Originally Posted By Spree <a href="http://www.blacknews.com/pr/tysonfoods101.html" target="_blank">http://www.blacknews.com/pr/ty sonfoods101.html</a> If the mainstream press can tear themselves away from re-gurgitating what the other one says for 5 minutes maybe this story will get the airtime it deserves.............or are they exempt because it's Clintons buddies and we wouldn't want to upset Hillaries chances in 08' now would we
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Funny, I didn't see Clinton's name once in the linked article. Spree has obviously made a mistake.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Spree, you're really, really reaching here. Bringing up Tyson as a way of justifying Bennett is desperation to the extreme. And, if Halliburton came up I'd imagine someone would mention Cheney, not Bush.
Originally Posted By Spree Never said word one about Bennett....not even in the Bennett thread! Yes and for about 4.2 seconds all talk would be about Cheney before it went straight to Bush. ------------------------- Some of us were actually paying attention durring the Starr investigation(to the parts which had nothing to do with sex) "Starr is also taking a similar look at top White House aide Bruce Lindsey, a longtime Little Rock friend of the president, as well as Jim Blair, an attorney for Tyson's chicken in Arkansas, who is another old friend of the Clintons and who once advised Mrs. Clinton on a commodities investment that made a quick $100,000 profit" ----CNN...Bob Franken
Originally Posted By JeffG You are really stretching here, Spree. Certainly, the connection between the Clintons and Tyson Chicken doesn't even come close to the connection between Cheney and Haliburton. Can you honestly say that being friends with an attorney that works for a company is as strong a connection as having been a former CEO of the company? Regardless, even if a similar story were reported about Haliburton, I would absolutely consider it to be a major stretch to claim that it showed racist tendencies on the part of Cheney, much less Bush. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Spree Well, if that be the case then w-h-y has the mainstream press ignored this story? Certainly this ranks at least as much attention as Texaco, Cracker Barrell, and Dennys recieved if not more. I will even concede that the Clintons probably have nothing to do with this(and I certainly don't think they are racist) but my main poin is why does the press glom on to certain stories and pound them out over and over again when real stories are out there that deserve attention?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Actually, the Clinton-Tyson connection was hot stuff back in the day. Here's an article from ten years ago that details President Clinton's efforts on behalf of his good friend Don Tyson, who was trying to get a massive regional airport built in Arkansas: <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1995/3/19/115822" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/article s/?a=1995/3/19/115822</a> It doesn't seem all that sigificant in the greater scheme of things that one plant in the vast Tyson machine is engaging in some mean and stupid racism. It is odd that the main stream press hasn't latched on to this story. It seems letter perfect for moral outrage and grandstanding...
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue So the link references a lawsuit alleging acts which, if true, are discriminatory, with no mention of Clinton whatsover. And the evidence that these allegations are true or, more importantly, that Clinton knew about this behavior, is what precisely? "So if this were "Haliburton" instead of Tyson no one would mention Bush?" And when did Clinton become CEO of Tyson?
Originally Posted By ElKay Spree, this thread is really terrible. If you titled this like: "Tyson Foods Condone Segregation" you'd have a legit gripe that the mainstream media is not following it up. You might have a better case if this lawsuit came up around the time that Hillary was being questioned about that $10k investment. But nearly 8 years later?????? Come on, that's just tacky and clearly partisan. The connection between Haliburton and Cheney is just about as direct as it can be. As Defense Sect'y. under Bush I, he developed a policy of using contractors to do the traditional non-combat service work that soldiers used to do. Once out of government, he is hired by Haliburton and he uses his connections with the Pentagon to get contracts to do services for the military. Now, he's VP and is described as one of the most strident voice for fighting in Iraq, and his old company gets a ton of no-bid contracts to work in Iraq. The question is why the media hasn't been harder on Cheney for obvious conflict of interest issues. At least Haliburton should be excluded from getting no-bid contracts.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The connection between Haliburton and Cheney is just about as direct as it can be.>> Only to moonbats from San Fransiso to Boston. Be glad Haliburtan is around. They do jobs that no other company can do and they do it well.
Originally Posted By Bruiser "Only to moonbats from San Fransiso to Boston. Be glad Haliburtan is around. They do jobs that no other company can do and they do it well." He was their CEO in the 90's for several years, whack job (if you can say moonbat, I can say whack job). There's no more direct connection than that. And learn to spell corruption properly. It's Halliburton.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<He was their CEO in the 90's for several years, whack job (if you can say moonbat, I can say whack job). There's no more direct connection than that.>> Only a whack job would think Cheney had any connection to getting Halliburtan contracts after he was vice president. Show me the evidence or get put into the moonbat bin.
Originally Posted By Spree I have already conceded that this has nothing to do with Clinton and yes I did include his name to draw the comparison between Bush/Halliburton. But as I posted earlier my main point of contention is w-h-y is none of this being reported in the media.........could it be that the media thinks the Clinton angle would be mentioned thus hurting Hillary? Or is it something else entirely that I am missing? For the record the only places reporting this are actually far left sites such as the one I quoted above and others like democraticuderground. So if this is partisan on my part why would I be using liberal sources? I had to search really hard to find this and never would have even heard of it if not for listening to a very liberal moonbat holistic medicine man on a local Sat. radio show.
Originally Posted By MissCandice The reason that the media is not mentioning the Clinton angle is THAT THERE IS NO CLINTON ANGLE!
Originally Posted By Spree ^^^The media isn't mentioning a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g....Clinton or no.....that's the whole point(jeeeesh) Why are they not mentioning the story at all...with or without Clinton being mentioned??
Originally Posted By MissCandice Not that I want to minimize segregation, but from that article it seems to me that the lawsuit is because white employees, without permission from management, the owner of Tyson Food, or Bill Clinton , decided to do this on their own. People are racist jerks all the time, I don't know how these people can be such bigots but as far as it being a newsworthy story, it's not. It's racists being jerks. It happens all the time.
Originally Posted By Spree ^^You may be right....no big wig no news. That answer does make sense...thanks
