Media Didn't Care About Protest Signs Threatening Bush

[Dronetek]

I wanted to share this piece by Newsbusters, showing some of the signs and protesters at anti-war/Bush rallies over the last 8 years. I think we all know the media didn't mind them and certainly wasn't demonizing American citizens in defense of Bush.


A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.


An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.


Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.


Bush being lynched by an American flag at a rally in New York on September 19, 2006.


“Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.


Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.


Remember the guy in our first picture? Here he is again, with another explicit death threat against the president, this time calling for “Death to…Bush” at the October 27, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.


“I’m here to kill Bush (shoot me)” reads this protest sign (location unknown). (Source: I found this image several years ago in an online report about an anti-war protest, but I unfortunately failed to note down where or when the protest happened, and the Web site that originally hosted the report is now defunct.)


“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.



So, when you watch the MSM (like I know some any of you do), take what they say with a grain of salt and remember these same people actually encouraged this type of behavior wen Bush was president.

[Mist425]

Do you think starting a war that killed over 1,000,000 human beings is comparable to pushing for healthcare reform?

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by Mist425

Do you think starting a war that killed over 1,000,000 human beings is comparable to pushing for healthcare reform?

FYI, liberal media outrage at the supposed 'astroturf' protests started before the Health Care debate, back when the bailouts and government-corporate takeovers were occuring. Remember the anti-teabaggers campaign? The CNN interviewer that was fired for being an obviously biased cunt?

Many of these protesters were against Bush's wars and bailouts too.

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by Mist425

Do you think starting a war that killed over 1,000,000 human beings is comparable to pushing for healthcare reform?

#1 The anti-Bush protesters started the day he was inaugurated.
#2: The Iraq war started long before Bush got in to office.
#3: Bush didn't have power to arbitrarily send troops to war.

The point is the left always has some excuse or rationalization for why they should live by a different set of rules. They are always finding ways of changing the rules to suit their needs.

What Obama is doing could possible change this country for the worst and it wont be able to change back. Its much more serious than many of you understand unfortunately.

[Medicine Al]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

#1 The anti-Bush protesters started the day he was inaugurated.
#2: The Iraq war started long before Bush got in to office.
#3: Bush didn't have power to arbitrarily send troops to war.

Which Bush? They both declared war on Iraq!

Obama protests began long before he was even elected. (see birthers)

Bush ordered false evidence from the CIA, and used it to mislead the country, in to wars against combatants who'd done nothing to us.

Bush was using 9-11 as a tool to strip the rights away from citizens faster than you could say Abu Grahib.

And yet, he is free today, and giving us the silent treatment, for which I finally thank him.

For finally shutting up. Just like he did when he tried to look surprised by the news of the attacks on New York and Washington DC, on 9-11-2001.

Ever play poker, with a really bad bluffer? Watch these eyes, and learn the signs of 'I've got nothing'.

YouTube - Bush Reaction When Accused Of Prior...

[UnbyJP]

Originally Posted by Medicine Al

Which Bush? They both declared war on Iraq!

Obama protests began long before he was even elected. (see birthers)

Bush ordered false evidence from the CIA, and used it to mislead the country, in to wars against combatants who'd done nothing to us.

Bush was using 9-11 as a tool to strip the rights away from citizens faster than you could say Abu Grahib.

And yet, he is free today, and giving us the silent treatment, for which I finally thank him.

For finally shutting up. Just like he did when he tried to look surprised by the news of the attacks on New York and Washington DC, on 9-11-2001.

Ever play poker, with a really bad bluffer? Watch these eyes, and learn the signs of 'I've got nothing'.
YouTube - Bush Reaction When Accused Of Prior Knowledge Of 9/11

You mean the 'prior knowledge' that was being obtained throughout Clinton's presidency? And somehow you're willing to believe, on faith alone, that it ain't the same damn people running the show now?!

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by Medicine Al

Bush ordered false evidence from the CIA, and used it to mislead the country, in to wars against combatants who'd done nothing to us.

Bush was using 9-11 as a tool to strip the rights away from citizens faster than you could say Abu Grahib.

And yet, he is free today, and giving us the silent treatment, for which I finally thank him.

For finally shutting up. Just like he did when he tried to look surprised by the news of the attacks on New York and Washington DC, on 9-11-2001.

Sorry, but this is all left wing nonsense. Its no different than the birther nonsense. Bush didn't strip anyone's rights away. You guys still use tat as a scare tactic, as if he still president!

Can you stick to the topic? The way the MSM is so inconsistently reporting protesters?

[MountyBounty]

Originally Posted by Medicine Al

Which Bush? They both declared war on Iraq!

