from sources on the ground as the attack occurred which resulted in his misleading statements - or - (2) Mr. Obama was given the information and chose to mislead the nation. Neither is acceptable. Despite Mrs. Clinton's willingness to fall on her sword, the buck stops with the President - as it should.
There does need to be a full investigation on the security needs, requests, plans, and all of the mess surrounding this tragedy. In my opinion enough is now been proven to show that Mr. Obama failed in his initial response to the nation. I'll wait now for the rest of the story.
I a so sick of Bull153 constant double talk. Unlike the Police shooting last year, Bull153 seems to have no problem just GUESSING and then asserting that his baseless opinions are absolute fact. Hypocrite Bull153 still says he needs to wait for the full DA report before condemning the Manteca Police shooting of Ernesto Duenez Jr. byt has no problem condemning Obama with ZERO evidence.
Further odd how he "apologizes" here - well he more or less sarcastically apologies while asserting he was still right - yet, he gives no such apology for his prior horrific comments.
Bull153 is a bully and a coward. It is people like him that are unscrupulous enough to insist on their bigoted opinion being fact that keeps this country from collectively progressing.
The notion that you would claim to be "qualified to render an informed opinion" based on NOTHING but third and fourth hand accounts when you lack a ny security clearance whatsoever and have ZERO confirmed facts almost proves to me that you are NOT AT ALL what you claim to be.
That or just a bigot who throws away years of experience just to make one completely baseless assessment as you have here.
I'm pretty sure you are making up your "credentials" just as much as you are inventing your fantasy tale about Obama.
Just another example of Bull153's tall tales!
In the Manteca shooting, there were two uncontested facts: Mr. Duenez was dead and the Manteca Police officer shot him. I stated that from the beginning. Just like the Manteca shooting, there are two uncontested facts: Four Americans are dead, and Mr. Obama mislead the nation. Both events require a full investigation to determine the whole truth, but you are dead wrong that there is no evidence. One simply needs to review the President's own statements over the two weeks after the Benghazi attack to see that. Just ask the following question: IF in fact the president knew it was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, WHY did he and his top officials including Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice insist for two weeks it was a demonstration in response to a U-Tube video?
Now, kindly explain to all of us your contention that I am a bully and a coward... one simple shred of evidence will suffice. Otherwise it is obvious you are nothing more than a cheap liar trying to instigate a confrontation of unplesantries. Of course, we all know that already from your proven past history.
You know NOTHING about me other than what I have shared here. You are in no position to judge the validity of my credentials or experience, so quit trying.
The only one dealing in tall tales here is you, my friend.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
First, "Mr. Obama mislead the nation" IS NOT A FACT and absolutely not an "uncontested fact!!!" What it is is YOUR OPINION! You fundamentally don't seem to understand the difference between actual FACT and your own blinders to the world brand of bigotry. It is very clear you are being a DISINGENUOUS HYPOCRITE when you say you want a full investigation while at the same time jumping to conclusions. As I said before, it tells me you have ZERO experience with this type of situation in reality, or a re just blinded by bigoted hatred of the President. You tell me which it is.
As for you being a BULLY: Your name-calling here against me is evidence enough, but, also your ignorant comments above as well your insulting, foul language against another poster some weeks ago. You are a COWARD because you REFUSE to take any responsibility for your baseless attacks and also an INTELLECTUAL COWARD for refusing to back your postions with anything other than your baseless conjectures while insisting your opinion is infallible.
It would be a refreshing change of pace Bull153 if you actually said what you mean instead of hypocritically double-talking EVERYTHING as well as deflated your ego a tad and actually joined a discussion rather than railroading it. But, seeing as you can't even apologize - like a man with real morals and conviction would - you are nothing more than a waste of time coward.
First, you fundamentally don't seem to understand that no one else seems to care! To answer your question - neither.
As for your evidence - YOUR name calling started a long, long time ago and has never let up. In one single post, you've accused me of bigotry, being a hypocrite, and hating the President. You've added that I am a bully, ignorant, insulting, foul mouthed, and a coward along with having an excessive ego, being unapologetic, and lacking morals and conviction. Looks like the evidence proves who the bully here really is. That's in addition to your being a cheap liar.
It would be a far more refreshing change of pace if you would stop your hopeless infatuation with me. I mean, I am flattered, but don't you think that most of your posts are about me since the MB allowed you to return from banishment is a bit much? One begs to ask you... IF I am such a 'waste of time' why do you dedicate so much of yours towards me?
Seeing as you can't even write a simple greeting without insulting/mocking, I think my point is obvious.
The main difference between you and I is I know the difference between facts and opinion. You provide an OPINION of me while I provided FACTS - supported with EVIDENCE and EXAMPLES - about your insulting, bigoted behavior that you are CLEARLY UNAPOLOGETIC about. How hard is it to say "sorry?" Apparently for you, it is impossible. Calling me a "cheap liar" for bring up this simple FACT really illustrates how completely disconnected from reality you actually are.
Also, imitation is one of the most sincere forms of flattery. I am flattered that you imitated the style and wording my post almost completely. Unfortunately for you, the "I know you are, but what am I" defense usually does not work for anyone above the age of 3.
Grow up Bull153 and apologize for your hypocrisy and insulting language. Until you do, I'm going to keep remind you of it. You could have EASILY solved this several post ago with a simple apology for your past insulting and rude posts and for your CONSTANT MISSREPRESENTATION of FACTS.
You could have easily just said "sorry," but as I 've said, it is clear you have a major problem with your ego and it seems to prevent you from thinking you are anything other than clairvoyant and 100% correct about everything all the time.
Your OPINION is NOT FACT Bull153! Get over it, grow up and act like an adult instead of a foul-mouthed ignorant child.
Back to the topic of this blog: GOP BIAS.
