Helen Thomas(white house reporter of 57yrs) on Bush Admin

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 29, 2004, 12:50 pm

That's proof huh? You decided to ignore her entire record and pull a sentence that shows nothing of bias. Save that you misinterpreted yet another topic because of your mental midgethood, I'd say all is well in asking why this admin feels they have had something to hide. If anyone was to gauge whether an admin appears to be trying to hide something, someone with Helen Thomas's background and experience is more than credible enough to make that judgement.

Thinking otherwise is pure stupidity. And yes, you are stupid

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 12:59 pm

because somebody agrees with or disagrees with a policy decision does not mean that they are biased.

addionally, remarks at a speaking engagment are completely different than 'reporting' stories.

Also it should be noted, if i am not mistaken, Thomas has been employed as a commentary writer for the last several years, and not as a reporter.

I'm not saying she is or is not biased as a reporter. I honestly don't know. Nobody has produced any criticism of her articles or excerpts from her articles that would support that argument.

it is possible to have a personal opinion on a matter, discuss that at a speaking engagment, and lastly to cover the story in an impartial matter.

ANyway, i googled for about 20 minutes on her, and couldnt find any crackpot right wing web sites slamming her. I found some crackpot left wing websites all fired up about her position against the Iraq war. But again, she is no longer employed (to my knowledge) to *report* on White HOuse affairs. She is employed to *comment* on them.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 1:02 pm

[quote="Voronwë] if you dont have any intention of backing up your position, why do you insist on participating in the conversation with irrelevent statements?[/quote]

You guys are basically doing the same as the IRS who makes a charge and then demands you prove that they are wrong.

You guys choose Helen Thomas as a credible voice, yet you do nothing to address her bias, bias even apparent in the article you reference.

It's not my job to support your claim.

Inaction on your part to defend her objectivity relegates her to the same catagory as a liberal Ann Coulter.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 1:06 pm

BTW It makes no difference if I research this.

It doesn't matter if I present to you gold on a platter, you'll still not change your minds.

Our history on this board has proven that.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 29, 2004, 1:15 pm

One last try. I mean it:

"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to
war.

Simple fact. She's been reporting 57 years and in that time there has not been a President who wanted to go to war until GWB. If you disagree with this please educate me with real facts that prove this is not the case.

Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor.

This is a judgment but a logically correct one. If you agree that "attack them before they attack us" is a worthy philosophy you agree, by extension, that the Japanese were correct in their actions at Pearl Harbour.

"It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause

Feel free to argue with this. The only "journalistic crime" bring committed here, as I see it, is "laying it on a bit thick".

It is very obvious she is not. What is there to prove?

It is NOT at all obvious that's the point. "It's obvious" is about the only argument you ever offer. If you actually apply some brain power you'll realise very little is "obvious".

It doesn't matter if I present to you gold on a platter, you'll still not change your minds.

Our history on this board has proven that.

Bollocks. Support your argument with real proof and I'm sure almost everyone here would listen. I'm disappointed, Adex, that you too have fallen into the old "I give up because you wouldn't listen anyway" bullshit that we hear so often from people losing arguments here.
It's a cop-out.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 1:20 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:BTW It makes no difference if I research this.

It doesn't matter if I present to you gold on a platter, you'll still not change your minds.

Our history on this board has proven that.

I have no specific knowledge of this subject, nor any preconceived opinion. The only interesting information (within this thread) that I have to go by is Voronwe's previous message (which you have ignored thus far).

As a result, I am currently of the opinion that Bush's aids do not believe that he (Bush) thinks on his feet very well. As a result, they do not want a quick witted report (commentator) asking questions that could result in Bush making some inappropriate statement on national television during an election year.

It is not some big secret that Bush is a nimble, witty speaker that can verbally fence with reporters. (NOTE: I have known many people that fit this description and some of them were incredibly bright, so one can not use this observation alone as a criticism of his intelligence)

It is indicative of Bush's shortcomings as a speaker/debater when coupled with other facts such as the fact that the Bush team has refused all public debates with the Democrats.

However, I have not drawn any deeper conclusions on this topic so far.

