20 questions not answered about 9/11

[Devilman]

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6742902.htm

[Inkthinker]

Well, it's not as though asking them would actually get any answers.

[Chris Piers]

Conspiracy theorist crap.

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by Chris Piers
Conspiracy theorist crap.

The more reason for them to be answered and put to rest. People have questioned the Saudi connection for a long time even before the Congessional report was put out because the majority of the hijackers were of Saudi blood. Put two and two together and it adds up. Forget the fact that the administration won't give up key things that the Congressional Commitee needed. There's something behind the curtain that won't ever be let out until maybe 50 years from now when they declassify everything or it's leaked. But anyhow I'm surprised the US isn't attacked more often, be thankful.

[Devilman]

Originally posted by Chris Piers
Conspiracy theorist crap.

if you didn't read, most of it is asking questions about stuff that happened, not alot of trying to tie things together to make a more interesting 'evil government' story.

Still, your mind's about as open as an elderly nun's legs, so I'd expect about as much from you.

[Inkthinker]

Originally posted by Chris Piers
Conspiracy theorist crap.

So easily dismissed? These questions have no vailidity?

[astrocity20]

The Daniel Pearl one's interesting. There's some French guy who wrote a book on him and what he may have un-covered leading to his demise.

did a quick search the book is Who Killed Daniel Pearl by Bernard Henri Levy, I might check it out I dunno I have other shit to read.

[Chris Piers]

Originally posted by Inkthinker
So easily dismissed? These questions have no vailidity?

No, I suppose some of the questions have validity but you have to consider 1) the source it's coming from, 2) the fact that the article is very heavy on the editorializing which invalidates any legitimacy the article may have and 3) there's basically nothing in the way of substantiating their "facts". They say things as though they are true but have no real evidence.

[cabralsoth]

well that was some food for thought... thanks for the link devilman.

[harmonix]

I have some questions.

1.) How did this “journalist” ever get a job. That is some of the most speculative crap I’ve ever read. I’m not saying the issues aren’t important, but seriously, a college paper journalist would at least attempt some professional objectivity.
2.) Who asks the question “Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?”? It’s UNDISCLOSED dumb ass!! What makes you think you deserve to know? Why not ask “What are the top-secret issues of national defense?”. Sorry if it hurts the ego, but there are some things that the government needs to keep undisclosed.
3.) Why do people need to look for more than is there, or re-write history. It’s the same thing as those that say that there was no holocaust. I saw the plans hit, I heard the cell phone calls and the family members that answered them, I remember how the country felt and the look of fear in everyone’s eyes (including the politicians). When all things are considered, the most simple answer is usually the correct one. Didn’t 9-11 have enough drama for this guy, that he has to make tentative connections?
4.) Why are there no questions on this page about Clinton’s presidency and the accusation that he practically let Osama get away with everything for years. Why not ask why the terrorist didn’t attack when he was president, but did when a republican was? Why? BECAUSE THAT WHOULD BE STUPID!!

For the record, the attack really hurt America with a huge death toll and amplified an economical crisis that we still haven’t recovered from. No administration (not even republicans) would knowingly risk the damage to the country for any reason. If they would, don’t you think they would wait until it was closer to re-election? Oh, wait, that’s another stupid question.

[Inkthinker]

I think it mostly stems from the fact that we know the goverment lies to us. They've lied in the past, they'll lie in the future. And while it may or may not be for the greater good, as they insist, nontheless we have nothing to go on but their word.

Not that this is unique to American government by any means... but as long as people feel that goverment is untrustworthy, there will always be this sort of strife.

It does suck mightily.

[FIG]

.....I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you guys some pretty scary shit that I heard when I was taking an Ecology class at art college. My teacher lived in Northern California and would fly down every week to teach class and fly back to his home on weekends. First off, my teacher was a hippie and would oftentimes go off on tangents in class when we would discuss things but one day he told the whole class something which most people shrugged off but I listened because I always thought the teacher had intelligence and integrity behind his words. This was about 1 year before the terrorist attack happened in New York so I guess thats about 3 years ago that the teacher told us. Anyways he told us that he had a friend that worked in the Justice Department and that was totally scared because he knew something major was going to happen in the form of a military conflict and that the U.S. would be involved bigtime. My teacher elaborated by telling us to be ready for something massive, most likely something that would spark the next world war. He went on to tell us that an old man named Osama Bin Laden had been targeted by the goverment and that the United States goverment would make him public enemy number one even though Osama Bin laden is an elderly old man. My teacher also told us the U.S. wanted to make an extreme example out of him. Most of the people in my class shrugged the information off as a pipe dream due to the fact that everyone in class knew the teacher was a supporter of legalizing marijuana and was open about smoking marijuana.

One year later as I had like one year to graduate, I'm sleeping in my apartment in Pasadena when I hear neighbors screaming wake me up. I get out of bed and run outside because I thought my neighbor was beating his wife or something when my elderly neighbor tells me to turn on the television. I turn on the TV and low and behold, the impossible happens and we have been attacked. I see live footage of the second airliner crash into the other twin tower.-My jaw drops and my heart starts pounding very quickly. I quickly think back to the day our teacher gave us his talk and my mind begins to race and I start thinking that what my teacher told the class is true.-I hold back and dismiss it as coincidence as I wipe away the tears and open up the bible to pray. About a week or weeks later when CNN begins to broadcast who was responsible for the terror attacks, I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I hear Osama Bin Ladens name. I literally ran to my bathroom and puked. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. This news seriously affected me unlike I have ever been before and I couldn't draw for weeks and had no desire to pick up a pencil for weeks. To this day I don't know what to make of it and its pretty disturbing looking back on that time. Thats the truth and my 2 cents.;pencil;

[CWmax]

Originally posted by Chris Piers
Conspiracy theorist crap.

"Pundits repeatedly invoke the term "conspiracy theory" to rebuff truths that bubble to the surface, but just to make things clear: Talk of the Illuminati enslaving humanity in some sort of Satanic master plan is an example of conspiracy theory. Saying that the Bush gang manipulated the election, fumbled the ball on 911 and waged a war that’s been planned since 1992 is merely stating well-documented and easily researched facts. "

-by Maureen Farrell

See full lefty, liberal, pinko, traitorous, article here...

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/09/16.html

[penciljack]

"Pundits repeatedly invoke the term "conspiracy theory" to rebuff truths that bubble to the surface, but just to make things clear: Talk of the Illuminati enslaving humanity in some sort of Satanic master plan is an example of conspiracy theory. Saying that the Bush gang manipulated the election, fumbled the ball on 911 and waged a war that’s been planned since 1992 is merely stating well-documented and easily researched facts. "
Actually, that is crap, and quite frankly, you're more than insipid if you believe it.

There, I've said it, but then, it needed to be said.

There are plenty of questions that need answering about 9/11, but they don't begin and end with this conspiratorial crap about the Bush administration. But I guess the loonies have to have something to talk about, and it's much easier to mouth off and spew venom at a high profile, public target, such as the President, than to actually think about things.

[CWmax]

Originally posted by penciljack
Actually, that is crap, and quite frankly, you're more than insipid if you believe it.

There, I've said it, but then, it needed to be said.

There are plenty of questions that need answering about 9/11, but they don't begin and end with this conspiratorial crap about the Bush administration. But I guess the loonies have to have something to talk about, and it's much easier to mouth off and spew venom at a high profile, public target, such as the President, than to actually think about things.

WORD! (case in point)


...ummmmm ...what's insipid mean?

[astrocity20]

I tend to think the information was perhaps there, but probably spread out so ridgedly between the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that it couldn't be prevented. You know this same shit happened at Pearl Harbor. The Congressional reports pretty much spelled out everything they had(well everything they could obtain everything else was strictly classified). And yeah all of us leftists are traders, yes that's it. Who the hell are you Ann Coulter?

[CWmax]

Originally posted by astrocity20
...And yeah all of us leftists are traders, yes that's it. Who the hell are you Ann Coulter?
HAH!
:D

[muthmaniac]

Originally posted by penciljack
There are plenty of questions that need answering about 9/11, but they don't begin and end with this conspiratorial crap about the Bush administration. But I guess the loonies have to have something to talk about, and it's much easier to mouth off and spew venom at a high profile, public target, such as the President, than to actually think about things.

I'm curious as to what questions you have, that've arisen since 9/11. I know we've gone around about this a dozen times, but seriously, looking around at our country and the world right now, do you still believe the Bush and this administration is still out for everyone's best interest?

[Justice41]

I just want to hear Clinton openly admit he and his administration dropped the Bin Laden Ball
C'mon 93 World Trade Center Bombing and no retaliation?
Our Embassies and a Warship attacked and nothing was done.
You can Blame Bush all you want but The Blame squarely lies at Clinton's feet.
The Saudi's will be dealt with in due time. Maybe after Syria or Iran. then on to No. Korea.
Libs just gotta stop being so cowardly, Cringing and wetting themselves at the thought of actually taking an affirmative stance.
Clinton lobbing Missles from Thousands of Miles was the height of Cowardice. Bill Maher should have named Clinton when he said basically what i just said and he wouldn't have gotten so much flack.

[PencilVillian]

Originally posted by FIG
...He went on to tell us that an old man named Osama Bin Laden had been targeted by the goverment and that the United States goverment would make him public enemy number one even though Osama Bin laden is an elderly old man.

...About a week or weeks later when CNN begins to broadcast who was responsible for the terror attacks, I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I hear Osama Bin Ladens name.

Fig, no offense but if you didn't already know of Osama Bin Laden before three years ago then you're not even watching the news at all. He's been on the news afiliated with al qada *sp for the LONGEST time. Not only that, Osama was fingered the very day of the attacks (maybe not officially in public by our government but everyone already knew). Remember the trade center bombing in '93?

Osama's been around but I think has been made more of a joke until 9-11. Modern day terrorism seems to be concentrated on the destruction of the world rather than a sacrifice here and a slaughter there.

[penciljack]

Originally posted by muthmaniac
I'm curious as to what questions you have, that've arisen since 9/11. I know we've gone around about this a dozen times, but seriously, looking around at our country and the world right now, do you still believe the Bush and this administration is still out for everyone's best interest?
Many of my questions center on the UN and countries such as France and Germany and Russia, questions which many conspiracy loonies seem to want to dismiss so they can instead focus only on bashing Bush. Bin Laden and Hussein have been problems longer than Bush has been President, so it's myopic and disingenuous to think that this entire mess belongs to Bush.

[FIG]

Originally posted by PencilVillian
..... Remember the trade center bombing in '93?

Osama's been around but I think has been made more of a joke until 9-11. Modern day terrorism seems to be concentrated on the destruction of the world rather than a sacrifice here and a slaughter there.

Really?-I didn't know that. I guess that goes to show how much I lived in my own little world when I was at Art Center. In 93' I was a sophmore in high school. Thanks for sheding some light on that, pnecilvillain.