How do you feel now that the Manteca Tea-Party "Patriots" have been exposed as a partisan group that un-invited Rhodesia Ransom from discussing a non-partisan elected positon because she is a registered Democrat? The "excuse" of it being the fault of the Manteca Republican Women's group does not necessarily help the case that the local tea-party is a non-partisan organization.
Just another set of missrepresentations and distortions from you Bull153.
What is obvious from the lack of comments from anyone else is that they don't care about your one-man campaign on anything I post. As for my greeting, YOU picked your handle, not me. As one of the trilogy of anti-conservative viewpoints, I simply shortened your title to match the others - TheSov, TheBaca, and TheDump. Quite accurate, I'd say.
You ARE a cheap liar. There are no facts supporting my alleged insulting, bigoted behavior. I posted the exact response from the individual you claim I offended. He admitted he started the incident and didn't have an issue with my response - so why do YOU? Talk about disconnected from reality, YOU have changed identities here so often one can hardly keep track. But you are and always will be Hoffman... and as Hoffman you have a record here that far exceeds anything you have ever claimed I've done. I suppose since I've called you out on such things so many times, it is only natural that you would continue to try and keep that pot simmering. You might as well give up... you are simply wasting your time and effort on issues no one else cares about.
Grow up and act like an adult? You'd be better served to take your own advice.
"I can't prove it, but I can say it." - Stephen Colbert
Hello Bull153, I am curious as to why you think it is somehow clever to shorten contributors' names with seemingly little rhyme or reason. I understand shortening TheSovereign to TheSov, but why shorten LarryBaca to TheBaca or crimeriddendump to TheDump? That is like calling me TheKaren or yourself TheBull. That is just strange, in my opinion. I get that you are offended by crimeriddendump's personal insults and accusations, but responding with name-calling ("cheap liar") and your own version of character assassination does little to put you above the fray. I wish BOTH of you would focus on ideas, opinions, and positions, rather than the endless insults you BOTH throw back and forth (and please don't offer the trite "he started it excuse" - that is SO overused!) You sometimes have valuable things to say and share but that is getting lost in your "peeing contest" with crimeriddendump. Sincerely, Karen
Hellocrimeriddendump, You have made some spot-on observations about Bull153's "confusion" between fact and opinion. Along with you, I question his assertion that President Obama misled the nation as an "uncontested fact", when it is clearly only his opinion. You also astutely pointed out that rushing to judgment conf*licts with the claim of wanting to wait for a full investigation. But your well-reasoned criticism is diluted by petty name-calling and insults. You obviously don't like each other, nor is that necessary. However, your posts would be so much more effective, in my opinion, if you concentrated on his flawed logic rather than endlessly bringing up perceived personal shortcomings. Sincerely, Karen
The answer to your query is quite simple... I find the shortened names amusing. There is a reason, in the past all three have teamed up to take me to task for my conservative views. I'd referred to them as the 'Three Stooges' - Larry (LarryBaca), Moe (TheSovereign), and Curly (Crimeriddendump). I stopped because (1) it wasn't funny after the first couple of times and (2) some might find it offensive. I decided that since they still are an anti-conservative trilogy, I'd simply use TheSovereign's handle as a basis and shorten things down. (1) It may still not be funny after the first few times and (2) some may still find it offensive, but in the spirit of satire I choose to continue to use the shortened versions. After all, if satire is good enough for Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, and Stephen Colbert, it's good enough for me.
I would be happy to discuss ideas, positions, and opinions any time. As long as Hoffman continues his unfounded attacks on me, I reserve the right to respond - 'peeing contest' notwithstanding. The ball is in his court, not mine.
As KarenPearsall pointed out, these "unfounded attacks" as you call them are actually "SPOT-ON OBSERVATIONS!!"
Bull153, you fundamentally don't get the difference between FACT and OPINION. That is an unfortunate FACT and one that you have the ability to rectify, but REFUSE to do so. Aslo, KarenPearsall also had a "SPOT-ON OBSERVATION" with you agreeing with me, you REFUSE to take any responsibility for yourself.
Also, I am not "anti-conservative" I am anti-liar and anti-bigot and anti-hypocrite.
Finally Bull153, the "Ball" is not im my court, is is squarely in yours. WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR INSULTING LANGUAGE? WHERE IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MISREPRESENTING FACTS?? I still don't see either Bull153 and that tells me still that you lack the integrity to be taken seriously or treated with any respect.
This is easily curable; just apologize and just pretend like you have scruples.
P.S. Also, you calling me "Hoffman" is also completely unfounded and your "opinion." Please stop or I will "reserve the right to respond" as you say.
I apologize, but, I am so completely frustrated with people like Bull153 who feel they can invent their own facts and reality. It absolutely boggles my mind how a person who claims to have all this military background could be so obtuse on such a basic, elementary school issue.
I don't see how we can even have a discussion until Bull153 fixes his what you call "personal; shortcomings" and I call fundamental misunderstandings of reality.
OK then, MHoffman has ALWAYS falsely accused others of online offenses that are his very own. He twists and distorts the facts and then tags a poster with whom he disagrees as being dishonest, a liar, a bigot and on and on. MHoffman's simple tactic is at best tiresome, juvenile and transparent.
The big secret here is that MHoffman employs this silly tactic because he enjoys confrontation. MHoffman thrives on online confrontation. Take that away from him and he has no interest in true civil online discourse. It's the silly little game playing that he loves. What is extremely amusing is that when his own brand of online poison is directed at him he goes nuckin futz! It's truly comical to read his online meltdowns.
Larry Baca @fredo.com,
Funny how Obamalarkey is all we ever get from Manteca's left wing lunatic fringe.
Your juvenile attack does nothing but prove - again - that you are incapable of anything other than immature, empty rhetoric.
I guess since Bull153 actions - as well as the BIAS of the Bulletin to stay on topic - is completely indefensible, all you have left is your immature attacks.