Incidentally, I have the feeling that Bush is a reasonably bright, LIBERAL man. What bothers me is that as a political public figure, he has repeatedly sided with MUCH more conservative points of view. I find this significantly more distasteful than someone who legitimately is conservative. I will probably not be voting for Bush this November.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 1:34 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:One last try. I mean it:

"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to
war.
Simple fact. She's been reporting 57 years and in that time there has not been a President who wanted to go to war until GWB. If you disagree with this please educate me with real facts that prove this is not the case.

LOL, there it is again. You agree with some ones opinion then demand proof otherwise.

Your opinion is Bush is a war monger who had wet dreams of become president so he could start wars. It's not mine and many others. So please excuse us if we disagree with your belief in some one elses opinion.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 1:38 pm

Ah dammit I'll bite.

Here is a collection of Helen Thomas Quotes over the past few administrations.

Here is a newspaper opinion that better documents a similar sentiment as me. He's got links to her article minus the his commentary as well.

Here is a column that shows Helen's liberal leanings.

Here is an article highlighting her unprofessional pre-madona behavior around the whitehouse.

Here's an opinion columnist that summs up conservative sentiments towards Helen Thomas.

Terry Krepel wrote:
If there is one face that comes to mind when conservatives think of the "liberal media," that would be Helen Thomas, who's been a part of the White House press corps for, well, just about forever.
A CNSNews.com columnist calls her "smug and disrespectful"; a CNS attempt at humor depicts her in "soiled Depends undergarments"; Michelle Malkin attacks her as a "crusty ex-journalist-turned-White House heckler"; WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah called her "this witch ... this tired, old battle ax" and, in a true pot-kettle-black moment, lumped her with "partisan political activists masquerading as objective news professionals" (though he also offered her a job when she left UPI after the Moonies bought it); NewsMax complains about the "astonishingly biased, cynical babble of the bizarre Helen Thomas and her cronies" and her "launching into diatribes at President Bush rather than just asking a question"; The Media Research Center whined that she "harangued" Ari Fleischer, takes one of its many, many whacks at Bill Clinton because he once "effusely praised" Thomas and had a "Media Reality Check" dedicated to her;

Are you sure THIS is the woman you want to use to convince a general audience of something?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 1:47 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Ah dammit I'll bite.

Here is a collection of Helen Thomas Quotes over the past few administrations.

Here is a newspaper opinion that better documents a similar sentiment as me. He's got links to her article minus the his commentary as well.

Here is a column that shows Helen's liberal leanings.

Here is an article highlighting her unprofessional pre-madona behavior around the whitehouse.

Here's an opinion columnist that summs up conservative sentiments towards Helen Thomas.
Terry Krepel wrote:
If there is one face that comes to mind when conservatives think of the "liberal media," that would be Helen Thomas, who's been a part of the White House press corps for, well, just about forever.
A CNSNews.com columnist calls her "smug and disrespectful"; a CNS attempt at humor depicts her in "soiled Depends undergarments"; Michelle Malkin attacks her as a "crusty ex-journalist-turned-White House heckler"; WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah called her "this witch ... this tired, old battle ax" and, in a true pot-kettle-black moment, lumped her with "partisan political activists masquerading as objective news professionals" (though he also offered her a job when she left UPI after the Moonies bought it); NewsMax complains about the "astonishingly biased, cynical babble of the bizarre Helen Thomas and her cronies" and her "launching into diatribes at President Bush rather than just asking a question"; The Media Research Center whined that she "harangued" Ari Fleischer, takes one of its many, many whacks at Bill Clinton because he once "effusely praised" Thomas and had a "Media Reality Check" dedicated to her;

Are you sure THIS is the woman you want to use to convince a general audience of something?

well your second link is a bunch of shit. some guy who doesnt think Christianne Amonpour is a journalist, is simply not fit to comment on the subject. That's like me saying "Tim Duncan isn't a basketball player".

still reading the others =)

from your 3rd link:

In a question-and-answer session after her lecture, Thomas said the transition from objective reporter to opinionated columnist was difficult. She was always liberal but had never allowed her feelings to make their way into her reporting.

"When I turned in my first column my editor said, 'Where's the edge, where's the opinion?' " Thomas said.

i think again, we have to seperate her career as a journalist with her current occupation as a commentator. She may very well have been a liberally biased reporter. I don't know. This link does not shed any light on whether or not that was the case.