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by Justice41
I just want to hear Clinton openly admit he and his administration dropped the Bin Laden Ball
C'mon 93 World Trade Center Bombing and no retaliation?
Our Embassies and a Warship attacked and nothing was done.
You can Blame Bush all you want but The Blame squarely lies at Clinton's feet.
The Saudi's will be dealt with in due time. Maybe after Syria or Iran. then on to No. Korea.
Libs just gotta stop being so cowardly, Cringing and wetting themselves at the thought of actually taking an affirmative stance.
Clinton lobbing Missles from Thousands of Miles was the height of Cowardice. Bill Maher should have named Clinton when he said basically what i just said and he wouldn't have gotten so much flack.

You see this could go around and around. It was Reagan's fault because during his administration the Soviets were weakening and therefore the invasion of Afghanistan didn't go as planned(just to be devil's advocate). It's the lack of communication between intelligence agencies, like I said the same thing that happened at Pearl Harbor and yet we still haven't solved that problem. And no I'm not a Clinton backer, I hate the Dems just as much as I hate Republicans, just for your information. Of course I'm sure none of you were out lobbying to catch this guy whatsoever you just like to bitch about it when something happens and you can obtain quick facts from whatever news outlet it is you're watching. But as said before I'm quite surprised we aren't attacked a hell of a lot more.

[Justice41]

If you know anything about Predators you'll know they don't just come out in a full on attack. They test the perimiters. They hit something and wait to see what the retaliation will be. If the response is weak they get emboldened. But sooner or later they will strike hard. The best defense is always a strong, projected, offense. The start of this was right after the Gulf war, when We put Soldiers on Holy ground in Saudi Arabia. This is when it got started. Bin Laden hates the Saudi's for allowing The US to put feet on holy ground. From There you have Samolia, which showed if America get's a bloody nose it will leave. Look at the response after Reagan Pulled out of Beiruit. The terrorist started Hijackings. When was the killing of the Israeli Olympic athletes? Before or after Reagan?
Right now if the Democrats take the Presidency and allow the UN to take over Iraq we may as well start thinking of ourselves as Israeli's.
If we are attcked again under a Democrat President what do you think the Response will be? We have Presidence with How Clinton Handled it. What do you think will happen? Everybody always expects Republicans to be all Gung-ho Cowboys, but how will a Democrat react?

[Carter]

1972. Ford was president.

--Carter--

[Justice41]

Ford was a wimp. Actually I was 6 years old in 72.
Tell you what, all the other presidents before BUSH 2 did the same thing with terrorists. They treated it like a criminal act not Terrorism. Bush at least knew enough to take a new stance and Go after Them. Man after My own Heart. If I perceive a threat on myself that's what I would do.
Can always apologize later to the dead's family.

[Carter]

Ford had a LOT of shit dumped on him, and an act of terror like that kind of paled in comparison to what was going on in Vietnam, and you know... the whole Nixon thing. I have a feeling he was just trying to keep his head down. Besides, it didn't happen in America and it didn't happen to Americans. We had our own junk to worry about. That's my assumption, anyway. I wasn't even in the sac in '72.

--Carter--

[astrocity20]

This has nothing to do with the fact of retaliation and everything to do with you trying to place blame on a certain President. Democrats and Republicans are the same guise, ok one has a different stamp on abortion big deal. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and became one of the boys just like the rest of them. You say Bin Laden hates the Saudi's yet there's been much scrutiny about the Saudi's themselves and what exactly we're hiding their names for. I guess you could say Bush finished the Soviets job in Afghanistan(Osama was no where to be found in this one, while he was certainly more active against the Soviets) to bad the bad guys are just gathering back together and of course it's dropped out of the media coverage. In the end Bush went on a rampage for no real known reason, they're sleeping with the enemy and hiding the Saudi's from something (just as a democrat would, it's completely bipartisan mind you).

As for Ford, he gets no grief from me. He backed the Indonesian genocide of East Timor, and extended weapons to them when they called for them. Of course that was swept right under our noses, the greatest genocide population wise since the Holocaust never even reported. I could go on and on, on how its so widely contradictory the "War of Terrorism" is when we are a mass exporter of it ourselves. But for that I'd have to write a bloody book in a forum post, so instead of doing that I'll just advise you to look it up at your own interest.

I really get tired of the forum version of Cross-Fire, but I love you anyway. :cool:

[Justice41]

Read The Constitution, then remember what the Presidents have to swear to uphold. Yes, Clinton should be in Prison for allowing Bin Laden to go galavanting all over the Middle East, without even trying to stop him. Clinton had three specific chances to collect up Bin Laden and he didn't because it would have been too much problem. There are like three books out on the subject that documents this with former Clinton staff and cabinet officials backing certain parts of it up.
Now, you can bury your head or look at the facts . Do some research into it and then tell me that all the parties are the same.
Nixon Got US out of Kennedy/Johnson's War. You do realize Kennedy started the war to fight Communism with Johnson following up, but botching it badly by micro-managing it?
Nixon had to make the hard choices and either end the war or continue half assing it because the Congress at the time didn't support the troops with enough money to wage a proper war. Such was the hate for Nixon. And the country repaid him by trying to impeach him for indescretions.
Why is it that Communists and Liberals are always trying to erase and rewrite history? This isn't directed at anyone here just in general.
I Blame the Stupid Educational system in this Country. Just what kind of crap are they teaching kids these days?
They even have a course in some college teaching you to hate your own country.

[Inkthinker]

I see this is going to be another fun-fun PJ political thread. I suppose I should pop some popcorn or something...

[Justice41]

With Caramel?
Actually, if you take note the topic has been shifted to blame Clinton, not Who's hiding what.

[Akira X]

Originally posted by Justice41
They even have a course in some college teaching you to hate your own country.

Liar.

[Stark Raving]

Originally posted by The Enemy Brain
1972. Ford was president.

--Carter--
Just to be a stickler: Nixon was President until 1974.

Class dismissed.

;pencil;

[...o...k....]

The circus is in town.

[GIGAFATTYMON]

Clinton did this. Clinton did that. The point he is not doing it now Bush is.

As the one with power he should be constantly questioned. Bush is an idiot, he squandered an outpouring of sympathy, solidarity compassion that the rest of the world felt for America after 9-11 by stupidly stamping his cowboy boot over the middle east.

Everybody knows the reason for terrorist action from the Middle East. It wasn’t Afghanistan it wasn’t Iraq. It’s Israel, and until that issue is addressed, I mean really addressed, nothing will move on.

[Justice41]

Giga, Why the hate mon? Israel isn't the issue. If people really wanted to solve the palestinian issue they could have, years ago. They don't want to because most countries are anti- semetic and hate the jews. Besides, Israel has many nukes and would use them if the threat was large enough.
I still Blame Clinton. We wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton had done his job. Simple as that man. Now go back to burying your head.
Job loss due to terrorism and the Stock market and big company frauds caused most of the loss of revenues to the teasury thereby knocking down the Surplus. Governemnts should never run Surplusses. Thats too much money in those idiots hands. It's your money, why would you give them a dime more than they need to run the governmental functions.? That's just stupid.

[Justice41]

Originally posted by Akira X
Liar.
Liar???
Your a moron as well as complete ignorant idiot. Do you even read? well read this. it's from the Washington Times. You do read and keep up with current news right?


Anti-Americanism blamed on college teachers
Ellen Sorokin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 3/10/2002




_____Professors and administrators are to blame for anti-American sentiment on college campuses today, according to a report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
_____More than 140 college campuses in 36 states have held anti-war rallies denouncing the country's military actions in Afghanistan, the report says.
_____The document — "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" — concludes that many professors and administrators are quick to clamp down on acts of patriotism, such as flying the American flag, and look down on students who question professors' "politically correct" ideas in class. The report was completed last month.
_____Such practices should be stopped because they threaten the very essence of a college experience, which should encourage a robust exchange of ideas, said Anne Neal, vice president and general counsel for ACTA, a Washington-based educational group. Professors need to change their curriculum to include both sides of historical issues, or else they will continue to short-change their students, Ms. Neal said.
_____"We're not saying this sentiment exists 100 percent on all college campuses," Ms. Neal said. "But there are college campuses out there where there is this anti-American sentiment, and we're very concerned about it because this is an attitude that affects our self-understanding."
_____The ACTA report lists 117 examples of anti-American sentiment.
_____What has particularly caused concern among groups such as ACTA is the anti-patriotic attitude making its way into post-September 11 college courses.
_____Examples of such courses being offered this spring and next fall are: "The Sexuality of Terrorism" at University of California at Hayward; and "Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge" at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines "America's record of imperialistic adventurism."
_____Such courses are a "perfect example of blaming the victim, a favorite phrase of the left," said Winfield Myers, of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. "To equate the attack on terrorist strongholds and their state sponsors with old-fashioned imperialism or territorial warfare is disingenuous at best," Mr. Myers said.
_____Rick Parsons, a campus program director at the Young America's Foundation, said offering a course that's skewed is typical on college campuses. Most of those classes are taught by professors who were anti-war protesters of the 1960s and 1970s.
_____"They feel like America is to blame for everything. It's that simple," Mr. Parsons said.
_____ACTA officials said professors should adopt a curriculum that include courses on the foundations of Western civilization. "If both sides are heard, students and all of us will benefit," Ms. Neal said.
_____But some college officials said academic institutions have always been known as places where people will find the most freedom to think differently.
_____"You want people to think differently on college campuses, you want to them to think critically," said Forest Wortham, director of multicultural programs in the Women's Center at Wittenberg University in Ohio.
_____"But people have to be careful in assuming a person's allegiance on what they think or say. I just hope we haven't returned to the McCarthy era."
_____The anti-American sentiment has been a part of campus life since it first appeared during the Vietnam War era, when students held anti-war rallies to urge the federal government to stop the conflict overseas.
_____That sentiment became more evident in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when professors and administrators removed American flags that students had put up.
_____But some students traded in the American flag for the international peace symbol (a circle with an upside "Y" in the center) because, as one student at Wittenberg University in Ohio explained in an interview, the flag is a symbol of military and male oppression. The peace sign promotes a "more inclusive atmosphere."
_____College professors and university officials mentioned in the ACTA report for taking down American flags days after the attacks called their actions "lapses of judgement" or "knee-jerk reactions from the 1960s," and said they regretted their behavior.
_____Professors, university officials and associations that represent them denounced the ACTA's conclusions, saying the report inaccurately described campus responses to the terrorist attacks.
_____"Students, faculty, and campus leaders have, in fact, come together ... in deliberative dialogues about the dangers of racial profiling, and in serious study of the underlying issues and challenges these attacks pose for our nation's future," said Carol Geary Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which represents 740 colleges and universities nationwide.
_____William Scheuerman, president of the United University Professions, the country's largest higher education union, accused ACTA of using the attacks as an opportunity to force faculty to teach "America Is the Best" 1950s-style curricula.
_____"Most Americans believe we're the best, but we won't remain so for long if the very American activity of challenging orthodoxy is suppressed on U.S. campuses," Mr. Scheuerman said.


Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Inkthinker]

Challenging their government is a time-honored traditon of students around the entire world, and it's espescially true in the States. I don't think you can reasonably blame any current college courses on US and World Politics for any current sentiments that students may have... this has been going on for decades.