I've called your lack of class sad and pathetic before; unfortunately, it remains so.
Hoffman, thanks for proving my point. You take my factual comments and distort them by falsely claiming that they are attacks. Hoffman why is it that you are truly unable to engage in civil discourse without resorting to bullying others and distorting facts? Funny how you complain about staying on topic while you freely stray off topic in almost every blog that you participate. Why is that? Why ask for that which you are unwilling to give?
There was NOTHING factual in your prior comment Friendo! Are you saying your baseless characterizations of me are facts? No, they are your OPINIONS!
Did both you and Bull153 skip the same class in 3rd grade where they taught the difference between facts and opinions?
Also, your use of FOUL LANGUAGE is inappropriate for a blog in the "FAMILY CITY." Just yet another example of how both you and Bull153 have an issue with immaturity. I would say you should apologize, but, it has become clear that you/Bull153 only care about yourself and your prejudices.
Hello Friendo, If you took your posting here that starts, "OK then..." and substituted "Friendo" for "Moffman", you would unfortunately have an accurate self-portrait. Many of your postings are sheer sniper tactics where you launch personal attacks then disappear, not really engaging in meaningful debate. You advocate for civil discourse, but seldom ever participate in such. To quote you, "Why is that?" In the few reasoned debates that you DO engage in, you come across as an obviously intelligent, well-informed individual. I may rarely agree with you, but must give you credit for sometimes witty, thought-provoking rebuttals on issues. Yet those are so few and far between. I believe that if you chose to, you could provide some lively debates and provoke enlightening discussions on this forum, rather than merely offering well-constructed insults and personal put-downs. I'm sure "you can do it". Sincerely, Karen
Hello crimeriddendump, You have skillfully made your points. But by allowing yourself to be continually baited and distracted from the issues to engage in insult fests, that detracts from soundness and impact of your arguments. If you stay focused on issues and positions, you are a threat to the ill-informed or illogical. If you succumb to the personal insults and mud slinging, you can be portrayed as just another rant-filled extremist who can be conveniently ignored and your good points are diminished. Why be a willing participant in neutralizing the impact you make? After an intial defense, there comes a time to walk away and refocus on issues that matter. Sincerely, Karen
Hoffman, Karen offered you some excellent advice. Stop the BULLYING. Don't distort FACTS. Simply state your position or disagreement sans personal ATTACKS. Try to control your BIGOTRY. You seem to be fairly intelligent at times yet you fall prey to your emotions and ugly vile untruthful confrontational posts are the result and any intelligent comment from you is lost. You can make your point without always trying to stir the nest. Karen is right, your vile garbage fests brings your soundness of mind into consideration. Gaining control of your online bullying and bigotry would be a great start towards civil discourse. Sincerely Friendo
Where is it in Karen's post to crimeriddendump anything that eludes to the question of "soundness of mind into consideration"?
"soundness and impact of your arguments" is what she said.
I believe those are two different meanings entirely.
If I'm wrong then maybe Karen can point out to me differently.
Your telling crimeriddendump that Karen offered some excellent advice,"which she most definitely did ,I agree" as I also am in agreement with what she offered up to you
"I believe that if you chose to, you could provide some lively debates and provoke enlightening discussions on this forum, rather than merely offering well-constructed insults and personal put-downs"
You can't keep calling out the flaws you observe in crimeriddendumps postings when you yourself are guilty of many of the same kind.
Just as I said Bull153 put himself on shaky ground once he became a participant then so to have you.
Why not take a different tact,follow another road,as Karen said "You Can Do It"
If civil discourse is something you want then be the one to embrace it and set by example.
Hello crimeriddendump, An excellent start, if you think my suggestions have any value for you whatsoever, would be to IGNORE the obvious baiting by Friendo in his latest post where he twists my words to contort to his own distorted interpretation. You are smart enough to see the real meaning behind what I posted. Let this last post from Friendo simply be a reflection of his own inadequacies. Sometimes, failing to rise to the bait and refusing to acknowledge blatant manipulation is more galling to the "fisherman" than any witty comeback you might offer. How sad that we are so off the original topic. These personal name-calling tangents waste readers' time and writers' efforts, in my opinion. Sincerely, Karen
Hello rozemist, I agree with what you wrote. It is very interesting how some choose to "interpret" sentences that should be clear and obvious in their meaning and intent. You are correct, "soundness and impact of your arguments" refers to the arguments, assertions or positions themselves that a person (in this case, crimeriddendump) takes, not to the mental state of one's mind (or supposed impairment thereof). Thank you for your clarification and also for your well-meaning and good advice to Friendo. One can only hope that he carefully considers it, rather than crafting an insulting quip in response. Sincerely, Karen
Hi Rozemist!! Your advice is well taken. The 'soudness of mind' was my bad. Sorry. I was trying to offer Hoffman what I felt was constructive criticism in a form that perhaps only he would appreciate and maybe take to heart and use. You could say that my remarks were customized for him. Yes, I have been a participant but my above comments were not intended to offend but rather to enable Hoff to realize that his online attacks are unproductive. Nowhere in my above comments did I attack Hoff but I did identify some of his problems and sincerely offer up a suggestion to overcome them. I appreciate that others may not see the intention behind my comments and could possibly misunderstand them based upon prior disagreements. But I really do belive that Hoff can stop his online bullying and make a sincere effort to become productive here. If I lack the credibility to state that truth, okay. But remember...Even a broken clock is correct at least twice a day. Nice to hear from you again. Sincerely, Freindo
Hi rozemist! I wanted to let you that know that while I was constucting my above post Karen had crafted and put up two new posts. When I was finished and clicked 'post', my comments appeared directly after Karen's two new posts. In short my response to you was made without reading Karen's two recent responses. Who knows? By the time I post these comments maybe someone else will have also commented. Please disregard the nefarious intent that Karen seems willing to attatch to my remarks made to Hoffman. Karen didn't understand and thats okay. I sincerely explained the intentions behind my comments made to Hoffman in my above response to you so that they would not be convoluted. Sincerely, Friendo
Hello rozemist, Now that Friendo has explained the "sincerity" of his intentions to offer "constructive criticism" and commentary meant only to encourage "productive" posts, we can both hope that he follows his own excellent suggestions to "overcome" problems such as bullying, offensive comments, and unproductive online attacks. That would certainly improve the tenor of the forum. But unfortunately, sometimes offenders only recognize the "problems" in others, never themselves. But we can always remain optimistic that this forum will be more of a place to exchange ideas and perspectives, rather than insults. Sincerely, Karen
Hello rozemist, I did want to concur with Friendo on one thing - it is indeed great to hear from you again. Your voice is a welcome one of thoughtfulness and rationality that adds much to this forum. Sincerely, Karen
I would like to focus on your words that said "I was trying to offer Hoffman what I felt was constructive criticism in a form that perhaps only he would appreciate and maybe take to heart and use. You could say that my remarks were customized for him"
I think that it's obvious by now that crimeriddendump isn't going to take it lightly when you or Bull153 attempt to say your trying to offer him constructive criticism,this is due in part from the history between the three of you ,there is so much bad feelings there that it's impossible for the three of you to communicate without it turning into insults,ridicule,and name calling.And the other point is that all the above still continues almost daily if not every other day.