She published stories from like 1947-2000 in the capacity as a reporter.

She has certainly given her perspective in interviews on her experiences in the Press Corps. I guess it is a judgement call as to how diplomatically one seperates person opinion about issues in those interviews. But again, those are not her reporting. Perhaps it is drawing too fine a line, but i think it is again a different matter for the only person ever to have the perspective that she does to give some insight on her experience, and some of her personal opinion on the matter, and to suggest she had a political agenda in her news reporting.

and again, i think we still haven't seen any evidence here that her reporting was biased.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 1:49 pm

I love you Adex.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 1:52 pm

Ok, so this is what I have been able to work out:

This woman has served as a reporter in the White House Press Corp for more than 40 years.

In a business filled with infighting and backstabbing in a society that favours "bigger, better, faster, newer", she has managed to attain a certain special status after all these years.

She is famous for asking ackward questions of the "current" administration of the years regardless of which party is in the White House.

Could someone please explain to me why having someone who is inherently skeptical of the White House's policy could possibly be a bad thing?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 1:59 pm

Farmer Arch, drop the naive bullshit.

Read the fucking articles. Acknowledge the fact that no one is as good as they would like people to believe. Republican and Democrat alike.

Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does. Bush has an agenda, all his cronies have an agenda. That Clark asshole has an agenda. Rush has an agenda. Colmes has an agenda. Tim Russert has agenda. Larry King has an agenda. Barbara Walters has an agenda. Bill O'Reilly has an agenda.

Get the fucking point? We all have our agendas. Acknowledge it ! ARGH

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 2:06 pm

I wrote:Could someone please explain to me why having someone who is inherently skeptical of the White House's policy could possibly be a bad thing?

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Farmer Arch, drop the naive bullshit.

Read the fucking articles. Acknowledge the fact that no one is as good as they would like people to believe. Republican and Democrat alike.

Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does. Bush has an agenda, all his cronies have an agenda. That Clark asshole has an agenda. Rush has an agenda. Colmes has an agenda. Tim Russert has agenda. Larry King has an agenda. Barbara Walters has an agenda. Bill O'Reilly has an agenda.

Get the fucking point? We all have our agendas. Acknowledge it ! ARGH

So you can't explain why having a skeptical voice is a bad thing, other than to reinforce my previous suspicion that Bush doesn't want to be put in the ackward position of having to think on his feet in front of the press during an election year because it is well known that he doesn't do that very well.

As to the naive bullshit line, I am pleased that you think that I know everything, but I have been focusing on personal issues of late so I haven't been excercising my omniscence. That combined with my complete disdain for American TV new services (BBC World News for teh win) means that I don't really hear very much about this crap.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 2:07 pm

That combined with my complete disdain for American TV new services (BBC World News for teh win) means that I don't really hear very much about this crap.

i have it piped into my skull, and this is the first i've heard of it too

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 2:10 pm

Voronwë wrote:
That combined with my complete disdain for American TV new services (BBC World News for teh win) means that I don't really hear very much about this crap.
i have it piped into my skull, and this is the first i've heard of it too

Go get a job at the BBC, you loser.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 2:13 pm

archeiron wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
That combined with my complete disdain for American TV new services (BBC World News for teh win) means that I don't really hear very much about this crap.
i have it piped into my skull, and this is the first i've heard of it too
Go get a job at the BBC, you loser.

Join me every wednesday at 11:30GMT for Hardtalk Pakistan!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 29, 2004, 2:55 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does.

Yes, she wants to be able to ask tough questions to this admin like she has been for more years than you have IQ.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 3:05 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does.
Yes, she wants to be able to ask tough questions to this admin like she has been for more years than you have IQ.

This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 3:08 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does.
Yes, she wants to be able to ask tough questions to this admin like she has been for more years than you have IQ.
This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.

LOL! This is the way it is supposed to be! It isn't healthy for all of us to agree with one another all the time. We are supposed to have dissent, differences of opinion, debate, etc. We don't need to be united and marching in step, save that for the Nazis.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » March 29, 2004, 3:10 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.

I understand what you are trying to express, but the liberal lefties would run us over in their Hondas in their rush to surrender.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 29, 2004, 3:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.