People SHOULD question authority when they have concerns and doubts. In fact, the questioning of government and authority is one of the founding elements of this country, and can hardly be described as "unpatriotic". We are (supposed to be) a nation of free minds, and we pride ourselves on it (when we're not bashing each other for it).

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by Justice41
With Caramel?
Actually, if you take note the topic has been shifted to blame Clinton, not Who's hiding what.

It's a matter of perspective. Like I said this blame game could go on and on it isn't going to stop so there isn't really a point. What matters in the end is results, and none of them have brought results. CIA funding to bin Laden among others to fight the Soviets, Sitting around getting a blow job, bombing countries that have nothing to do with Sept 11(unbeknownst to the American people if you go by polls). You'd be surprised where you're wonderful tax dollars go.

And oh yeah, it was the Carter Administration who backed the genocide of East Timor, not Ford.

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by Inkthinker
be described as "unpatriotic".

Don't forget "Anti-American".

[harmonix]

I work for a University, and I can tell you for a fact that most college students are stupid when it comes to certain topics.

It’s not an issue of the institution, or the government. It’s not ever their fault.

They’re just at a stage where they’re “in the stable”.

Sociologists use the term “in the stable” to explain the frustration that comes from felling involved but not active (or felling powerless).

The phrase comes from the horse world. It’s when horses start to get ancy, and start kicking, because they want to get out and run so bad.

Most college students feel the same way when it comes to politics. Their young idealistic minds feel like their world is being controlled by someone else (that reminds them of their parents).

Most of the time, once the students get out into the real world, run for awhile, get a home, and some kids, their feelings and opinions change.

[Akira X]

Originally posted by Justice41
Liar???
Your a moron as well as complete ignorant idiot. Do you even read? well read this. it's from the Washington Times. You do read and keep up with current news right?

Hold it there, Ponch. Don't be so hasty to make assumptions. I was actually calling Inkthinker a liar, because he said he was going to make popcorn. I know that he doesn't have any popcorn. So hes a liar. (For shame, Ink, for shame.)

I only quoted you because you said "some college" instead of "some colleges", and felt it was important to bring this grammatical error to your attention.


That was just uncalled for. We don't like namecalling here at Penciljack.

[GIGAFATTYMON]

What exactly could Clinton have done? If it’s what Bush is doing now, then he couldn’t have solved anything either because Bush sure as hell hasn’t.

And It’s not anti-Semitic to dislike the way Israel does things, just as it’s not anti-Christian to dislike the way America does things.

[Inkthinker]

Originally posted by Akira X
Hold it there, Ponch. Don't be so hasty to make assumptions. I was actually calling Inkthinker a liar, because he said he was going to make popcorn. I know that he doesn't have any popcorn. So hes a liar. (For shame, Ink, for shame.)



Shows what you know. I got the kind with the Extra Movie-Style Artificial Butter-Flavored Popcorn Grease in the pantry, biznatch.

mmm, it leaves just as smooth as it enters.

[misfitX]

ok its kind of early in the morning and i'm too lazy to read all of these comments so i'll just comment on the first one.

we ****ing knew about the hijackings or some sort of plot like that before bush took office. clinton had a bunch of shit on these guys from al queda, he had dossiers on arabic flight students who didn't seem too interested in learning to take off or land, he ****ing warned bush about it. go read franken's new book that FOX is suing him for and specifically about operation ignore. it explains all about bush's i don't give a shit policy and that no one ransacked any white house......****ing republicans......****ing democrats........**** you politicions!!!

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by misfitX
ok its kind of early in the morning and i'm too lazy to read all of these comments so i'll just comment on the first one.

we ****ing knew about the hijackings or some sort of plot like that before bush took office. clinton had a bunch of shit on these guys from al queda, he had dossiers on arabic flight students who didn't seem too interested in learning to take off or land, he ****ing warned bush about it. go read franken's new book that FOX is suing him for and specifically about operation ignore. it explains all about bush's i don't give a shit policy and that no one ransacked any white house......****ing republicans......****ing democrats........**** you politicions!!!

Yeah, it's pretty common knowledge that Dubbya and the Chimp administration knew after repeated warnings as recently as two weeks prior to 9/11. I had this suspicion right after the planes went down. Hijacker ID cards found in rubble. Aren't those things made of plastic? Fire + plastic= melted. Can you say planted evidence? They might decide to plant some Weapons of Mass Destruction as well. :rolleyes:

Franken was on the Late Show with David Letterman a few weeks back ripping on Bill O'Reilly and mentioned that the judge in the Fox case basically told them that they didn't have a case. O'Reilly is an asshole anyway. I'm not surprised that he advised the head honchos at Fox to sue him. It took every ounce of class for Al not to bitchslap him after telling him to shut up like he did.

[Inkthinker]

AAAUUUGGHHH!! THIS THREAD WAS DYING!! IT WAS ON PAGE 2!!

PAGE 2!!!

:mad:

*sigh...*

[Akira X]

*sigh*

Okay okay, so maybe I don't get the chance to stare in your windows 24/7, but the last time I did, you TOTALLY didn't have popcorn.

I'm so embarrassed.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by Devil Man 666
Yeah, it's pretty common knowledge that Dubbya and the Chimp administration knew after repeated warnings as recently as two weeks prior to 9/11. I had this suspicion right after the planes went down. Hijacker ID cards found in rubble. Aren't those things made of plastic? Fire + plastic= melted. Can you say planted evidence? They might decide to plant some Weapons of Mass Destruction as well. :rolleyes:

Franken was on the Late Show with David Letterman a few weeks back ripping on Bill O'Reilly and mentioned that the judge in the Fox case basically told them that they didn't have a case. O'Reilly is an asshole anyway. I'm not surprised that he advised the head honchos at Fox to sue him. It took every ounce of class for Al not to bitchslap him after telling him to shut up like he did.

Before this thread dies, I just want you to know I think you sound like a retard.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by misfitX
ok its kind of early in the morning and i'm too lazy to read all of these comments so i'll just comment on the first one.

we ****ing knew about the hijackings or some sort of plot like that before bush took office. clinton had a bunch of shit on these guys from al queda, he had dossiers on arabic flight students who didn't seem too interested in learning to take off or land, he ****ing warned bush about it. go read franken's new book that FOX is suing him for and specifically about operation ignore. it explains all about bush's i don't give a shit policy and that no one ransacked any white house......****ing republicans......****ing democrats........**** you politicions!!!

No thanks, I don't get my information from comedians, partisans, or James Carville.

All Fox sued over, was that he should remove the "Fair and Balanced" slogan off of his cover.

PS- Please show me one source that says the FBI, CIA, or Whitehouse *knew* that an attack with jet liners was imminant, beyond the one FBI field agent who tried to call attention to the possibility, and I'll give you a hand job.



Al Franken has a terrible history with the truth in his books. Sure, "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" was funny, but a lot of it was just made up whole-sale.

And if you pay attention to Fox News, it's not like you haven't heard any of the claims in Franken's book, rather that most of them have little to no merit, and a lack of substantiation.

People who don't pay attention to the news, current events, and politics, should not be allowed to read vitriolic conspiracy books, as they get misled faster than lemmings.

[Inkthinker]

PAGE 2!!!

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by GIGAFATTYMON
Clinton did this. Clinton did that. The point he is not doing it now Bush is.

As the one with power he should be constantly questioned. Bush is an idiot, he squandered an outpouring of sympathy, solidarity compassion that the rest of the world felt for America after 9-11 by stupidly stamping his cowboy boot over the middle east.

Everybody knows the reason for terrorist action from the Middle East. It wasn’t Afghanistan it wasn’t Iraq. It’s Israel, and until that issue is addressed, I mean really addressed, nothing will move on.

The problem with the Israeli issue is at the heart of much of the problems in the middle east.

The terrorist assholes that we went after however, were located in where? Afghanistan, where they had a virtual training nation for terrorist activity.

Iraq: Major financial sponsor of Hamas, and terrorist organisations worldwide. We've all seen the videos of Saddam sending 25k checks to poor families who's kids blew themselves up to kill Israelis.

You act in your statement, as though the Israeli issue has been ignored. Don't know if you've followed this much or not, but this issue's been going on for DECADES.

Every administration since LBJ, I believe, has been trying to negotiate a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine.

Don't forget, that up until Yassir Arafat forced out his last Prime Minister, Machmud Abbas (sp?), there was the "road map to peace", which was written by a number of nations over a number of years.

Until there is somebody within Palestine who is willing to crack down on these terror leaders, there will be no peace there.

And about the squandering of sympathy from around the world, sometimes it's NOT possible to keep everybody happy. Especially when you feel you are doing the right thing, and other "friends" reveal themselves to be what they truly are...rivals.

Ask France why they still want to support Yassir Arafat, or why they continued to stick up for Saddam until he was gone.

Have you heard the Iranian students, or the son of the Ayatollah Homeni (sp?) asking for the US to come in and liberate them?

It's interesting that none of the terrible violence that was to erupt in the middle east after our invasion, hasn't happened.

And if GWB is stupid for liberating a nation the size of California, from a brutal dictator who's mass graves we're still digging up, then I don't want to be "smart" like you.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Was page 2, wasn't it...

Maybe if this thread hadn't been around long enough for me to see the ignorance, with light dashes of information...

[misfitX]

ok shane, I agree with you that some of franken's book is made up for selling wise. i don't really give a flying **** about stats and i'm not gonna go and look every damn thing up and i'm not about to buy lexis nexis (one maybe but i has no monies). The four main thing i got from franken's book is that:

a) People lie in these sorts of publications leading me to not trust anything franken said

b) the news may have a liberal bias but FOX certainly doesn't (watch the damn thing) but more than any right or left wing swinging, its all about sensationalistic journalism (reminds me of this psuedo-political comic SmallWorld by tom briscoe specific strips like Geek Hierarchy (.this one and this one (http://www.briscoe.org/index.cfm?comic=20030427) illustrate it pretty well)

c)Ann Coulter (http://www.anticoulter.com) is a ****ing idiot, don't ever listen to her, unless yer an idiot yourself

d)Bush isn't an idiot he's a liar (and that is irrefuitable in my eyes liked his dad, hate him)

i'd also like to ask why pundits of the right wing deem it nessacary to go after those in the left. At school we have a young republicans squad or whatever that have put up recruiting fliers all over school (ok i saw one single flier) and thats not so bad, i wholeheartedly beleive in freedom of speech i mean where else can i call my president a liar and not die? but on the flier it invites potential joiners to "come join us and fight the left" i wasn't aware there was another civil war brewing...what the hell?
this country needs a right and a left. we need the damn hippies screaming for policies so extreme they would let cows eat us. we need the nazis screaming for policies to reinstate slavery because for the most part america is moderate. if you talk to yer normal Joe he's gonna say he's for this (on a liberal point) but his stance on this is deceidedly conservative, thats the way we work. if we lost the left then the country wouldn't have anything to stop the pure republican's from ****ing everything up. its like we need marvel and DC, if one were to go away we'd lose the friendly rivalry and witty discussions in the comic store (natch) we're a country that needs two sides to do anything.

ok i'll crawl off my soap box now...'cause i cna't think of anything else to say

this is fun:D

[misfitX]

P.S.

i think we needed to do what we've been doing in the middle east for a long time (hell, since i knew what was going on over there) the thing is we're never going to stop the fighting over there. its been going on for millenia so nobody delude themselves into thinking it will. this war is about oil and i'd rather be getting from some arab country we thrashed and re-built (a la Japan and germany, hopefully better handle than germany tho). listen to that fat guy ralphie from last comic standing, i wan my techron too!