I don't understand how you on the one hand say you want to offer up some points to crimeriddendump on how to behave online when you yourself are having a hard time re framing from participation in it and often you will direct a post towards crimeriddendump when he hasn't directed one towards you,therefore knowing full well it's going to "stir the nest"
I believe those were your words.
To expect crimeriddendump to stop the very behavior that you often engage in yourself is a double standard at least this is how I see it.
I'm not saying that I approve of any of this type of behavior ,from any forum member I find it distasteful,and all it serves to do is keep us all from discussing the real issues ,and frankly it keeps me at times from even wanting to visit the forum.
I don't mind seeing some passionate discussions going on,sometimes they become very interesting "when they are about a subject of importance" but not when the subject at hand becomes about "who can personally insult another poster the best"
Since it's so painfully obvious that you,crimeriddendump,and Bull153 cannot under any circumstances post to each other without insults why not just ignore one another,wouldn't that be the simplest path?
Or if you feel compelled to make a defensive post that might be directed at you can't you just respond ,hopefully in a respectful,and positive manner then simply "move on" to the subject that does matter.
As long as there are willing participants in this it will continue to be as it is,and it will completely distract everyone who might want to discuss something of real importance because there is no importance ,or value in name calling.
I believe Friendo that you are someone who has things to say about issues that I would like to hear ,that I would probably find very interesting maybe I wouldn't agree with but still that's not important is it,it's always hearing the others point of view that makes the discussions interesting.
It is hopefully that that I will look forward to with your future post ,and I hope you will accept that my post to you on this is offered with good intentions.
It benefits all of us to have civil discourse in the forum.
Latest example of MB Bias:
The Bulletin posting ads for a random student club just because they have 'Republican' in their name.
I have to disagree with your contention that the latest example of bias is because of the word 'Republican'.
The article you reference is not an ad but a news article, just like the news articles the Bulletin has posted for the annual Pumpkin Festival and when the mobile VA Assistance van visited recently to provide help to our local veterans.
You'll note that there was also an article for a free screening by the Modesto Junior College Civic Engagement Project on October 25th for a film: ‘If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front’. I don't think Republicans had a thing to do with that one.
They also had an article back in June for the Modesto Film Society's 2012-2013 kickoff. I didn't see any Republicans involved in that either.
There is little doubt about the conservative nature of the Manteca Bulletin. So what? Fox News is ultra conservative, MSNBC is ultra liberal, the other major news outlets are all liberal to some degree.
What do you hope to accomplish? It is obvious to those readers that the Bulletin is what it is and will likely not change. The management seems to feel the content they deliver is what a majority of the population wants, or they would either have gone out of business or changed. One would think if the Bulletin's content and policies were so egregious, there would be much more of a display of discontent that what you provide. People pay for advertising and obituaries. Subscriptions seem to be sufficient for the paper to continue. So what do you hope to accomplish? If it is public awareness... believe me, we are aware. If it is change, I doubt you'll see that as long as the publisher continues to meet the revenue goals of the paper's owners.
Odd that you say "the publisher continues to meet the revenue goals" when the weekend edition has been cut, the content of the paper has been slimmed down, there is less advertising and less local coverage and more divisive national columns.
It is clear to me you are just an ultra conservative cheerleader and have no interest in objectivity.
Also, to clarify my point, there is a Democratic Women's group in Manteca that meets regularly. They ask the Bulletin to publish their meetings, yet, Dennis Wyatt REFUSES to do so. Why does Dennis Wyatt publish the meeting schedule of a group 30 miles away, yet, won't publish basic local meeting announcements?
I say it is strong political bias that has no place in local news or politics. Unfortunately Bull153, you seem to want to be part of the problem of speeding bias and prejudice rather than a part of the solution.
Crimeriddendump, With respect, it seems to me and it certainly comes across in your comments that you intentionally exaggerate your displeasure for the Bulletin and the publisher by constantly claiming that they are biased solely due to the fact that you politically disagree with them.
Bull153 provided you with two excellent examples where your assertion of Bulletin bias just doesn't hold water.
It is unfortunate that in your response to Bull153 you resorted to name calling and were unable to simply disagree with his opinion. Many readers stop reading at that point and your assertion that the Bulletin refuses to publish the meetings of a Democratic Women's group in Manteca is never read or considered because they just tuned out.