Therein lies the problem. This administration doesn't answer the fucking questions they are asked. Or they try to deny or or put some spin on it or just plain lie about it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 3:23 pm

archeiron wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does.
Yes, she wants to be able to ask tough questions to this admin like she has been for more years than you have IQ.
This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.
LOL! This is the way it is supposed to be! It isn't healthy for all of us to agree with one another all the time. We are supposed to have dissent, differences of opinion, debate, etc. We don't need to be united and marching in step, save that for the Nazis.

Of course blind agreement is wrong. But, we are too far apart. We should have dissent and a questioning, but this is far too destructive. Where is our common ground? We were united for like 3 weeks after 9/11. Now, its all gone. It really sucks.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:06 pm

Let me tie some loose ends together before someone puts words in my mouth.

Arch,

Hard questions to a president are fine. Being skeptical is fine and healthy.

Helen Thomas is a liberal.
She has let her liberal opinion taint her questions as a whitehouse reporter.
She has an ego that is unprofessional.

In general audience that includes liberals moderates and conservatives, Helen Thomas is respected by a minority.

If you wish for me to consider the points that Helen raises I have (see previous posts. I addressed them twice in fact)

If you wish for me or anothers that are not liberal to consider your presented arguement, try to quote someone who is more objective.

If you think Helen is the greatest thing since sliced bread more power to you, but know that others don't have a high opinion of her due to her failure to remain neutral in a job that demands it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 29, 2004, 4:24 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Ah dammit I'll bite.

Here is a collection of Helen Thomas Quotes over the past few administrations.

Here is a newspaper opinion that better documents a similar sentiment as me. He's got links to her article minus the his commentary as well.

Here is a column that shows Helen's liberal leanings.

Here is an article highlighting her unprofessional pre-madona behavior around the whitehouse

that's fantastic scooter, but I think it's pretty fucking academic that she is a liberal. now how about some showing that she is a biased journalist like you originally asserted? No? didn't think so.

thanks for the newsmax quote too. real legitimate.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 4:32 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Let me tie some loose ends together before someone puts words in my mouth.

Arch,

Hard questions to a president are fine. Being skeptical is fine and healthy.

Helen Thomas is a liberal.
She has let her liberal opinion taint her questions as a whitehouse reporter.
She has an ego that is unprofessional.

In general audience that includes liberals moderates and conservatives, Helen Thomas is respected by a minority.

...

JESUS TAPPING DANCING FUCKING CHRIST, Adex! What the holy hell does her being liberal have to fucking do with allowing her to ask questions in the White House? Does she have to be good yes-man before she is allowed to ask the question that is prepared in advance for her?

She is now a commentator, she is SUPPOSED to be biased!

p.s. I am still calm, I just thought that the emphasis will draw attention to the post...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:33 pm

Ready carefully Kyo,

There are direct quotes in those articles that highlight examples of her bias.

Enough examples are there that you should consider a more neutral champion of your virtues, if you wish to convince anyone other than a liberal.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:36 pm

Arch, I have no problem with her expressing her liberal opinion in the proper setting.

If she lets that leaning leak through into her whitehouse press room questions she's screwed up.

If she does it again and again she loses crediblity with people like me.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:48 pm

I bumped into another Helen Thomasism

Whitehouse Pressroom Jan 6th,2003

Thomas: “Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.”
Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary: “Well, Helen, I referred specifically to a horrible terrorist attack in Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in a statement yesterday deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people: innocents in Israel.”
Thomas: “The follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?”
Fleischer: “Helen, the question is how to protect Americans and our allies and friends.”
Thomas, interrupting: “They’re not attacking. Have they laid a glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqs [sic] in eleven years?”
Fleischer: “I guess you’ve forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then.”
Thomas: “Is this your revenge? Eleven years of revenge?”
Fleischer: “Now, Helen, I think you know very well that the President’s position is that he wants to avert war and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help for the purpose of averting war.”
Thomas: “Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?”
Fleischer: “The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.”
Thomas: “Does he think they are a threat to us?”
Fleischer: “There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.”
Thomas: “The Iraqi people?”
Fleischer: “The Iraqi people are represented by their government, if there was regime change–”
Thomas: “So they will be vulnerable–”
Fleischer: “Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has no dispute with the people of Iraq. That’s why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There’s no question the people of Iraq–”
Thomas: “That’s a decision for them to make, isn’t it? It’s their country?”
Fleischer: “Uh, Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don’t think that’s been what history has shown. Ron [Fournier of AP]?”
Thomas: “I think many countries don’t have, people don’t have the decision. [pause] Including us.”