[jamiller98]

I so don't want to get into this topic, but I just can't help myself.

Colleges (as a whole) tend to teach from a liberal standpoint. Maybe it's easy for college students who are already indoctrinated or liberal to begin with to say that they aren't, but it's a sad and well documented fact. The exact same can be said for the "mainstream media." The best thing to do is to take your news and information from as many sources as possible so that you can get around the bias of your source of choice and have as great an opportunity as possible to find the truth.

I recognize that Fox News has a conservative bias, so it isn't the only place that I go to (though it's usually my choice on weekday mornings just so I can avoid the Katie Couric style celebrity interviews and awful performances by washed-up has beens). I realize that I can only trust half of what is said on the Nightly News, so it isn't the only place I go to.

Going to Al Franken for any of your information is ridiculous. You read Franken in hopes that he might have something funny in there (I rarely find that he does) and you listen to Rush Limbaugh for the same reason. These are not news sources, these are entertainment sources (same goes for Michael Moore). Learn the difference.

For the record, the only time Clinton was worried about international affairs was when he was worried that it might hurt his precious legacy. If this guy had done anything in office other than worry about what they would write in fourth grade government text books this world might be a better place. He had a golden opportunity to support a coup within the Iraqi military to topple Sadam from the inside and backed out at the last minute, leading to the deaths of a few generals who really stuck their necks out. All they really wanted was for us to say, "Yes, go ahead and take out Hussein." Is it any wonder that many of the Iraqi people believed that we actually wanted Sadam to stay in power?

I'm not a huge Bush supporter, but at least he didn't bomb a baby aspirin factory when a certain intern was in the news.

I swear. it sounds like some of you get your news from John Stewart.

Israel is absolutely the cause of most of this, but it seems like a real simple issue to me. Israel whooped the Palestineans and took their land as part of the cease fire agreements. End of story. Do you see us giving Texas back to Mexico? How about southern California?

Wait a minute, maybe that isn't such a bad idea . . .

[astrocity20]

I don't get where you people get this mainstream media is liberal. Since when have big conglamo corporations been liberal? The people who control them are for the most part conservative. I don't think it really has a biase as much as I think it's generally mindnumbing news, which really doesn't tell you what's going on in the world at all, but rather snippets of the flavor of the day. But of course this will now go into an argument that the media is liberal, and then someone else saying no way the media is conservative. I simply say it's useless.

On other issues you really shouldn't read ANYONE at all and just take it at face value, be objective and think for yourselves rather than claiming this guy said this or that. Take it, observe it and come to your own conclusions.

Back to videogames lol.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by astrocity20
I don't get where you people get this mainstream media is liberal. Since when have big conglamo corporations been liberal? The people who control them are for the most part conservative. I don't think it really has a biase as much as I think it's generally mindnumbing news, which really doesn't tell you what's going on in the world at all, but rather snippets of the flavor of the day. But of course this will now go into an argument that the media is liberal, and then someone else saying no way the media is conservative. I simply say it's useless.

On other issues you really shouldn't read ANYONE at all and just take it at face value, be objective and think for yourselves rather than claiming this guy said this or that. Take it, observe it and come to your own conclusions.

Back to videogames lol.

I'd just like to note that it was only a few weeks ago, that Walter Crochite gave his reasons as to why he believes the mainstream media is liberal.

There are all sorts of instances of liberal bias, on a daily basis. Particularly in the print media. Striaght stories that are filled with editorialising, as opposed to presenting facts only, etc., etc..

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by TheFightingFoetus
...as opposed to presenting facts only, etc., etc..

the more reason that its useless.

Just as I said way back in this post East Timor was the biggest genocide based on population wise since the holocaust and was never even reported on, hardly a snippet and US backed no less. While way back of course at the same time during such Cambodia was reported on routinely because why... they're "commies". It isn't like the press is exactly reporting on anything useful or asking the tough questions anyways. Better off just reading books after the fact.

heh, I'll just go back to what Ink said, PAGE 2!

[Ed]

Can always apologize later to the dead's family

Justice, you just chilled me to the bone. i hope i never gain your world perspective.

[misfitX]

Originally posted by jamiller98

Going to Al Franken for any of your information is ridiculous. You read Franken in hopes that he might have something funny in there (I rarely find that he does) and you listen to Rush Limbaugh for the same reason. These are not news sources, these are entertainment sources (same goes for Michael Moore). Learn the difference.

i don't take offense to a lot but i'm going to take offense because you'r calling me ignorant. After reading the book i went and started watching FOX and CNN and even C-SPAN on a regular basis, not so much that i'm gonna be an expert on any of it but it is ****ing interesting. No one before Franken had made it interesting to me. Think of it with this handy-dandy drug analogie (you finish it)
Pot:Heroin
Al Franken: ?

also for the record, i think Al Franken is one of the funniest comedians ever.



For the record, the only time Clinton was worried about international affairs was when he was worried that it might hurt his precious legacy. If this guy had done anything in office other than worry about what they would write in fourth grade government text books this world might be a better place. He had a golden opportunity to support a coup within the Iraqi military to topple Sadam from the inside and backed out at the last minute, leading to the deaths of a few generals who really stuck their necks out. All they really wanted was for us to say, "Yes, go ahead and take out Hussein." Is it any wonder that many of the Iraqi people believed that we actually wanted Sadam to stay in power?

you know what? i'm gonna look into this



I'm not a huge Bush supporter, but at least he didn't bomb a baby aspirin factory when a certain intern was in the news.
yeah but ya know what? he bombed the babies (do you really honestly care or you just letting the hippies i mean left get to you?)


I swear. it sounds like some of you get your news from John Stewart.
Again, offense and again, a very funny jew. i can tell the difference between a damn newstory on CNN and an editorial joke on a show on a network called COMEDY Central :mad:
I can also tell, without doubt, when Franken is joking around in his book which i doubt many righties or even lefties can. there are scores of backhanded comments and shit like your "maybe that isn't such a bad idea" comment. plus Operation Chicken Hawk is hilarious. I think you should read the book before ya go and chastise him. Or if you don't like humour in politics go read that crazy lady Couter's books saying liberals are a bunch of satanists trying to completly topple America like giant malicious termites.(paraphrased...from my head)


the thing about the media being biased...its true. i said it before and i'll say it again lets see if you guys understand this time (atrocity does)

THE MEDIA HAS A SENSATIONALISTIC BIAS!!

they want you to buy there shit whatch the new drivvle they've come up with today. duh! its entertaining. are you gonna watch a story about a "Bush didn't find any chemical weapons today. Now sports" No its gonna be "Bush once again found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 'Once again proving that he is a liar' said a copy boy in our newsroom who has no bearing on your lives at all" now if you remove the "copy boy" part and put someone's name that sounds like a politician then yer gonna think either "Holy Crap!! THats some news!" or "Goddamnit...****ing liberal biased CNN basterds....whats on Nickolodean?"

News sells, crazy slightly made-up news sells like...well crazy.


about colleges teaching you to hate america. they do, in china, the middle east, and a couple in japan. A professers veiws are always gonna come up in a the course of teaching some subject or another (espicially in a politically based class) it is true that a large number of proffsers (i can't ****ing spell leave me alone) are liberal and yes that would logically make youthink that college students are going to learn to be liberal if they aren't already. why logically? 'cause they're friggin' college students! we're sponges! if some guy who we respect (i.e. our political systems teach) starts giving really strong points on why nazis are really running our country and maybe communism isn't such a bad idea (which it is, a moderated solicism would be best but completly socially impossible)
fact aslo is those damn hippie college kids are gonna grow up and start forming their opinions. some will remain stoutly liberal, some will become raging fighters for the righteous right (is that redundent?) but the vast majority will lose some of the liberal and gain a lot of the conservative and become like all of america: moderate

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by TheFightingFoetus
Before this thread dies, I just want you to know I think you sound like a retard.

Nothing retarded about what I said. You must be an O'Reilly mark or something. :rolleyes:

Or a brainwashed Dubbya supporter. Either way,that quote at the top reflects more on you than me. ;)

You probably find it "un-American" to question/voice your opinion on the ****-ups that the government allow to happen/purposely do for all we know.

You're gonna vote for Bush, aren't you? Once again, refer to the quote at the top of this message.



--POOF!!--

[DeForgeo]

Devil Man 666, I'm not the biggest fan of Bush either (and I'll admit the "retard" crack was a tad harsh,) but you really are coming off as a bit of a jerk with that last post.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by Devil Man 666
Nothing retarded about what I said. You must be an O'Reilly mark or something. :rolleyes:

Or a brainwashed Dubbya supporter. Either way,that quote at the top reflects more on you than me. ;)

You probably find it "un-American" to question/voice your opinion on the ****-ups that the government allow to happen/purposely do for all we know.

You're gonna vote for Bush, aren't you? Once again, refer to the quote at the top of this message.



--POOF!!--

Yeah, maybe the retard mark was a tad harsh, but I don't think you know what you think you know.

[misfitX]

...now i'm sad....i wrote all that great shit and no one comments on it.......well screw you guys! im turning the thread into a four-year whining



shane yer a poopy-head! devil-man 666 yer like my uncle who touches me in the no-no spots aand then says he'll kill me if i tell........oh crap

actually D-Man 666...you are an idiot. your calling shane out for not letting us voice our opinions, but it seems to me you're not letting him. i may not agree with shane but damn he comes up with some compelling arguments, and he's intelligent about them. now thats a good conservative

i'd also like to say that i would vote republican on the next election if john mcCain got in there somehow. he's really the main reason i hate bush, i love mccain and i think he should have gotten the rebuplican primary, or even run independently (he had a shot) but he was loyal to his party and i admire that. McCAIN FO' PRES!!! lets get someone who actually served his country in there this time huh?

[jamiller98]

Originally posted by misfitX

yeah but ya know what? he bombed the babies (do you really honestly care or you just letting the hippies i mean left get to you?)


My real concern is that these poor babies don't have any aspirin to take now that they've been bombed. :rolleyes:

If you take offense that I say a comedian is a bad place to get your news, then I don't know how not to offend you. I wasn't trying to flame anyone, but c'mon! Do you really think it's a good idea to use these as news sources? Really? Be honest: would you not mock me if I told you that I only vote for people Adam Sandler tells me to?

Now, I can respect that you think Franken is funny. I read an excert from his book and didn't so much as smirk, so I don't see myself going out and buying it. That's just a difference in our senses of humor. I'm sure that I'm about the only person here that thinks Caveman is one of the funniest movies of all time. As they say: Diff'rent Strokes for Diff'rent Folks.