Yes, but you gotta remember between the Bush regimes we had Clinton just bombing the hell out of Iraq with cruise missiles. Of course this is ok to just bomb the shit out of a country as long as we don't send in the troops right?

President Bill Clinton on December 16, 1998:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

The air strikes lasted more than three days. While the Pentagon did not say how many cruise missiles were used, they did admit that more cruise missiles were used in the first two days of this campaign than the 290 that were fired at Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.
This attack marked the third time President Clinton launched air strikes against the country of Iraq. The first attack was launched in response to the 1993 assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush. The second strike came in 1996 to make Saddam “pay a price” for unleashing his army against the northern Kurds. This time, however, it was about the weapons of mass destruction.


Flopping Aces

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by MountyBounty

Yes, but you gotta remember between the Bush regimes we had Clinton just bombing the hell out of Iraq with cruise missiles. Of course this is ok to just bomb the shit out of a country as long as we don't send in the troops right?





The air strikes lasted more than three days. While the Pentagon did not say how many cruise missiles were used, they did admit that more cruise missiles were used in the first two days of this campaign than the 290 that were fired at Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.
This attack marked the third time President Clinton launched air strikes against the country of Iraq. The first attack was launched in response to the 1993 assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush. The second strike came in 1996 to make Saddam “pay a price” for unleashing his army against the northern Kurds. This time, however, it was about the weapons of mass destruction.


Flopping Aces

Its way more than even that. Al Gore was one of the biggest cheer leaders for deposing Saddam. Not only through the 90s, but in the run up to the invasion! Clinton made Regime change in Iraq US policy!

The fact is, Had Al Gore won the election. He would have invaded too. It was inevitable, due to the failed UNSCOM inspections and many other failures. Bush didn't need to lie about anything and people who actually know their history know that.

[Dickie4:20]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Bush didn't strip anyone's rights away. You guys still use tat as a scare tactic, as if he still president!

No, i use it as a fact.

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Bush didn't need to lie about anything and people who actually know their history know that.

Yup, those people who know their history unlike yourself.

It must be hard using your brain when your head is so far up your rectum.

[Medicine Al]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Sorry, but this is all left wing nonsense. Its no different than the birther nonsense. Bush didn't strip anyone's rights away. You guys still use tat as a scare tactic, as if he still president!

Can you stick to the topic? The way the MSM is so inconsistently reporting protesters?

Has Habeus Corpus been re-instated?

Yes, we can hope it can be changed back. Not yet, though eh?

Your point is what? That you don't have a point is obvious, since I've seen all these protest signs before...

Back when they were news! I'm sorry, that you missed them. The stories on these protests, I mean, that you now claim to have missed...

Bush taught us some wonderful new words though.

Like waterboarding, and rendition, and Artificially Raised Terror Levels.

Or is Tom Ridge, a liberal tool now?
Former Bush aide says politics colored US 'terror alert'

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Former US homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election.

Old news to me, of course, I was telling everyone in live time reaction that he was doing this...

You could tell from the way their eyes lit up, they were lying, and lying big.

Not that we should have an honesty standard in government or anything, right?

Bush was an alarmist, and a fear-monger, and a war criminal, and a war profiteer.

Not that that's any reason to hang someone...

But it worked for Mussolini. He was an Italian Alarmist, and a Fear mongering profiteer and war criminal you may have heard of!

With all the talk of Hitler, we forget his role model was Mussolini!

Both of those guys died horrible deaths, btw. But Bush is still tall in the saddle!

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

I wanted to share this piece by Newsbusters, showing some of the signs and protesters at anti-war/Bush rallies over the last 8 years. I think we all know the media didn't mind them and certainly wasn't demonizing American citizens in defense of Bush.

So, when you watch the MSM (like I know some any of you do), take what they say with a grain of salt and remember these same people actually encouraged this type of behavior wen Bush was president.

The media doesn't cover topics solely on if "they" (the media) agree with the content. They present the news that people are interested in.

Were you up in arms over these pictures when it was current affairs? The rest of the country wasn't so... it's a weak story! Right now some American's are going to town hall meetings for the legitimate purpose of having there voices heard; and can not when ignorant citizens bring chaos instead of ideas. The American's seeking to use their democratic voice get pissed off, and if Americans are pissed off about something, you can count on the media to report it.

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by Medicine Al

Old news to me, of course, I was telling everyone in live time reaction that he was doing this...

Bin Laden put out a tape at the time and ultimately, Bush never raised the terror threat. Another hypothetical red herring that never happened.

[sky dog]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

The anti-Bush protesters started the day he was inaugurated..

Because the controversy started on election night

Or was the 2000 Election just no big deal to anyone except the liberal media

[Z3N]

they(the media) probably just didn't want to fuel the fire by acknowledging it. but, i bet the secret service cared.