I'm sure a liberal likes that kind of banter, but for me its a bit too slanted.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 4:49 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Arch, I have no problem with her expressing her liberal opinion in the proper setting.

If she lets that leaning leak through into her whitehouse press room questions she's screwed up.

If she does it again and again she loses crediblity with people like me.

How is this different from conservative members of the press let that leaning leak through into their whitehouse press room questions?

(Aside from the fact that you are a conservative, so that makes their questions "ok" by you.

)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:52 pm

No, I hold the same standard to both conservative and liberal whitehouse press room reporters.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 4:53 pm

Adex, in 2003 Helen Thomas was working as a commentator (like Limbaugh or Hannity), not a reporter.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 4:56 pm

Voronwë wrote:Adex, in 2003 Helen Thomas was working as a commentator (like Limbaugh or Hannity), not a reporter.

(Added emphasis.)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 4:57 pm

I got my date wrong. Here item 3

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalert ... 0107.asp#3

I attempted to remove the commentary around it and stick with just the transcript.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 5:03 pm

BTW, if she was in the whitehouse press room asking questions just as a liberal commentator then all the more it rescinds her crediblity to the level similar to a liberal considering Rush Limbaugh.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 5:04 pm

Oh my GOD!

Hellen Thomas is Kyocunt?

Maybe she used to be a better reporter back in the day or something. She sounds no better than Kyo and some of the others on this board with her immature, ridiculous questions. Her agenda is so apparent, she should have just prefaced every comment with, "I'm a liberal and I hate you...."

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 5:11 pm

i will repeat what i said i think in my first post, i did laugh at her questions when i watched the briefings w/ Ari a couple years ago. Mostly cause they seemed to be somewhat off the wall on occassion, hehe. But she was like 80, and that's pretty damn old

I thought Ari was actually very polite to her.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 29, 2004, 5:27 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Ready carefully Kyo,

There are direct quotes in those articles that highlight examples of her bias.

HOLY FUCKING JUMPED UP CUNT ARE YOU HONESTLY THIS MUCH OF A GOD DAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE MORON OR ARE YOU PLAYING WITH ME?

WE KNOW SHE'S A LIBERAL YOU ENORMOUS FUCKING MORON. HOLY JESUS FUCKING RAPING VAGINAS IN A CHRISTMAS TREE WE KNOW THIS. GODDAM HOLY FUCKING MOTHER OF SHITTING CUNTS. OH MY FUCKING DIVINE ASS BLEEDING QUEEN OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND PURE IN THE WORLD. JESUS COCK SMOKING SON OF A FUCKING RABID BADGER SHE IS A LIBERAL OKAY WE FUCKING GET IT.

HELEN THOMAS IS A LIBERAL. WE GET IT ALREADY. OH MY FUCKING CHRIST WE GET THAT. WE GET IT.

Now, if you will. Please to be showing us examples of her bias as a journalist. Please?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 5:59 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Ready carefully Kyo,

There are direct quotes in those articles that highlight examples of her bias.
HOLY FUCKING JUMPED UP CUNT ARE YOU HONESTLY THIS MUCH OF A GOD DAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE MORON OR ARE YOU PLAYING WITH ME?

WE KNOW SHE'S A LIBERAL YOU ENORMOUS FUCKING MORON. HOLY JESUS FUCKING RAPING VAGINAS IN A CHRISTMAS TREE WE KNOW THIS. GODDAM HOLY FUCKING MOTHER OF SHITTING CUNTS. OH MY FUCKING DIVINE ASS BLEEDING QUEEN OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND PURE IN THE WORLD. JESUS COCK SMOKING SON OF A FUCKING RABID BADGER SHE IS A LIBERAL OKAY WE FUCKING GET IT.

HELEN THOMAS IS A LIBERAL. WE GET IT ALREADY. OH MY FUCKING CHRIST WE GET THAT. WE GET IT.