If you read the book and started getting into politics, then great! I would hope that the earth shattering seriousness of politics would make it something that you would have an interest in just to keep your way of life intact, but sometimes it takes a catalyst to get these things going. I hope that you stay informed and vote in every election. Make your voice heard.

As far as the coup that I spoke of: there were some articles in Vanity Fair about a year or so ago that were really good regarding this subject, but I'm blanking on any other sources that covered it at the moment. As far as the basic assertion that Bill Clinton is/was full of crap up to his eyeballs: this as basic a statement as saying that water is wet.

I'll do my best to stay out of this from now on since I think this should have died after page 2.

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by misfitX
[B
shane yer a poopy-head! devil-man 666 yer like my uncle who touches me in the no-no spots aand then says he'll kill me if i tell........oh crap

actually D-Man 666...you are an idiot. your calling shane out for not letting us voice our opinions, but it seems to me you're not letting him. i may not agree with shane but damn he comes up with some compelling arguments, and he's intelligent about them. now thats a good conservative

[/B]


misfitX: I'm not into young boys, that's the catholic priests. I'm not an idiot either.

I earned my way into college, Dubbya didn't. Since his dad and grandfather went to Harvard,that's the only he was admitted. His grades weren't good enough on their own. Speaking of retards, you should read some of the stuff people post on aol message boards praising him.

It's a free country, you all have been voicing your opinions before and after I had posted messages. Remember, I'm not your president, he can't take criticism from the people even though this is supposed to be a democracy yet he is trying to force his beliefs and such on other countries whether they want it or not :rolleyes:

I'm not calling anybody out, remember he told me I sounded like a retard. I could've been harsh but I chose not to. I could've started that aforementioned message by calling him names or anyone else who posted here for that matter. I didn't, what would that prove? Nothing. And as far as me "sounding like a retard", I posted my initial message when I was about to go to bed so sue me. Regardless, there is nothing there that doesn't make sense. There was no need to elaborate on any of it since just about everyone knew what I was talking about anyway.

I don't have to post epic-length arguments in order to make any sense about this mess. I am tired of arguing about this idiot (Bush), I've done it on he-man.org and the aol boards way too many times. Go check if you don't believe me. With that said, I posted some interesting links below. If that's not enough, check any search engine by the infamous news magazine cover title from earlier this year. Here's a hint: "Bush ____!". :p




http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25008

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/#3

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/052002a.html

http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/05.17A.WRP.Bush.NU.p.htm

http://www.rense.com/general25/knewknow.htm

http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings/bush-knew.htm

http://www.bushoccupation.com/1Hersh.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/conspiracy020417.html

http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/1264

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0221/ridgeway3.php

http://www.earthside.com/bush-war-crimes.html

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/bushlies.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/12_lying.html

[jeremy dale]

You argued politics on... ::snicker:: He-Man.org?!

LOL That-- THAT is lame.

Jeremy

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by thincage
You argued politics on... ::snicker:: He-Man.org?!

LOL That-- THAT is lame.

Jeremy

Actually, it's not as bad as you think. There is a section devoted to OTHER topics, called appropriately enough the OTHER forums. Check it out sometime. There's at least one new related thread posted every week or two. Some people there actually know what they're talking about. :D

[TheFightingFoetus]

I love how nearly every link you posted is a hardcore democratic/liberal site.

You may have missed Teddy Kennedy's quote the other day too, about how the war was cooked up in a rebublican meeting that was held in texas during january, and also his claims of an auditing office that has shown how the money in Iraq is being misspent.

This from Ted Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the only meeting anybody can figure out he's talking about that was in a january, was one in which Carl Rove (rowe?), told republicans that they could run on the homeland security issue.

Also, reporters have been trying to find these numbers that he claims some government office has calculated, and so far they don't seem to exist.

If this was Clinton in office, instead of some whacky leftist like yourself posting links to Salon.com, and the Village Voice (truly non-partisan informational groups ;)), it'd be some crazy right-winger posting crap from crazy right wing groups.

You do realise that all of these allegations HAVE actually been reported, right? All of them.

Hell, you've basically said yourself that ON 9-11, you wanted there to be a reason that it all tied to Bush. Now you can find all the things you want to be true, via the web.

YOU WIN! :):rolleyes:

[misfitX]

hey devil_man i dunno know why yer arguing about bush to me. i hate him and don't think he should be president. and i know you're taking the "high" road and thats commendable but some of the stuff yer saying is...i dunno i'll let shane insult you.


and shane its karl rowe (i think...i'm pretty sure)

jamiller, some of the stuff you said just sounded backhanded actually the last post ya did had some stuff too. maybe its the way you talk i dunno. i'll try not to take offense again. but thanks for being the only person to respond to my speaking

[penciljack]

I don't get where you people get this mainstream media is liberal. Since when have big conglamo corporations been liberal?
During the Clinton/Dole election, the Associated Press took a poll of journalists in various fields, and the result was that 70% of them were registered Democrats and/or considered themselves liberal.

I know this because I was a journalist at the time. Some of you may know how it works, but for those who don't, what happens is news outlets subscribe to the Assocated Press service so that they have access to news and info from all over the world. They get to pick and choose what stories they run, etc. Needless to say, this story didn't get much play. If it weren't for the fact that part of my job required scanning the newswire to find info for graphics, I might never have stumbled on it.

Read the book "Bias" and it'll tell you even more.

Media bias is more than just a talking head complaining about one president or another. It also has to do with the stories that are chosen and advocated (it's called the Gatekeeper philosophy) and this is how the mainstream media controls the agenda. If you need further evidence, bone up on the word "gravitas" that the Democrats used to try to pin Bush with soon after the 2000 election (as in he had a lack of "gravitas"). You'll note that many of the mainstream news outlets began using the the same words when talking about Bush. This, of course, furthered the claims many of us were making about bias in the media.

It's there. All you have to do is clear your head and pay attention and you'll see it.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by penciljack
During the Clinton/Dole election, the Associated Press took a poll of journalists in various fields, and the result was that 70% of them were registered Democrats and/or considered themselves liberal.

I know this because I was a journalist at the time. Some of you may know how it works, but for those who don't, what happens is news outlets subscribe to the Assocated Press service so that they have access to news and info from all over the world. They get to pick and choose what stories they run, etc. Needless to say, this story didn't get much play. If it weren't for the fact that part of my job required scanning the newswire to find info for graphics, I might never have stumbled on it.

Read the book "Bias" and it'll tell you even more.

Media bias is more than just a talking head complaining about one president or another. It also has to do with the stories that are chosen and advocated (it's called the Gatekeeper philosophy) and this is how the mainstream media controls the agenda. If you need further evidence, bone up on the word "gravitas" that the Democrats used to try to pin Bush with soon after the 2000 election (as in he had a lack of "gravitas"). You'll note that many of the mainstream news outlets began using the the same words when talking about Bush. This, of course, furthered the claims many of us were making about bias in the media.

It's there. All you have to do is clear your head and pay attention and you'll see it.

Like last week's (or the previous weeks) issue of TIME, which had a black minister talking about how Bush was letting him down, as a leader, and a man of God. The article went into detail about how this black church minister had been hoping that Bush would work more with black america, but then turns as this guy bashes Bush left and right.

Seems like a normal article, until a number of facts about the minister came out, like the fact that he runs a Democratic election group that drove out democrat voters in the 2000 elections to elect gore, and a number of other little facts about him that I'm blanking on now. (Thanks to my migraine medication.)

Misquotes and wrongful allegations have been all the rage over the last year and a half. Just check the number of corrections that the NY times for example has had to print. And that's only one example of many, many, many.

[Inkthinker]

Well, but HAS Bush done much to work with black America? Or did he promise to do more for blacks in America and he hasn't?

I mean, is this minister completely off-base or did he have a genuine grievance?

It seems to me that BOTH sides are rife with misquotes and manipulated information. Neither the right nor the left should call the kettle black.

[harmonix]

Originally posted by penciljack
During the Clinton/Dole election, the Associated Press took a poll of journalists in various fields, and the result was that 70% of them were registered Democrats and/or considered themselves liberal.

I know this because I was a journalist at the time. Some of you may know how it works, but for those who don't, what happens is news outlets subscribe to the Assocated Press service so that they have access to news and info from all over the world. They get to pick and choose what stories they run, etc. Needless to say, this story didn't get much play. If it weren't for the fact that part of my job required scanning the newswire to find info for graphics, I might never have stumbled on it.

Read the book "Bias" and it'll tell you even more.

Media bias is more than just a talking head complaining about one president or another. It also has to do with the stories that are chosen and advocated (it's called the Gatekeeper philosophy) and this is how the mainstream media controls the agenda. If you need further evidence, bone up on the word "gravitas" that the Democrats used to try to pin Bush with soon after the 2000 election (as in he had a lack of "gravitas"). You'll note that many of the mainstream news outlets began using the the same words when talking about Bush. This, of course, furthered the claims many of us were making about bias in the media.

It's there. All you have to do is clear your head and pay attention and you'll see it.




Amen brother.

I worked for over 2 years in the news room as a research assistant and field reporter for a reputable network affiliate. Going into this field I bought into the “professionally objective” goal that I was taught in college, but I soon found out that there was little professional, or objective about the new “business”.

There are very few rock solid rules about news worthiness. Issues like timeliness and local interest only go so far. After that the Gatekeepers take huge subjective liberties. I can remember a large number of discussions in the news room about what to air, and the producers harping about those “Damn conservatives!”

I can’t get into too many details publicly, but it was obvious that there was an agenda, and that this mandate was coming from the networks. This was back before Bush was elected too, so I can only assume that it’s gotten worse.

After a few years I couldn’t take it anymore and decided to become part of the solution (in education) rather than part of the problem.

Read some Neil Postman. Although I don’t agree with everything he says, I think he has the right idea when it comes to broadcast news.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by Inkthinker
Well, but HAS Bush done much to work with black America? Or did he promise to do more for blacks in America and he hasn't?

I mean, is this minister completely off-base or did he have a genuine grievance?

It seems to me that BOTH sides are rife with misquotes and manipulated information. Neither the right nor the left should call the kettle black.

Whether he's done things or not is debateable. I happen to think he has done things, but government can't answer every problem. Again, fully debateable.

It's the fact that TIME tried to pass this off, as just some black minister with no political axe to grind, when in fact he was a member of a Democratic Action Committee.

[penciljack]

It's like Shane said - maybe you could objectively write a story about Bush and what he has or has not done for "Black America." But you shouldn't try to pass off a clearly biased source such as that, especially without giving equal time to the opposing argument, which has always sort have been the rub.

[astrocity20]

Originally posted by penciljack
Some of you may know how it works, but for those who don't, what happens is news outlets subscribe to the Assocated Press service so that they have access to news and info from all over the world. They get to pick and choose what stories they run, etc. Needless to say, this story didn't get much play. If it weren't for the fact that part of my job required scanning the newswire to find info for graphics, I might never have stumbled on it.

