Bill Clinton Travels To North Korea To Negotiate Release of U.S. Reporters - Page 4

Professor Smarmiarty · 08-05-2009, 03:41 PM

I'm not trying to be a dick here but this

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

I do believe in the moonlanding and I hate conspiracy nuts.

doesn't really go with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

This is just the gov. and media trying to disract us from how poorly their darling Obama is doing. Economy is still getting worse and the unemployment rate has gone up.

We are seeing stories like this and reports on swine-flu to keep us distracted. I have nothing against Obama, he seems sincere, but he doesn't know what he's doing.

Reports on swineflu are to distract from the Obama presidency? That's pretty hardcore conspiracy nut right there.

I'll point out that stories like this and swine-flu are pretty heavily reported in non-American countries as well. Why? Because they are news.

The Sevenshot Kid · 08-05-2009, 03:57 PM

No. I'm saying that they are using misdirection. While we're looking at swineflu and Clinton, we ain't thinking about the economy. This has been done a lot throughout history.

Swine-flu was a bad example. How about all those frivolous reports on John and Kate or Michael Jackson.

Professor Smarmiarty · 08-05-2009, 04:04 PM

What you're saying ( I think), however, is that it is a conscious act of "the media" to protect Obama.
While this has happened in the past with state-controlled media, it really isn't happening here.
Modern media run what sells. And a tanking economy is usually pretty boring news unless there is an actual factory close or some sensational story about ridiculous executive wages. Most news about the economy and its problems is difficult for the average person to understand and boring for them. The economy does not sell papers, disease and scary North Korea do.
And I would hardly say the media loves Obama. The right-wing media certainly doesn't and a lot of the left-wing media savaged him as well. He's hardly a universal media darling.
And the media sources that have shown a clear dislike for Obama are running stories on swine flu and North Korea as well.
It's nonsense to say this is an active attempt by "the media" to protect Obama. It's no such thing, it's called the news business.
The signs of economic failure were clearly pointed out in the reign of Clinton and Bush and the media didn't report it then either. Because the economy is boring and doesn't sell. It is really htat simply.

The Sevenshot Kid · 08-05-2009, 04:10 PM

Good point

They aren't trying to protect him, just keep us blissfully ignorant about certain things but just as a way to keep us happy. I don't think we are are being lied to or being manipulated.

Mesden · 08-05-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

They aren't trying to protect him, just keep us blissfully ignorant about certain things but just as a way to keep us happy. I don't think we are are being lied to or being manipulated.

The first sentence contradicts the second. Firstly, keeping people blissfully ignorant intentionally is a type of manipulation. Secondly, if they are intentionally keeping the masses blissfully ignorant, that'd be lying through omission.

The Sevenshot Kid · 08-05-2009, 04:28 PM

Okay, my phrasing is horrible.

Tev · 08-05-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bells

And to quote Emerson Wild... Irregardless, what truly matters is that Clinton pulled a 007 and did the job his wife couldn't do. Which, considering that everyone got home safe, leaves me comfortable enough to laugh at the overall scenario we got here.

Like I said, that man's my hero. When he opens up the great nation of Clintonia, I'm so moving in. It'll be the most happening place in the world.

TheSparrow · 08-05-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bells

I honestly tempted to ask if you believe in the moon landing...

And to quote Emerson Wild... Irregardless, what truly matters is that Clinton pulled a 007 and did the job his wife couldn't do. Which, considering that everyone got home safe, leaves me comfortable enough to laugh at the overall scenario we got here.

Although, i'm pretty sure something happened backstage to make this come true... it's not really something i would worry about. No nefarious actions here this day.

THIS is relevant

or for those who dont want to read the whole article:

Quote:

Bill Clinton undertook the mission, a senior administration official said, only after the North assured the White House that the reporters would be freed and allowed to return home with the former president.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to detail the back-channel negotiations, also said the north rejected Gore as a suitable emissary. The journalists' families, Gore and the White House then turned to Clinton. The official said President Barack Obama did not speak with Clinton about the mission.

Daniel Sneider, associate director of research at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, said the journalists' release followed weeks of quiet negotiations between the State Department and the North Korean mission to the United Nations.

Clinton "didn't go to negotiate this, he went to reap the fruits of the negotiation," Sneider said.