Now, if you will. Please to be showing us examples of her bias as a journalist. Please?

Why? Why are you obsessed with this? Her performance with Ari Fleischer isn't enough for you? Then you cannot be reached. Give it the fuck up.

"NO BUT I WANT PROOF OF IT IN HER WRITING. AND THEN IF YOU SHOW ME THAT, I WILL THEN WANT PICTURES OF HER WRITING IT AND MAYBE SOMEONE HOLDING UP A PICTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER SHOWING THE DATE SO I KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. I DON'T LIKE HOW YOU HAVE DISCREDITED HELLEN. ALL YOU DID WAS SHOW SHE ISN'T THIS PERFECT CREATURE, WHO IS UNBIASED, SO NOW I MUST DERAIL THE TRUTH AND DEMAN YOU SHOW ME PROOF OF SOMETHING....ANYTHING!"

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 29, 2004, 6:13 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
"NO BUT I WANT PROOF OF IT IN HER WRITING. AND THEN IF YOU SHOW ME THAT, I WILL THEN WANT PICTURES OF HER WRITING IT AND MAYBE SOMEONE HOLDING UP A PICTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER SHOWING THE DATE SO I KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN.

While I still think you are an idiot, I actually thought this was funny.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 29, 2004, 6:39 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Helen Thomas isn't a fucking impartial journalist who has just worked so hard and innocently asks the tough question no matter who is in office.

She has an agenda, just like every one does.
Yes, she wants to be able to ask tough questions to this admin like she has been for more years than you have IQ.
This administration has been asked every question imaginable. This country is now more split than I have ever seen. I was really hoping this tragedy of 9/11 would unify us, but I am beginning to think nothing short of a full on war on our soil would do so.

As someone who lost two friends and a husband to someone who lost three and someone who was there watching people jump, scream, and die only three blocks north of me on that day, you can fuck off. You know exactly shit and prove it every time you touch a fucking keyboard

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 6:48 pm

Chidoro wrote:
As someone who lost two friends and a husband to someone who lost three that day and someone who was there watching people jump, scream, and die only three blocks north of me, you can fuck off. You know exactly shit and prove it every time you touch a fucking keyboard

How does all that qualify you?

As someone who lost his cat, when it got run over by a drunk driver, am I qualified to comment on drunk driving?

You can fuck off as well Chidoro. I am sorry for your loss. But, because you lost someone it doesn't give you a right to pass judgement.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 29, 2004, 6:57 pm

Another brilliant reply.

Next time you think you're being intelligent, know that you're not and reply w/ your typical uh-huh shit.

Don't even think you can "feel sorry" for my loss. All you need to know if that at least five people who died that day would have hated your moronic ass if they had the means to do so today.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 7:01 pm

Chidoro wrote:Another brilliant reply.

Next time you think you're being intelligent, know that you're not and reply w/ your typical uh-huh shit.

Don't even think you can "feel sorry" for my loss. All you need to know if that at least five people who died that day would have hated your moronic ass if they had the means to do so today.

You deserve a big uh-uh. That's two reply's you have said nothing.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 29, 2004, 8:16 pm

Here is an article highlighting her unprofessional pre-madona behavior around the whitehouse.

Ok, so prior to Madona, she was unprofessional. I assume this must be the singer rather than the religious icon, since old that Hellen is, she isn't that old. When you say pre-Madona, are you talking about before, say "Lucky Star" or did you mean after Madona really hit it big, or maybe you had an even more recent date in mind, like her smash single from the latest Bond flick.

Any way you slice it though, her pre-Madona unprofessionalism doesn't seem relevant to her comments on this Bush White House. Clearly we are living in a post-Madona world.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 30, 2004, 12:27 am

From one of her pieces (that's may of 2000 or 2001):

Often regarded as the dean of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas began writing for United Press International during World War II. After leaving UPI last May, she began writing a political column for Hearst Newspapers. They run on this site twice a week.

A POLITICAL (opinion) column. For people to sit here and act like this is some grave injustice is absurd. Do you ever see who's asking the questions at these briefings? REPORTERS ask the questions for NEWS pieces. It would be ridiculous to allow people like Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter there in the front row blasting away, committed to whatever agenda they have- agendas that obviously aren't reporting the news. Can anyone name me a single other person who sits in the audience and asks question that isn't an actual reporter?