I would also like to point out that due to our unfortunate Obama impacted economy many newspapers throughout the country have opted to slim down and provide subscribers a condensed weekend publication. The good news is that once President Romney is in office, instead of only talk and hype he will take action that will provide results that will nationally allow us once again to receive and enjoy separate saturday and sunday editions.
With Respect, Friendo
Could you provide an example where I engaged in any name-calling in my prior post? Combining that with your unsubstantiated claims about the economy show me that you are not basing your comments on actual facts.
Also, you - and others - have agreed with me in the past about the obvious bias of the Bulletin. Now you are changing your mind. Could you also clarify your double talk on that matter and give a straight answer - is the Bulletin favorably biased toward conservative issues?
Finally, you realize there are three lanes on 205 due to the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I fail to see how that is "only talk and hype" as opposed to action. Could you clarify that point as well? Would we be better off today with only a two lane 205 and how that is not action by the Obama administration?
If the Manteca Bulletin was NOT meeting its revenue, it wouldn't exist. Like many small businesses, there have been cost cutting measures. What does that have to do with the content and bias of the publication?
Why do you insist on continuing the name calling? I am a moderate conservative, I've said that for all the time I've been posting. One might ask with all your bias towards me, where is your objectivity?
You ignore my valid examples of non-biased reporting to repeat your claim that the Bulletin ignores a Democratic group that meets regularly. Where is your proof? Or do we just take your word for it? By the way, there is a section for anyone to post meetings and public announcements in the community section. I checked it out today and anyone can use it. So there is one avenue they could use to publicize their activities in the Bulletin.
You seem to be on a one person campaign against the Bulletin. You ignore my question as to what you are trying to accomplish. You ignore that of the many posters here you seem to be the only one so outraged by the Bulletin's content and policy. Since you won't answer my question, let me make a suggestion.
If the Manteca Bulletin is so biased and you despise its content and the people responsible for it, why don't you simply stop reading it? If there is something on TV I don't like, I change the channel. How about picking up a copy of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat? They also have an on-line edition.
Regarding your response to Friendo, here is a fact:
"It is clear to me you are just an ultra conservative cheerleader and have no interest in objectivity."
While it isn't as insulting as some of your past offensive comments, it still detracts from the positive discourse you claim to want to foster.
While we are on facts, Mr. Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 had nothing to do with the I-205 six lane expansion project. It was funded in FY 2005/2006, construction began in April of 2006, and the expansion opened in May of 2009, only four months after Mr. Obama took office. There may be many things you can credit/blame Mr. Obama for, I-205 having six lanes is not one of them.
"Project was originally programmed for construction in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07. This schedule was accelerated by an AB3090 authorization which provided local funds for construction in FY 2005/06 by advancing $66,327 million in funds."
Began construction: April 2006 Completed: May 2009 (5 months ahead of schedule)
Measure K tax keeps Manteca, SJ moving
Dennis Wyatt November 7, 2010
"Measure K was renewed for 30 years in 2006 with 78 percent of those casting ballots supporting the move."
"Measure K money was responsible for the $90 million plus project to widen Interstate 205 to six lanes years ahead of schedule. SJCOG advanced the state the money to do the project and is getting reimbursed out of Proposition 1B bond sales. It is the same arrangement that made turning the Highway 120 Bypass in the early 1990s into a four-lane freeway several years ahead of state plans."
Top 25 Highway Projects May 2007
5 - Interstate 205 widening Tracy
"I am a moderate conservative, I've said that for all the time I've been posting. "
You can say it all you want, but it simply is not true. Your actions and written words tell a much different story of you. I don't understand why you insist on repeating this lie over and over and over again. A MODERATE would have some liberal views and some conservative views. I have yet to see anything where you have expressed any view other than extreme conservatism. Please point out an example to the contrary if I am mistaken.
Who paid for ALL the work after 2009? Including, but not limited to, the reinforcement of the overpasses, widening of the I-5/I-205 connector, and the new partial cloverleafs for Grant Line Road and Mountain House Parkway????
Read the big green sign next time you drive I-205 try again.
Also, you said "Why do you insist on continuing the name calling?"
Can you give an actual example of my name-calling in the past five posts? Since you seem to feel comfortable speaking for Friendo, could you tell me where he thought I was name-calling?
One more thing Bull153,
You said "How about picking up a copy of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat? They also have an on-line edition."
That sounds like you are trying to get personal and insulting. I find that makes your attempt to chastise me for unspecified "name-calling" incredibly disingenuous and - dare I say - HYPOCRITICAL.
Hello Bull153, When you write: "Regarding your response to Friendo, here is a fact: "It is clear to me you are just an ultra conservative cheerleader and have no interest in objectivity"", that makes it sound like you agree that this statement is true (and is thus a "fact"). The sentence is actually NOT a fact at all, only crimeriddendump's OPINION. It would have been clearer and truer to your intended meaning to say that the FACT is that you (crimeriddendump) stated your OPINION using these words (and then quote the aforementioned sentence). The more precise we can be in our use of language, the less misunderstandng or unintentional humor. Sincerely, Karen
I disagree with your suggesting my evidence based observation regarding Bull153's extreme political stance.
To be fair, I am a registered Republican. I know Democrats who are more conservative than I as well as Republicans who are more liberal. Now, I fail to see how Bull153 can call himself 'moderate' when I can think of a single issue where he is anything other than miles to the right of not only me but most other conservatives as well.
Perhaps his definition of moderate might be different than everyone else's. Who knows.
Hello crimeriddendump, You well know the difference between fact and opinion and have even lectured others about it. You may indeed have empirical evidence which you believe supports your observations about where Bull153 falls on the political spectrum, but it is STILL only your opinion, nonetheless. Just as Bull153's claim that he is a moderate conservative is only his perspective, though he might cite reasons to justify his claim. You may each get some people to agree with your assertions, but they remain OPINIONS. Personally, I don't really care how a person identifies himself politically. Instead, I just focus on words and opinions, not the labels. Sincerely, Karen
I do know the difference. I'm usually one to take empirical evidence as generally. I think your positon is almost equivalent to saying that the Earth going around the Sun is still an OPINION. Also, as a bit of technicality, I never said that my statement regarding Bull153 was a fact, I just said that his statement about being a moderate was simply not true given the evidence of his posting history.