Read the book "Bias" and it'll tell you even more.

Media bias is more than just a talking head complaining about one president or another. It also has to do with the stories that are chosen and advocated (it's called the Gatekeeper philosophy) and this is how the mainstream media controls the agenda.

Its a wonder that pretty much everyone seems to choose the same damned stories too, coincidence? It's all a big corporate game, there is no news there is only the flavor of the day. I know that pretty much the NY Times is given out before the next day so people get a little hint of what they should be talking about. If it bleeds it leads but if it generally isn't in the uptmost interest of the government it's left out. It's amazing how Afghanistan vanished, as did Liberia. But then of course there are the other things we continuously back which is quite widely known about if you take the time to read about them that would never see the light of day. It would be foolish to say oh those damned lefties are doctoring up everything when the right does the same thing. Forget the fact the American press roles over for Bush never exactly pushing him to answer anything remotely important(one could argue it's the same for other presidents which for the most part it is). Democratic people will bitch that the news is to Republican, and Republicans to Democratic. I merely argue it's simply a Corporate entity that doesn't base itself on credibility, and merely funds itself on the guests of concision forgetting about the facts to back them, leaving it inherently useless.

[penciljack]

It's amazing how Afghanistan vanished, as did Liberia. But then of course there are the other things we continuously back which is quite widely known about if you take the time to read about them that would never see the light of day. It would be foolish to say oh those damned lefties are doctoring up everything when the right does the same thing. Forget the fact the American press roles over for Bush never exactly pushing him to answer anything remotely important
Interesting. I hear about Afghanistan all the time. You have to remember, though, that Iraq is where the big news, so it's naturally going to capture the majority of headlines. Nothing wrong with that, really, it's just a fact of the American attention span.

Re: the press "role"-ing over for Bush - you're kidding, right? Or have you not noticed that he's constantly on the hot seat regarding Iraq and the economy? Whether you think Bush gets it easy or not is one thing, but he's not enjoyed the softballs the press lobbed at one Mr. Clinton.

[Justice41]

Wow!!! this thread still going, huh?
What a riot. Oh and AkiraX you quoted me then called me a liar, so stop backpeddling you weasel.
I've read the book Bias. Took a whole 6 hours pretty good but a little light on details. The big media companies heads aren't for the most part Republican, If that was true there wouldn't be so much animous against Rupert Murdoch and Twentieth Century Fox. The Head of GE runs NBC and MSNBC as well as the other affiliates. He's a flaming Liberal. There's nothing wrong with them being liberal but the news should be about factual truth, not subjective storytelling.
Take the Times for example. They are run top down. The editor in chief mandates a more Liberal slant to all the news. The news stories should be told on facts and interest not political persuassion. Why is it everyone can point to Foz News and say they are Conservative news but Fox can't look at CNN MSNBC or NBC or ABC or CBS or Headline News or the Times Or the Washington Journal and call them Liberal? Especially when it's so obvious that they are.
One of the biggest Journalistic lies was about the Homeless and the Spread of Aids. The Elite Media tried and succeeded to some degree in getting people to believe that two straight hetero's were at the same risk of Contracting Aids as Two gay men or IV drug Users having Bisexual sex. They tried and succeeded in convincing everyone that the Homeless were a huge percentage of the Population.
Both of these were so far from the truth they could only be called Lies.
Guaranteed if anyone besides a Blood transfused person comes down with AIDs, it has something to do with Gay sex or IV drug use and sharing needles.
How come the homeless only exist when Republicans are in office? They don't all of a sudden get jobs and find places to live, sowhere are they? Another Lie told by the Elite Liberal Press.
It's easy to believe this kind of crap because the truth is sometimes unbelievable. I always ask people who come up with these cockamanny conspiracy stories, Why Do You Believe This Crap? Not if it's true but what is it about YOU, that makes you want to believe nonsense.
Oh well I just came back to get some Popcorn from INK.

[astrocity20]

penciljack: I don't know what news you're watching all I ever hear about Afghanistan is how much less we're paying for them compared to Iraq and how unstable it is. Iraq is where the big news is, because they are the big news makers and yes of course they're going to roll with it because it brings in profit, is there something wrong with that......YES!!! there's something ****ing wrong with that. I didn't need an entire ****ing day of Hurricane coverage while there are numerous other things going on in the world. And if "it's just a fact of the American attention span" than by we're the most pig headed bunch of idiots in the world.

Do I think Bush gets it easy? Of course I do you see him in a press conference and they go belly-up. At the same time I think it was a sham that Clinton got it in the ass because he got a blow job what a charade that was. Moreover a waste of time, but other than that I think he got it easy too as they all do. The american media is incredibly soft.

Justice: I'm putting two and two together here, but I looked up the "Bias" book on amazon and saw little review on amazon and it mentioned both AIDS and the Homeless so I'm guessing you're going directly from that book pertaining to it. An assumption I know but I'm hoping you're not going by what one idiot writes and you become his soundboard. Same goes for whoever was talking about the Al Franken book. I find it irresponsible and idiotic for someone to only read what they agree with rather than getting all sides. Even Hitler knew that.

Edit: I really just need to let this die. Either way we're merely bickering back and forth. Put politics aside let's have a drink. :cool:

[penciljack]

At the same time I think it was a sham that Clinton got it in the ass because he got a blow job what a charade that was. Moreover a waste of time, but other than that I think he got it easy too as they all do. The american media is incredibly soft.
See, this is a clue, to me, about the nature of the media here in the US. The fact is - and you can look this up - Clinton "got it in the ass" because he perjured himself, which is a crime, and because he was involved in an inappropriate affair with a White House intern. Not because he got a bj. That's how it was spun in the lapdog media.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Bush takes it in the rear from the media every day. All that most people read or hear is about the "bloodbath" in Iraq, the failures, the lack of planning.

It's almost like your local media, in that the only reporting that's given from Iraq is the bad. The shootings, the protests.

Especially the print news. These are the same news sources that infomed us that we were "bogged down" in a virtual Viet-nam, in the first week of the war.

[Justice41]

Astro my man, How old are you? How many People do you know personally that have died from Aids? These may be anecdotal stories but my personal poll says that only Gays, IV drug users and people that have had blood transfusions plus all the so-called Bi-sexuals have ever come down with AIDS. Prove me wrong with some factual data. You will always find Gay sex or drug use as the cause for almost all of the Aids cases sited.
As for the book. Please, I don't get any of my facts from one source. Geez man I have been alive long enough to know the truth when I hear it as well as a lie. I'm a great Lie detector.
I read it because of some other things that was hinted at by the author. Peeked my curiosity. Besides it was on sale.
The Homeless have always been around. They used to be called bums and before that hobo's and before that travellers and before that drifters and before that nomads and before that bedouin.... etc...
So I don't wanna hear ay crap about the homeless. they just released a study of the neo-homeless. 20 something kids who have chosen to live on the streets instead of working. They get free food and bedding and even Cel-Phones. The prepaid kind. Now San Fran wants to give the bums a phone number and message service. There are real homeles people out there as well as the mentally disturbed as well as your usual drunks and drug addicts. The rest are run-aways that chose to live on the streets.
Show me a fact based report on who makes up the homeless poulation in this country.
As long as liberals advocate a lifestyle of not taking care of yoursel because the almighty government will there will always be Lowlifes with their grubby paws out looking for a free ride. And It's on our tab.
Man You Libs are doing a bang-up job on the yout o this country. First you don't educate them, then you don't hold them accountable for anything, now lets guarantee a free life. God going. Real good. Gonna turn this country into a Socialist paradise like England, Canada and France as quickly as possible huh?

[Justice41]

You know, now that this Khalid Sheik Mohhamad is spilling his guts about how long it took to plan and execute the 9-11 attacks the more it dawns on us just how collasal a failure Clinton was. If he had taken the Sudanese and the other Countries that offered Bin Laden Up back in 96, The attacks may have not gone forward. Bin Laden and the Ron jeremy/ John Belushi look alike had only started to plan the attcks in 96, if only Clinton had had the Guts to do the right thing back in 96 this may have been aborted. Hell If he had the guts after the 93 World Trade Bombings we may not have had to have gone through the attacks. It's just a matter of time before the Victims of 9-11 connect the dots and file suits against Clinton and His team. You wait, it will happen even if I have to contact a Lawyer myself.

[astrocity20]

penciljack: Did you not just contradict yourself? "Inappropriate affair" as too getting a blowjob? I don't see exactly how the media is the lapdog here when they are dogging him about it, are you trying to say they are lapdogs because they seemingly dismissed his purjury? No... but the words purjury just aren't as exciting as Presidential Sex Scandal. Once again not about right or left but about selling a manufactured product in a spoon fed form.

Foetus: Matter of perspective, I simply think the media are to easy on everyone and cater to the least of the problems rather than the underbelly.

Justice: Justice, justice, justice. I wasn't even asking you to explain anything really merely just hoping that you and others aren't taking things at face value. You make everything a ****ing episode of Cross Fire I swear. Was Aids a problem?... back then certainly so, as it was a relatively unknown virus. Is it a problem today? It's called Africa. On to the homeless, don't use a bloody minority of 20 idiots to explain yourself. Sure their are homeless people, starving people unbeknowst to us. But I'm not going to sit here and say we're the ****ing Congo. It's pure fact that people are left behind in our country, they may have homes but not exactly the "american dream". Forget the fact Canada, France and England don't resemble anything in the likes of Socialism, though they have their sufficient social reforms and programs for the time being. Just another fair warning Justice, I don't care how much of a "lie detector" you think you are just don't get caught believing your own lies.

Conclusion on the media: That's right I'm ending this for me... your outlook on the media is simply your opinion. Your politics shape that opinion as such. You look at or read them wishing they would ask this or that question, or bring up this story which never seems to make the headlines yet they don't and thus don't fit your perspective and scope of what the media should be. Some think it's conservative, some liberal. As I said before I simply think it is a manufactured corporate bassline.

Now I'll bite my tounge.

[Justice41]

Another retard calling me a liar. Be very careful who you call a liar my friend. Careful

[misfitX]

Originally posted by Justice41
Astro my man, How old are you? How many People do you know personally that have died from Aids? These may be anecdotal stories but my personal poll says that only Gays, IV drug users and people that have had blood transfusions plus all the so-called Bi-sexuals have ever come down with AIDS. Prove me wrong with some factual data.

...? what the hell are you talking about? some of those "gays" are "Bi" and huh-oh! gave it to someone straight!! HOLY CRAP!! you know what the number one disease in Africa is? AIDS! 100% of prostitutes have AIDS over there (don't ask me where i got that i read it somewhere and i can't remember where so it may not be true but dammit its a high ****ing percentage)

there are hundreds of orphans created every day due to AIDS in Africa and America. its not some fruit's trivial disease, its our generations plague and if you can't find any factual information supporting this then you're not looking hard enough.