Having said that, what's the point in mentioning all the awards she recieved back when she actually REPORTED? This is such a non issue...

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 30, 2004, 12:41 am

I have no idea who she is or her work, I'd just like to say that yes, I did indeed find that transcript Adex posted between her and Ari as highly entertaining!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 30, 2004, 12:52 am

Brotha wrote:From one of her pieces (that's may of 2000 or 2001):

Often regarded as the dean of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas began writing for United Press International during World War II. After leaving UPI last May, she began writing a political column for Hearst Newspapers. They run on this site twice a week.
A POLITICAL (opinion) column. For people to sit here and act like this is some grave injustice is absurd. Do you ever see who's asking the questions at these briefings? REPORTERS ask the questions for NEWS pieces. It would be ridiculous to allow people like Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter there in the front row blasting away, committed to whatever agenda they have- agendas that obviously aren't reporting the news. Can anyone name me a single other person who sits in the audience and asks question that isn't an actual reporter?

Having said that, what's the point in mentioning all the awards she recieved back when she actually REPORTED? This is such a non issue...

She was accused of journalistic bias in her reportage...With Op Ed bias is a given, it's opinion...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 30, 2004, 1:29 am

You know, the staged questions at those news conferences are so ridiculous I could answer them myself.. goodness forbid some REAL questions were asked! What would Dubya do if he didn't have a pre-written answer??

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 30, 2004, 6:29 am

OK arguing this particular point aside, here's the nub of the problem I have with any political debate relating to US politics on this board:

Whenever ANYONE AT ALL ANYWHERE criticises Bush or the actions of his administration, the right wing automata immediately explain it away as bias. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
It's impossible to discuss anything because we always get drawn into this cycle of bullshit. Issues are not addressed because for some reason the conservatives refuse to give credence to any, and i mean ANY, criticism. "This isn't true it's just liberal media bias blah blah fucking blah".
Just once I'd like to see the issues argued rather than immediate claims of biasomgthereforethesecriticismsarenotvalidomgomgliberals. Just once I'd like to see some Bush supporter accept the POSSIBILITY that the criticism of the administration MAY be because they've fucked up. That there MIGHT JUST be grounds for a tiny bit of criticism. And if you still disagree then lets hear all sides of the issue and, heck, some productive discussion might even take place.
Most of the lefties here are prepared to discuss the issues and the facts. So give up the smokescreen and let's see what you've got, Bush-suckers.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 30, 2004, 6:39 am

LOL, there it is again. You agree with some ones opinion then demand proof otherwise.

Your opinion is Bush is a war monger who had wet dreams of become president so he could start wars. It's not mine and many others. So please excuse us if we disagree with your belief in some one elses opinion

1) No you fucking cretin. To my knowledge (which I admit is not complete or flawless) NO US PRESIDENT OTHER THAN GWB HAS _WANTED_ TO GO TO WAR IN THE LAST 57 YEARS. This is commonly known among humans as a "fact". In my brain, where thoughts live and knowledge is stored, this statement correlates 100% with my knowledge of the subject matter. That = fact. If you have more information that proves this "fact" wrong, then let me know. I will adjust my brain contents accordingly and by a magical process known as "thinking", change my opinion of this statement.
2) I do not believe GWB wanted to become president to start wars. Without 9/11 I think his administration would have been largely unremarkable - just typically republican. However I do believe there are people in his administration who had an axe to grind and were looking for any excuse and they managed to change GWBs thinking after 9/11. I believe this because I think GWB is a bit of a thicky and that his administration is filled with some dangerous people.

But I know this is all a bit complicated so feel free to paint over the issue with a big tin of simpleton, so you feel safer.

As for this journalist. OK she's a liberal. What I really want to hear though, is something about how she gave Democrat administrations an easier ride. Did she or didn't she? Everyone has beliefs and in some professions you have to compartmentalize them to do a good job. Did she succeed? Or did she sit at Clinton's feet swooning with "Love You" written on her fluttering eyelids instead of asking pointed questions like she does to pick on poor lil Georgie?