siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'John Bolton' to 'John Bolton, Iraq, Blackbagging, Invasion, FOX, Editing, Phony' - edited by calvados

Crosswords says...

>> ^Yogi:

Dude you're on tv, and you're not a trucker, take the fucking toothpick out of your mouth...Just Fucking Rude.


He might be a trucker. Check his breath for slimjims. Or maybe the toothpick is there to illustrate he has a point coming out of his mouth. See what we don't know is Bolton had a disgusting mush of chewing tobacco in his mouth he was using to illustrate he'd spit slurry of crap at you if you asked him a poignant question.

Yogi says...

>> ^brycewi19:

What I heard Bolton say was that this guy didn't serve with honor.
Douche. Bag.


He sounded like he was trying to say that but was too cowardly even to do it subtly.

notarobot says...

Related:


messenger says...

The soldier said he black-bagged people, and he referred to himself as a "jackbooted thug". Whatever you might think of Bolton, you can't say that this kind of military action is honourable.>> ^brycewi19:

What I heard Bolton say was that this guy didn't serve with honor.
Douche. Bag.

siftbot says...

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by xxovercastxx.

I find meatbag xxovercastxx to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by xxovercastxx.

quantumushroom says...

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0

No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.


BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

-----------------------

This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.

Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.

Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

brycewi19 says...

And did you notice that he was none too pleased that those were his orders?

That was exactly this service member's point - there was no honor in what was being asked of him.

Bolton was not-so-subtly suggesting that this particular service member didn't serve with honor.

Here's the thing - when you do your job, even when you don't agree with your mission, it is still honorable. You show respect to your C.O. and your duty.

That internal conflict is what drove this service member to speak up. And that failure to recognize this subtle difference by John Bolton is what makes Mr. Bolton a douche bag.

>> ^messenger:

The soldier said he black-bagged people, and he referred to himself as a "jackbooted thug". Whatever you might think of Bolton, you can't say that this kind of military action is honourable.>> ^brycewi19:
What I heard Bolton say was that this guy didn't serve with honor.
Douche. Bag.


ChaosEngine says...

>> ^brycewi19:

Here's the thing - when you do your job, even when you don't agree with your mission, it is still honorable. You show respect to your C.O. and your duty.

This is what I consider one of the single hardest aspects of being a soldier (aside from the obvious "being shot at" negatives).

There are genuine real world reasons why we want soldiers to obey orders. Sometimes they must do things they personally find distasteful for the greater good. In fact, that's pretty much their job description.

At the same time, we as a global society have made it pretty clear that "I was only following orders" is not a reasonable excuse. So we ask soldiers to suspend their own judgement.... up to a point.

Where's that line?

Rape? Genocide? Yeah, that's pretty far past it.
Torture? Most people would say yes.
Kidnapping someone at night? Now it's really situational.

It's a hard ask that I genuinely do not know the answer to, and it's made all the more difficult when the soldier doesn't have complete information.

longde says...

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.

Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

dag says...

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!


Grimm says...

Yeah I was gonna mention this also. In the unedited version there is no booing when Bolton finishes his answer (though there is some during the response) but there also is no applause to his response. The applause was for the guy who asked the question. Fox clearly wanted it to look like Bolton got that applause from his answer...he did not.

messenger says...

Have you read those articles? They're not written fairly. They say things like, "[In 2008,] On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages." For that to be meaningful and show a media bias, it would have to be true that in 2012 reporters are NOT routinely showing photos of extreme pump prices, which of course they are, because it still makes a better photo to accompany the story. This is biased journalism.

Also, choosing the peak month of gas price reporting in 2008 and comparing it only with the most recent month of reporting isn't a fair comparison.

Finally, in 2008, it was a bigger story because price spikes were a relatively new thing, and it was still easy to scare people with horror stories of the world collapsing. But now we're used to them, and we know they drop off after a month or few, so it's just not as attractive to journalists any more.

In other words, those numbers may be accurate, but they don't represent that that article says they represent. Same goes for the handful of other articles I read there. They were all written with their agenda first, facts second, just like how Santorum selectively chooses his facts about College reducing faith.>> ^quantumushroom:

...here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

messenger says...

First, I agree with you, that he wasn't being fair, but not so much as you're making out. The soldier was taking an antagonistic stance to the speaker, and the speaker got defensive. There's no honour in doing those things, whether ordered or not. Oh hell, you're right. It was douchy of Bolton to jump on that and call him dishonourable.>> ^brycewi19:

And did you notice that he was none too pleased that those were his orders?
That was exactly this service member's point - there was no honor in what was being asked of him.
Bolton was not-so-subtly suggesting that this particular service member didn't serve with honor.
Here's the thing - when you do your job, even when you don't agree with your mission, it is still honorable. You show respect to your C.O. and your duty.
That internal conflict is what drove this service member to speak up. And that failure to recognize this subtle difference by John Bolton is what makes Mr. Bolton a douche bag.
>> ^messenger:
The soldier said he black-bagged people, and he referred to himself as a "jackbooted thug". Whatever you might think of Bolton, you can't say that this kind of military action is honourable.>> ^brycewi19:
What I heard Bolton say was that this guy didn't serve with honor.
Douche. Bag.



quantumushroom says...

Fairly? Media Research Center is pointing out liberal bias, aka plain old intellectual dishonesty.

In 2008, high gas prices were an easy way to blame Bush. The shills wouldn't DARE do it to the guy their one-sided reporting helped elect and covers for now.

Liberal "journalism" = agenda first, facts, distorted or not at all.

>> ^messenger:

Have you read those articles? They're not written fairly. They say things like, "[In 2008,] On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages." For that to be meaningful and show a media bias, it would have to be true that in 2012 reporters are NOT routinely showing photos of extreme pump prices, which of course they are, because it still makes a better photo to accompany the story. This is biased journalism.
Also, choosing the peak month of gas price reporting in 2008 and comparing it only with the most recent month of reporting isn't a fair comparison.
Finally, in 2008, it was a bigger story because price spikes were a relatively new thing, and it was still easy to scare people with horror stories of the world collapsing. But now we're used to them, and we know they drop off after a month or few, so it's just not as attractive to journalists any more.
In other words, those numbers may be accurate, but they don't represent that that article says they represent. Same goes for the handful of other articles I read there. They were all written with their agenda first, facts second, just like how Santorum selectively chooses his facts about College reducing faith.>> ^quantumushroom:
...here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.


quantumushroom says...

How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?

Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.



>> ^dag:

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:
QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!



messenger says...

You didn't hear me.

I was saying the Media Research Center's writing is biased, so they're not a reliable source.

And no, I don't mean they're biased because they point out negative things about media sources other than Fox. I mean, the style of writing is biased, as I pointed out above. Do you have anything better, or perhaps some examples of your own? Anything as awful as Fox's purposefully misleading coverage?>> ^quantumushroom:

How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?
Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.

playlists with this video:
who voted against this video:
who bookmarked this post:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

 • view