Originally posted by Penciljack
See, this is a clue, to me, about the nature of the media here in the US. The fact is - and you can look this up - Clinton "got it in the ass" because he perjured himself, which is a crime, and because he was involved in an inappropriate affair with a White House intern. Not because he got a bj. That's how it was spun in the lapdog media.

yes clinton lied about it. he was cornered and thought he could get away with it. the problem with america is that for some reason we think our leader's should be above human nature such as lieing to save yer ass. I'm not in any way condoning Clinton's actions, i'm just saying they're understandable. I don't think he should have lied but i seriously don't give a shit if he's getting a little action on the side. **** look at the action he was getting!!That's just sad, all the woman connected with his sexual deviance were butt ugly, lewensky was the best to look at out of all of them and she's still a dog.
ok i'm rambling
the point is the whole thing shouldn't have been brought up. the "liberal" media spent how many years fretting over the pres's sex life? what the hell? the Starr report read like a bland dear penthouse. its ****ing disgusting. i don't give a shit about who did what to whom! leave melrose place on UPN (or where it should be off the air) i don't care

as long as my politicans are doing their jobs they can **** whoever they want (not whatever they want animal sex is still wrong, Lott)

[quote] from justice41
The Homeless have always been around. They used to be called bums and before that hobo's and before that travellers and before that drifters and before that nomads and before that bedouin.... etc...[quote]

?what? you keep digging a ****ing hole to me. how can they...god...i can't express how stupid (yet creative) this sentence is...bedouin are still around...and only in the middle east. Why? 'CAUSE ITS AN ARAB WORD!! they were always called bums and hobo's and pikies and the traveling men and to my knowledge no one call's him drifters unless they're travellers drifting in and leeching off...besides i don't know many homeless that travel outsie their respective citys

wow that was off topic but the point of it is that you are an idiot. and you may think i'm an idiot, i'm just a little ill-informed and can't keep my mouth shut but im the first to admit that he is wrong and i have to say that some of the shit said in this thread has opened my eyes.

the interesting thing i keep on seeing is that you people seem to be arguing on the same side of issues against each other.

justice, i expect your next post to tell us how much clinton hated out military and didn't do a damn thing to strengthen it.
clinton knew about the damn attacks, bush's admin didn't do a damn thing about it. the military that bush sent over there as soon as he could after the attack on the WTC was clinton's army. there is no rational way you can think that bush somehow whipped the already best military in the world into what it is. it's always been that way. even one of bush's military advisors said that every president relies on the preceeding one's military. thats just a fact. so whatever you think of clinton and his sexual escipades he was a good president. bush is not.

i thnk i'll try to wash my hands of this since i know there is no one in hell any of us are gonna change their base opinions. its human****ingnature we beleive what we beleive and its hard as hell to change it

[misfitX]

Originally posted by Justice41
Another retard calling me a liar. Be very careful who you call a liar my friend. Careful

i don't think he should i know i wouldn't be besides what are you the j edgar hoover of our times?

sometimes the patriotism in this country resembles the witch trials and the red scare...oh wait...that happened here too didn't it................................

[penciljack]

yes clinton lied about it. he was cornered and thought he could get away with it. the problem with america is that for some reason we think our leader's should be above human nature such as lieing to save yer ass
Again, Clinton didn't just tell a lil' ol' white lie, he perjured himself. Perjury is a crime in this country. If you've bought into the media spin that Clinton was persecuted just because he had a tryst with Monica Lewinsky, you're just flat wrong. He perjured himself in front of a grand jury.

[jeremy dale]

Agreed. Seriously, I thought the whole thing was fluff until he ADMITTED to lying in testimony-- PERJURY. That's a crime, and he got away with it.

Like it or not, a president is the U.S. ambassador-- our face-- to the whole world. What behavior he exhibits is seen as the standard to the world about the United States and how it operates.

[penciljack]

penciljack: Did you not just contradict yourself? "Inappropriate affair" as too getting a blowjob? I don't see exactly how the media is the lapdog here when they are dogging him about it, are you trying to say they are lapdogs because they seemingly dismissed his purjury? No... but the words purjury just aren't as exciting as Presidential Sex Scandal. Once again not about right or left but about selling a manufactured product in a spoon fed form.
No, I didn't contradict myself. Clinton had an affair with a White House Intern, a position over which he has ultimate control. If you can't see why that's inappropriate, I'm not sure I can help you. Plus, as I said, he looked us all in the eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman .... Ms. Lewinsky." Remember that? That was a lie. But the real crux of the matter was, as I said, he perjured himself.

The mainstream media, however, chose to all but ignore that fact. It wasn't so much reported that Clinton was having sexual encounters with a person subordinate to him and that he perjured himself. It was reported that he was the victim of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and that the dirty, petty, jealous ol' Republicans were just trying to use it as an excuse to get him. So yes, I consider it a lapdog media in that regard.

I'm always perplexed, though, the so many of you never seemed to have a problem with Clinton sullying his office and his position in that regard. I guess it amounts to selective thinking. I'd wager if it were a Republican president in Clinton's shoes, you'd have been all about throwing him out of office.

[Bruce]

Yes it was wrong to lie to us all about it.
No I don't think it was wrong for him to get a bit of play while in office. Plenty of others in his position have played around while in office. It is his thing. He made a bad decision.

Bush has lied about the reasons for going to war and a good chunk of the world looked right through his lies. Then we told them that were going to do it anyways and we dont need their help. Now were stuck. We have no WMD. No connections to any major terrorist groups that we should be going after. Unfriendly people that we were told would be kissing our feet. Worse problems around the world or our own backyard that we should have been taken care of first, and what is bush doing today? Going back to the UN to state his case on why we were right even though we still have no proof that we were right, and that they should help us by giving us money and men.
But reminding them that they still can't have any hand in rebuilding. That way we keep the money for rebuilding.

Yea Clinton was a bad man for getting a BJ and not telling the truth to the public that he's been having a fling and not telling his wife. I agree with you.

[penciljack]

Heh - I, for one, would like to see this "proof" you have of Bush lying, Bruce.

Plus, if you want to get into the policy difference between Bush and Clinton, you're going to lose there, too. Clinton, after all, sold out to the Chinese. Remember? There's more proof to that allegation than there is to the notion that Bush has lied or is lying about the reasons for going to war for Iraq.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Bruce
[B]Going back to the UN to state his case on why we were right even though we still have no proof that we were right

I didn't say proof of lying.

He will get up there today and read off the same crap he has been for over a year. Nothings changed.

I want the WMD. (that probably will apear before next election time;)) I want the terrorist connections (that bush came out this week saying that he doesn't see a connection in) I want a good solid reason other than he was a bad man so we dropped the real big search for osama to go push Sadam around.
Plenty of bad people out there. Plenty of death and rape camps. Plenty of countrys that we dont agree with (Iran openly looking for resorces to make WMD).
Give us a solid reason for going into Iraq that hasn't come back to bite us in the ass and make us look like idiots to the rest of the world and i'll say hes not to bad for the position.

[penciljack]

Let's be honest - I could give you an ironclad case for going into Iraq (and if the fact that they flaunted UN resolutions for years isn't enough for you, then nothing will be, frankly) and you'd find some approach to complain about it, Bruce. If you don't like Bush, fine, that's great. But the reasons we've gone into Iraq have been spelled out time and again and if you choose not to buy them, then there's not much I can do to convince you.

[Bruce]

And convincing you that the reasons are wrong.
That for the time and the things going on in the world, picking Iraq to go to war with should not have been a high priority.

[TheFightingFoetus]

Originally posted by Bruce
Yes it was wrong to lie to us all about it.
No I don't think it was wrong for him to get a bit of play while in office. Plenty of others in his position have played around while in office. It is his thing. He made a bad decision.

Bush has lied about the reasons for going to war and a good chunk of the world looked right through his lies. Then we told them that were going to do it anyways and we dont need their help. Now were stuck. We have no WMD. No connections to any major terrorist groups that we should be going after. Unfriendly people that we were told would be kissing our feet. Worse problems around the world or our own backyard that we should have been taken care of first, and what is bush doing today? Going back to the UN to state his case on why we were right even though we still have no proof that we were right, and that they should help us by giving us money and men.
But reminding them that they still can't have any hand in rebuilding. That way we keep the money for rebuilding.

Y

So it was lying to the world when the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and the UN itself all said that Iraq had chemical weapons that were unaccounted for?

Was it lying when Saddam actually used those weapons?

Was it retarded to play this stall and wait game with Saddam that the UN wanted, while he was able to ship out his chemical weapons to Lebanon, or bury them under the sands of his deserts like the dozens of buried russian Mig's we've been finding?

I believe that if you want to blame the lack of finding the weapons, you should lay that blame squarely at the UN, who gave Saddam a clear notice that they were going to stall any procedures by the US to come get them, and him.

If the UN had used the muscle it was given, instead of sitting around and debating Saddam's fate, maybe we wouldn't have had to go in there.

But I ask you this Bruce: What over the last decade did the UN do to remove the brutally viscous tyrant who was murdering his own people, and had done all he could to undermine UN efforts to keep him in check?

Just what good did the UN do?

Also, is it so hard for you guys to believe that Saddam was sending huge amounts of money to terrorist organisations? I mean, did you guys not see him on TV offering 25k to the families of anybody who would go be a suicide martyr against Israel?

Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously, if you say that he wasn't sending money to other terrorist groups?

We are in the new World War 3, and where there are those who support, aid, and abed terror, we have to go cut them out of the picture.

[TheFightingFoetus]

oops

[cabralsoth]

Zieg Heil!!!

[penciljack]

Originally posted by Bruce
And convincing you that the reasons are wrong.
That for the time and the things going on in the world, picking Iraq to go to war with should not have been a high priority.
If you think the middle east isn't a high-priority, then I'd have to question whether you've been paying attention to world affairs. The Hussein regime was clearly a fire that needed to be put out. If you watch what's been going on and think hard about how things are going, you see a clear, methodical effort to resolve the problems that exist in the Middle East.

You may not like the justification, but as Shane has pointed out, it's there. The reasons we went into Iraq are valid and meaningful, and I, for one, am glad that someone finally had to guts to go in and do what had to be done as opposed to playing it for political gain.

Just one question to those of you who think Bush is a liar. IF Bush is indeed the egregious liar some of you portray him to be, and IF he really were to have no compuctions about lying to the American people to further his own agenda ..... then why haven't we "found" any weapons of mass destruction yet?

I mean, honestly - if Bush is as bad as some of you pretend he is, wouldn't it just be a lot easier to just plant some evidence of WMDs? That'd be the easy way out. The cowards way, the liars way. But we haven't done that yet. I think that should speak volumes about this President's trustworthiness.

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by TheFightingFoetus
I love how nearly every link you posted is a hardcore democratic/liberal site.

Hell, you've basically said yourself that ON 9-11, you wanted there to be a reason that it all tied to Bush. Now you can find all the things you want to be true, via the web.

YOU WIN! :):rolleyes:

Just a coincidence, my friend.

I never said to myself that I wanted a reason to tie anything to Bush. I didn't vote for him as I didn't trust him, hated his dad. The happenings on 9/11 seemed fishy to me. None of this stuff I want to be true but keep in mind who we're talking about. Don't pretend to be surprised if it is. I just want him out of office and he should have been impeached after starting an unprovoked war not to mention ingnoring the UN among other things.