That being said, I'm very willing to retract and correct my statement if Bull153 were to provide a solid example of an instance where he actually displayed anything left of extreme right.
I agree with you about what we should focus on. However, if one peson's 'moderate' is the same thing as another person's 'extreme' that is almost a discussion nonstarter.
I wold very much like to understand what Bull153's definition of a 'moderate conservative' actually is without hyperbole, insults, double-talk or hypocrisy.
You ARE mistaken. I will give you three examples where I have expressed moderate views.
In response to DLangdon on Saturday, Sep 03, 2011 at 23:26 PM:
"I guess you'd have to call me a moderate conservative... I am much like you and much like 44Magnum...
I vote my conscience, I vote for the propositions I believe in no matter who the sponsor is. I vote for the candidate that I believe will do the best for our country and within my beliefs, regardless of party affiliation.
One thing I am tired of hearing is how Social Security is an 'entitlement'. I paid into the system all my life, just like any retirement system. It is not my fault the managers mishandled it, but I darn sure am not 'entitled' to it, it is my retirement that I PAID FOR."
(Note: Extreme conservatives want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare)
Bull153 commented on Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:48 PM @ anthony002...
"I'll be the first one to admit that any talk of impeachment is blatantly ridiculous. Any action against the President is equally absurd. If there are people in the administration that committed something illegal, and not just suffered from bad judgment, then deal with them."
(This was in response to the Republican call for impeaching President Obama over the failed Solyndra loans)
Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:06 PM
"This girl is still a child. There is not enough information posted to really make an informed decision. First, what is the age of majority in Texas - in California it is 18."
(This concerned a Texas family that wanted to force an abortion on their 14 year old daughter who wanted to keep the child. If you read the entire response you can see that I am not a supporter of the extreme right to life proponents)
Now, please retract your erroneous statement.
Your original statement said nothing about "Who paid for ALL the work after 2009?" You said "Finally, you realize there are three lanes on 205 due to the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." and "Would we be better off today with only a two lane 205 and how that is not action by the Obama administration?"
Those statement would lead any reasonable reader to believe you were claiming the ARRA was solely responsible for the I-205 expansion, and we both know from my referenced articles that it is not true.
Each administration provides funding for assisting states with their roadway systems. But claiming that the ARRA was responsible for the I-205 expansion to six lanes is deceptive and simply not true.
You can retract your erroneous statements about this as well.
I have already given you the example, but to refresh your memory here is your 'name-calling':
You said: "It is clear to me you are just an ultra conservative cheerleader and have no interest in objectivity."
I take offense at being called an 'ultra conservative cheerleader' and being accused of having no objectivity.
You also claim I want to 'be part of the problem speeding [sic] bias and prejudice'.
That is even more offensive. I find it very difficult to even try and engage you in a civil discourse when all you want to do is continue your childishness. I cite valid examples and you say I'm a cheerleader. For once I'd like to see you actually answer one of my questions without going off and being insulting.
For example, I have asked several times what do you want to accomplish with your campaign against the Manteca Bulletin? You have yet to offer a reply. Now might be a good time to do so.
Would you have been offended if I'd suggested the San Jose Mercury News or San Mateo News Journal? I think they have on line editions as well.
What makes you think I am trying to get "personal and insulting?" I note that you sure seem awfully sensitive to a simple newspaper's name? Why is that? What makes my comment so hypocritical?
I got that Capitalists_Nightmare's 'finger' reference was about his perception of Mitt Romney's 47% comment. I just wanted him to say so. One would ask then if you read my entire comment, why anyone would believe that I was saying what crimeriddendump said was fact. You want clarity...ok. But at what point does the clarity become ridiculous. There are no stupid people here, I would venture to say (and I also would say that those here have no problem asking when something doesn't make sense to them).
So, I'll try and be more clear, but sometimes we create more issues than we solve by trying to find the ultimate in clarity.
Are you saying that because you didn't want to impeach the President because you don't like him THAT makes you a moderate???? Also, the being against abortions for whoever does not exactly put you in liberal territory either. I'll happily retract my statement once you give me a real answer. What do you think about Obamacare? What about the war in Iraq and Afganistan? What about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? What about Row v Wade.
Again, I would be happy to retract me statement as soon as you show me a moderate view. The three examples you provided are still quite conservative.
P.S. Extreme conservatives want to keep medicare and social security FOR THEMSELVES - current retrievers - and cut off the youth. If you are currently retired and saying you want to keep YOUR social security that is STILL very conservative.
You playing dumb with your newspaper comment shows me that you are nothing but a cynical disingenuous person.
I'm now going to officially take KarenPearsall's position and IGNORE YOU seeing as you seem to not want discussion or honesty, just insults, hostility and lies.
I hope KarenPearsall and others will follow suit to help rid these online forums of your brand of insults and hostility.
I don't think the type of play dumb gothca commenting style is at all productive and takes away from any constructive conversation. You gave great advice earlier to just ignore it. I'm now starting to see the light and agree with you that the only way to discourage this toxic content is to just not engage.
It's also clear that this topic has been completely hijacked and the original topic of the Manteca Bulletin's extreme GOP bias has been lost.
For example: The Bulletin editorial staff does not officially endorse candidates, Yet, by looking at the letters they choose to print and the random bits in Wyatt's columns we can CLEARLY see who the Bulletin favors.