Bob The Mercenary · 08-05-2009, 08:42 PM

Holy shit...I was right for once in the Discussion forum.

Alright, that's it, world's ending, pack your stuff.

Or more accurately, I was right about one thing, wrong about the other. I was in the camp of people who thought this might have been partially a publicity stunt when in reality it was negotiated over the course of a few weeks.

Magus · 08-06-2009, 01:22 AM

I'm still not sure what we "gave" to North Korea other than the publicity of hosting Bill Clinton (for the worst of reasons, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to reflect well on them, despite what John Bolton and so forth are saying about this "almost [being] negotiating with terrorists", I like the convenient "almost" he put in there to throw us off the track of his total bullshit...)

Anyway, I'm not surprised it was negotiated before-hand.

On the other topic of "what to do about North Korea's fascist policies", I'm not against military action but it has to be unilateral (or multilateral? whichever it is) international action involving all the parties concerned, including, probably most importantly, China and Russia in the decision, otherwise you destabilize everything. Also it should be a last resort, as there are lots of things that haven't been done to put pressure on North Korea that could be done.

Basically, it can't just be America doing everything, because 1. it is very hard for one country to do everything 2. the international community dislikes the destabilizing conditions that come with America doing things on its own without international help/consent and 3. Y'know what? At the end of the day, its unfair to America. Why do we hold ourselves responsible for policing the world? If our allies in the U.N. disagree with a course of action, not only is it reasonable to consider their opinion, it is reasonable to consider the strain it puts on us when we don't have their help, as we didn't in Iraq with a lot of our allies. Not only was it a bad decision, if it hypothetically had been a good decision, we still shouldn't have had to go to war without the aid of other nations.

08-05-2009, 08:42 PM	#39
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	Holy shit...I was right for once in the Discussion forum. Alright, that's it, world's ending, pack your stuff. Or more accurately, I was right about one thing, wrong about the other. I was in the camp of people who thought this might have been partially a publicity stunt when in reality it was negotiated over the course of a few weeks. __________________ Bob Dole

08-06-2009, 01:22 AM	#40
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I'm still not sure what we "gave" to North Korea other than the publicity of hosting Bill Clinton (for the worst of reasons, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to reflect well on them, despite what John Bolton and so forth are saying about this "almost [being] negotiating with terrorists", I like the convenient "almost" he put in there to throw us off the track of his total bullshit...) Anyway, I'm not surprised it was negotiated before-hand. On the other topic of "what to do about North Korea's fascist policies", I'm not against military action but it has to be unilateral (or multilateral? whichever it is) international action involving all the parties concerned, including, probably most importantly, China and Russia in the decision, otherwise you destabilize everything. Also it should be a last resort, as there are lots of things that haven't been done to put pressure on North Korea that could be done. Basically, it can't just be America doing everything, because 1. it is very hard for one country to do everything 2. the international community dislikes the destabilizing conditions that come with America doing things on its own without international help/consent and 3. Y'know what? At the end of the day, its unfair to America. Why do we hold ourselves responsible for policing the world? If our allies in the U.N. disagree with a course of action, not only is it reasonable to consider their opinion, it is reasonable to consider the strain it puts on us when we don't have their help, as we didn't in Iraq with a lot of our allies. Not only was it a bad decision, if it hypothetically had been a good decision, we still shouldn't have had to go to war without the aid of other nations. __________________ The Valiant Review

08-05-2009, 04:04 PM	#33
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	What you're saying ( I think), however, is that it is a conscious act of "the media" to protect Obama. While this has happened in the past with state-controlled media, it really isn't happening here. Modern media run what sells. And a tanking economy is usually pretty boring news unless there is an actual factory close or some sensational story about ridiculous executive wages. Most news about the economy and its problems is difficult for the average person to understand and boring for them. The economy does not sell papers, disease and scary North Korea do. And I would hardly say the media loves Obama. The right-wing media certainly doesn't and a lot of the left-wing media savaged him as well. He's hardly a universal media darling. And the media sources that have shown a clear dislike for Obama are running stories on swine flu and North Korea as well. It's nonsense to say this is an active attempt by "the media" to protect Obama. It's no such thing, it's called the news business. The signs of economic failure were clearly pointed out in the reign of Clinton and Bush and the media didn't report it then either. Because the economy is boring and doesn't sell. It is really htat simply.