[Devil Man 666]

Originally posted by Inkthinker
Well, but HAS Bush done much to work with black America? Or did he promise to do more for blacks in America and he hasn't?

I mean, is this minister completely off-base or did he have a genuine grievance?

It seems to me that BOTH sides are rife with misquotes and manipulated information. Neither the right nor the left should call the kettle black.

Members of the NAACP, Julian Bond for example, started bashing Bush last year because Bush, when campaigning in 2000, promised to attend functions when invited and actually work with them. He, of course hasn't made any contact with them whatsoever and there is that looming lawsuit that they filed due to what happened down in Florida with which he is involved in.

Speaking as an African American, he hasn't done squat for me at all, not much for anybody for that matter except the rich and his own people. Every prediction I had about him if put in office has just about come true and then some ;mrt;

[Bruce]

Originally posted by penciljack
then why haven't we "found" any weapons of mass destruction yet?


Originally posted by Bruce
(that probably will apear before next election time;))

P>S> Sorry it took so lone to reply. Everyone lost internet use at work. If I get caught at work on PJ anymore I'm out a job. :(

[penciljack]

No problem, Bruce, I understand how it goes. Hopefully you'll be able to visit from home?

Devil Man 666 - I'm curious what you would expect Bush to do for you?

Also, as I recall, Bush has made it a point to work with black leaders, he just hasn't bowed down before the feet of the NAACP or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I mean, if nothing else, he's certainly elevated blacks to a position of power they haven't necessarily enjoyed before (think Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell).

Truth of the matter, though, is I figure if Bush is pissing off Julian Bond, Kwaze Mfume, Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, et. al. then he's doing something right.

Also, you said Bush ignored the UN - I sure wish that were the case. The UN needs to be ignored, if not totally abolished and rebuilt from the ground up.

[jamiller98]

Originally posted by misfitX
i don't give a **** about who did what to whom! leave melrose place on UPN (or where it should be off the air) i don't care


Actually, Melrose Place was on Fox, was cancelled back in '99 or so, and Clinton was guilty of perjury.

Oh, and I agree with pretty much everything Penciljack has said (typed?) so far. As usual. Also, thanks for reminding me about the opportunity Clinton had to nail Bin Laden, Justice. I can't say that I agree with 100% of what you put out there, but I'm baffled that some of these stories haven't gotten wider media coverage (I shouldn't be, but I am). If someone found out that Reagan or either of the Bush's had been given such a golden opportunity to keep something like 9/11 from happening, it would be on the cover of every newspaper and magazine across the country.

I am always baffled when someone says that the mainstream media isn't biased because it seems like such an obvious fact to me. When I was fifteen or so I started going on tirades about the crap that would come out of the nightly newscaster's mouth because it was so obvious that they were trying to push something down our throats. Does everyone think it's just a coincidence that every news outlet had 800 soundbytes of people talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" back when Clinton perjured himself? Those exact words? I mean, come on folks. I grew up with parents that still can't cope with the fact that I vote Republican most of the time because they are straight-party, Union-loving, a-Kennedy-can-do-no-wrong Democrats. With such a biased upbringing, how come I can see it but you can't? My only conclusion can be that it's because you don't want to see it. You sound like me reading DK2 ("No, no, it's not that bad. I'm sure the next issue will be better. Maybe it will make more sense if I read it all at once. Well, I think Frank Miller just wanted to make a statement with the digital coloring." Ad nauseum).

[misfitX]

Originally posted by penciljack
Again, Clinton didn't just tell a lil' ol' white lie, he perjured himself. Perjury is a crime in this country. If you've bought into the media spin that Clinton was persecuted just because he had a tryst with Monica Lewinsky, you're just flat wrong. He perjured himself in front of a grand jury.

which wouldn't have happened if we as a country didn't give a damn about clinton's cock. end of story.


original from P-jack
Truth of the matter, though, is I figure if Bush is pissing off Julian Bond, Kwaze Mfume, Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, et. al. then he's doing something right.

ya know what? i gotta agree with you there

i'm curious...what would we have done if clinton had gone after this old guy when he could have, instead of letting the next admin "take care of it" (?)

i wonder if we would have been behind him supporting him for destroying these terrorists who were evidently conspiring something quite heinous. how would the american people have handled it? i seriously doubt we would be as supportive as we are with bush.

hell as long as we're throwing around hypotheticals how would we be reacting if bush was taking out these terrorists without what happened at the WTC?

just wondering i'm not gonna say one way or the other 'cause there is no way of noing.

jamiller98, about the melrose place, semantics; you get the idea

[penciljack]

No, it's not the end of the story. The country cares .... or should care ... about whether its chief executive is using the Oval Office as his own personal sex pit. The country should care whether or not he used his position to elicit sexual favors from subordinates. The country should care if he perjured himself. You can't pass this off as a wash just because you think we shouldn't care whether he gets oral favors or not.

Re: Clinton hypothetically taking out Bin Laden, etc. Who can say? I'm sure you'd have extremists on either side cry bloody murder, but I'd wager the Democrats in Washington wouldn't be putting up anywhere near the stink they are with Bush.

[misfitX]

i'm dropping the clinton cock thing now 'cause i think everyone should


Originally posted by penciljack

Re: Clinton hypothetically taking out Bin Laden, etc. Who can say? I'm sure you'd have extremists on either side cry bloody murder, but I'd wager the Democrats in Washington wouldn't be putting up anywhere near the stink they are with Bush.

probably not, but i'm sure you'd have just as many republicans screwing up clinton at every turn. its the only way anything works

[penciljack]

Fair enough

[Justice41]

That's not true. Clinton was praised for going into Kosovo but jeered for not going to Rwanda. There are examples of how Clinton would have handled specific issues. Haiti, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, Bin Laden, North Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, David Koresh, Cuba. You go back and check what was actually done about each of those situations and you'll see a reluctance on Clinton's Part to fully commit to any of those. He half assed all of those issues. Haiti-Marines got killed for nothing. Samolia- Ran away with our tails beween our legs. Kosovo-Still have troops sitting there doing nothng worthwhile. Bosnia the same thing. N. Korea- Trusted a crazy man to keep his word on not developing Nukes now they have nukes... etc.... etc..
History tells us what happened and how someone would have dealt with anything similiar. Clinton did not trust the American People to stand behind him if he decided to go all out on terrorists.
An old saying goes like this what happend is more likely to happen again than something that's never happended before. The Clinton admin took a hands off policy in dealing with terrorist and allowed it to grow. Just like a cancer you must aggressively go after it with the cure. You'll know there isn't a cure but you know what I mean.
Bush is in trouble with this Weapons of Mass Destruction thing. I've heard that they haven't found anything but paperwork detailing a weapons program that was ongoing but had not produced anything. This isn't good for Bush. If what I've heard is true Bush may be Impeached and possibly charged with some crime. You may have already noticed Ted Kennedy starting to say Bush Lied and That the War was political.. Looks like we may have one of the Piece of crap Democrats as Prez next year. Oh well Nothing changes anyways.

[jamiller98]

Originally posted by Justice41
Oh well Nothing changes anyways.

Actually, I think 9/11 proves that it does make a difference who is in the White House. Did you know that Sadam ordered dozens (hundreds?) of copies of "Black Hawk Down?" He was using it as a training manual because he believed (so did Bin Laden and many other groups) that if there are American casualties, our president will back down and we'll pull out and let things go back to the way they were before our troops showed up. Why did they believe it? Because it is exactly what Clinton did.

I normally agree with you, but that statement was just a tad too cynical for me.

Semantics, Misfit? This is the typical Internet argument: you say something that is factually incorrect, someone corrects you, you blow it off (It's almost like watching a Presidential Debate). According to Peter David's rules of internet arguing, you should be calling me a Nazi within the next four or five posts. Seriously, he wasGUILTY of PERJURY.

I don't care how he perjured himself, just that he did. If the guy will lie about getting some from an intern who was only a few years older than his daughter, what else would he lie about?

I personally would have supported any honest attempt to take out terrorists, no matter how much I disliked Clinton and his policies. Clinton only cared about foreign policy when he thought it might affect his "legacy." As I said before, if he would have been more concerned with national security than what fourth graders would one day read about him, 9/11 may not have happened and we may not have ever put troops in Iraq (after Bush Sr. of course). Fifty years from now, this will be Clinton's legacy: a long line of missed opportunities to change the course of history that were ignored because of a lack of intestinal fortitude. Mark my words, it will come to be.

[misfitX]

yeah it was factually incorrect i knew it was 'CAUSE I NEVER WATCHED THE DAMN THING! ****...the semantics was referring to me saying it was UPN and you correcting me and saying it was FOX, I honestly don't know and don't ****ing care.

if you're panties in a bunch over that then i'd really hate to get in a real life argument and i don't appreciate being generalized either, every intelligent person in here has stayed above that.

shades of grey GOODNIGHT!!

[misfitX]

i was going to guit but i can't let this go


Originally posted by jamiller98


I don't care how he perjured himself, just that he did. If the guy will lie about getting some from an intern who was only a few years older than his daughter, what else would he lie about?



oh god yes! what else could he lie about??

maybe the tax reform

maybe campaign mananging

maybe being in the military

maybe about every damn environmental issue that comes up

maybe about shady buisness deals

shit...THEY ARE ****ING POLITICIANS!! you show me a guy that beleives politicians shouldn't and wouldn't lie, and i'll show you a naive, retarded little Iiiiii don't think we'll be saying that word, boss. Watch your damn mouth.--Benito.

ok now i'm quitting you wanna talk to me? PM me

[jamiller98]

For the record, I never watched the show either. I was just pointing out a series of inaccurate statements in what I thought was an amusing way (again with the "differences in sense of humor" thing).

My undergarments are actually a little loose today, but what can I say? It's laundry day.

Oh, and I personally believe that a politician should never lie, especially while under oath. Do I believe that no other politician has ever lied? Of course not. Anyone who does would probably be whatever Benito edited. I just think that anyone who is caught breaking the law should have to deal with the consequences regardless of their place in society. Is that really so much to ask?

[Justice41]

I may be being cynical but the Weapons Report coming from the new weapons inspector does not look good.
It has no conclusive info about WMD's. That's not good. If Our Boys went to their deaths because we had incomplete or bad intel, someone must go to jail. Tenent and his CIA Boys had better produce something soon. I defended the Iraq move but will not defend sloppy or shoddy work. People died over there for something we all thought was iron-clad.
Yeah it does make a diff who's in office but we can't have Foul-ups like this is looking to be.
If our intelligence gathering agencies have screwed the pooch on this I want to see some kind of Impeachment. Whether it be Bush, Cheney, Tenent, Rumsfeld, whomever. This just can't happen, there must be a heavy price paid for this massive a failure if what the WMD report is looking to say.
I like Bush and his team But If they have f'ed up they must go simple as that. I aint no Toady like the Clintonistas. You mess up you gots to pay.