Personally, I don't think that is journalism. It is cheerleading. If you only show the side of the story you agree with, that is not objectivity. Now, I think editorial staffs SHOULD endors candidates. It's a moment of honest reflection. My MAJOR problem with the Bulletin is that they ARE NOT upfront with it, they are insidious and intentionally vague.
Really, I would have far less of a problem with Dennis Wyatt if he just admitted that his politics are shaped by Frank Aquila, David Marks and other local supporters of the fringe right rather than badly pretending that he is not.
You said "That being said, I'm very willing to retract and correct my statement if Bull153 were to provide a solid example of an instance where he actually displayed anything left of extreme right."
I did, and you said "The three examples you provided are still quite conservative." You said 'anything left of extreme right', not 'quite conservative'. I met the burden of proof, retract your statement.
You asked "Can you give an actual example of my name-calling in the past five posts?" I did, and you choose to ignore it.
You said "Finally, you realize there are three lanes on 205 due to the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Then you tried to get around that statement with "Who paid for ALL the work after 2009?" which is NOT what your original comment was. I disproved your statements with factual material and you are silent.
I've asked several times for you to explain what you hope to accomplish with this blog concerning the MB's bias. You have ignored that as well.
You claim your blog has been hijacked, yet all of the items here were instigated by you. You don't want a civil discourse, you want a fight and exchange of unplesantries. Unless you can insult and demean someone, you get no thrill. You are as much at fault for the 'toxic content' as anyone.
I asked why a particular newspaper was offensive to you. You responded "You playing dumb with your newspaper comment shows me that you are nothing but a cynical disingenuous person." You added that you'll now ignore me. I guess it is much easier to ignore someone when they ask the hard questions and disprove your false assertions than it is to actually respond with some 'civil discourse'.
Thank you for reaffirming what I've known from the beginning, and proving to everyone else beyond any doubt what you really and truly are. Please do ignore me, it is so much easier to have a civil conversation with everyone else that way.
More on the topic of this blog: I forgot to mention LarryBacca submitted a letter highly critical of Mitt Romney to the Bulletin. I would be interesting to see if it gets published.
Hellocrimeriddendump, I am interested to see if Larry's letter gets published, as well. I hope so, because it brings up several valid points and an interesting perspective. We shall see. As to your thoughts on newspaper endorsements, I have normally been against them, but I can appreciate the point that you are making that at least the bias is above board that way, rather than subtle favoritism in front page coverage of certain candidates. But I think part of the no endorsement policy is for the Bulletin's financial well-being. It could not very well take Denham's money for his ads (especially the omnipresent online ones) and then back Hernandez. You know money doesn't just talk - it shouts! Sincerely, Karen
I don't think the financial bit is true. I could be wrong - and I didn't loom it up before writing this - but, I recall the Bulletin endorsing Wetherford for mayor.
I think the real reason is that the vast majority of local papers actually focus on local issues. Sometimes I feel like Dennis Wyatt et al. are DISTRACTING from local issues trying to pretend that Manteca does not have some major problems and uses national news hyperbole as the bait. Case in point: when was the last time you read here about the man Who was murdered by a uniformed MPD officer? Now when was the last time you read someone calling Obama a communist?
Regardless, it will be interesting to see the contents of the next few 'opinion' sections.
Hello Bull153, I understand your point about the "ultimate in clarity", but if you really believe that then why did you want Capitialists_Nightmare to elaborate on his 47% reference when you say that you "got" it? That does not seem to be consistent with your statements about over-clarification. But I believeC_N's comments were posted under a different blog. Regardless, if something written is worded obscurely enough to be confusing or misunderstood (which I think your "fact" sentence could be to a reader who didn't follow the previous postings and context), then I think that perhaps more care taken before posting could be beneficial to all concerned. Sincerely, Karen
I asked C_N about the 47% remark for the same reason you asked about my fact comment. Just because I got it doesn't necessarily mean others got it as well. That is all water under the bridge.
"...more care taken before posting could be beneficial to all concerned." is certainly a valid premise, particularly when we still have posters flinging accusations of murder against a Manteca Police officer when there is no proof of murder.
Hello Bull153, I agree with you that crimeriddendump should wait to have all the facts before "flinging accusations of murder against a Manteca Police officer". Just as YOU should also wait until the Libya investigation is completed before "flinging accusations" and innuendo against President Obama for supposedly "misleading" the American public or allegedly botching foreign policy. Consistency in one's argument makes for a stronger position or, going old school, "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." Sincerely, Karen
I disagree with you, Karen. I have already explained that what I have stated is based on fact, NOT innuendo. YOU choose to see it differently, fine.
Just as the two facts are that Mr. Duenez is dead and MPD Officer Moody shot him, we must wait for the DA investigation to determine what charges, if any, are brought against anyone.
There are four dead Americans from the Benghazi attack and our President mislead the nation for two weeks about it being a terrorist attack. This is factual, all you need to do is watch the videos of his speeches and the comments made by Ms. Rice and Mrs. Clinton. What we have to wait for is the investigation to determine who knew what and when. There were photos galore of the President in the situation room of the White House during the Bin Laden operation. We see more photos and a press conference at the NWS by the president before and after Hurricane Sandy. Why isn't there one photo of the situation room with our concerned president issuing orders and handling the crisis? We'll have to wait for... The Rest of The Story.
So, you see, two facts on the shooting, two facts on the Benghazi incident. That seems pretty consistent to me.
Hello Bull153, Your contention that President Obama "mislead (misled) the nation about it being a terrorist attack" is your OPINION, not fact. I take issue with the term "mislead" because it implies deliberate deception (as in "misleading ads"), which you have no real way of knowing. Now, if you want to stress that the President and his administration were WRONG in their initial assessment of the cause or perpetrators of the Libya attack, then I can concede that you are correct. The reasons for the initial confusion, the conf*licting reports, the response time and efforts, are all under proper investigation. The latest that I have read in The Modesto Bee, this past week, is a CIA report that released an under 25 minute time line of CIA security response to distress calls from the U.S. Embassy, rebutting Fox News' claim that the CIA was told to "stand down". I believe we will get a clearer picture as more accurate and pertinent information is examined and released. Sincerely, Karen
We are apparently going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this.
It is a FACT that the nation was misled by the President for two weeks. What is at issue is whether this was deliberate or because of a breakdown within the administration. I say again all one has to do is watch the videos of the President, Ms. Rice, and Mrs. Clinton to see that. It is my OPINION that it was deliberate, Mr. Obama did not want his foreign policy decisions regarding Libya to blow up in his face so close to the election, but the FACT remains that we as a nation were misled.
Why you bring up the CIA response mystifies me. I've made no allegations regarding this, I am willing to wait for the investigation to conclude regarding who knew what and when, who did what and when, and why this tragedy occurred.
But, just as there is no doubt Officer Moody shot Mr. Duenez, there is also no doubt we were misled by the President.
"It is a FACT that the nation was misled by the President for two weeks." - This is not a FACT, this is a Foxnews fabrications. Foxnews and its followers wouldn't know a fact of it jumped up and bit them. Facts get in the way of Conservative political gamesmanship.
I really don't understand how the simple difference between fact and opinion can be so difficult for some to comprehend.
"Facts get in the way of Conservative political gamesmanship."
Did you read the article about GOP leadership pressuring the Congressional Research Institute to suppress a report regarding the lack of evidence of "trickle down" economics?
Crimeriddendump I did see that, and it just furthers the claim that there is nothing transparent about the GOP, they believe in censoring the truth when it gets in the way. As St Ronnie said, "facts are stupid little things."
Hey Moe, you got it wrong!
"Reagan was quoting John Adams' well-known quotation, facts are stubborn things. He certainly knew the correct words--it was a simple misstatement--but it makes a funny quote in its own right."
You want people to give a pass to President Obama and good old funnyman Joe Biden, but you won't extend the courtesy to others. It figues...
Remember this quote from above :
"I'd referred to them as the 'Three Stooges' - Larry (LarryBaca), Moe (TheSovereign), and Curly (Crimeriddendump). I stopped because (1) it wasn't funny after the first couple of times and (2) some might find it offensive. "
Does the author he now suddenly think it is now (1) al l the sudden funny, or (2) no longer offensive? Or, might I suggest (3) the original statement was completely disingenuous.
Just a thought.
"You want people to give a pass to President Obama and good old funnyman Joe Biden, but you won't extend the courtesy to others. It figues..." - there is always a tinge of juvenile tendencies when a grown Conservative is pointing out that you are picking on his movement more than the Liberals. Keep in mind that the Liberals did not crash the economy.... Twice in 70 years.
Hello crimeriddendump, You bring up a valid point with your "three stooges" comment. I will not pretend to decipher why Bull153 suddenly decided to resurrect his "stooges" nicknames, but only note that now, as then, I find the use of such "endearments" to be juvenile, offensive and unnecessary, rather than amusing. That is only my opinion. But it seems to me the most effective response is to ignore such behavior and dismiss it as simply an attention-seeking device. One word of caution, if one is going to express disapproval of certain demeaning tactics or posts, one must be scrupulous in examining one's own posts and purging ones' self of any desire for retaliation. Sometimes, that is difficult to do. Sincerely, Karen
Interesting how now that particular comments seems to be even more commonplace now with that particular poster. Do you feel the be action is to act like these comments just never happened?? Is it the place of anyone - given there is ZERO moderation - to make clear that the community is done with name-calling and insults?
Hellocrimeridendump, Yes, I feel that after pointing out the inconsistency in Bull153's words and actions, as you did, the next best step is to ignore the childish behavior. He is free to amuse himself as he wishes, I suppose, for I believe he is entertaining few others. The scope of his insulting nicknames is more juvenile than vicious. That's why I am now choosing to ignore it and not give him the satisfaction of an outraged response. Frankly, I don't think it merits such. There have been worse insults and name-calling in the past by many posters and, unfortunately, there will probably be more in future postings. I think it is more productive to moderate our own behavior and model the example of what we want this forum to be. That way, the poor behavior of others is a reflection only on them. Sincerely, Karen
Hello crimeriddendump, You're welcome. I wanted to clarify something about "ignoring". I don't intend to never respond to anything Bull153 writes. I meant that I would try to ignore (after the initial pointing out of the problem) the offending part of the post and concentrate my rebuttals on ideas and opinions, not retaliating name-calling and insults. I am not going to "shun" Bull153, just not let myself get constantly distracted by immature nicknames. Sincerely, Karen
I wasn't going to comment on your inputs and Curly's continuing ridiculousness... but what the heck!
Ol' Hoffman just cannot help himself but continue his fervent hatred and attacks on me. He says he is going to ignore me, but Hoffman can't resist. It's like a person on a diet who visits a candy store. As much as Hoffman wants not to partake, when he walks out his face is covered with chocolate.
I changed my mind. That is the simple explanation, and it has nothing to do with being disingenuous. I decided to change my mind not because it is funny, not because some might not find it offensive, and not because my statement was disingenuous. It was simply because it is accurate! These three clowns have been offensive, disingenuous, and downright insulting from the beginning. Who better to represent their slapstick behavior than the Three Stooges?
You may not see the humor, you may not see the accuracy, and you might not approve of 'my poor behavior'. That's OK. I will not include you in my poor behavior because you've never done anything to deserve it. You can ignore as much or as little of my posts as you wish. I will continue to respond responsibly to your questions and comments as they are made.
As for Larry, Curly, and Moe... That's a whole 'nother matinee!
You go, Larry!!! Larry, that's the MOST intelligent thing you've said in a long time! Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!!!
I'm hopeful that the maturity level here will rise significantly after the election. Wait and see I guess ...