TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hitlary
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Funny how I keep thinking Vietnam. Funny how most others think that too...

Vietnam? hmm.Nope. Not at all... Do you remeber the number of fatalities of US soldiers? We're talking around 60,000 in Vietnam.( I do believe) and we've only lost about...400 US troops, Still very sad. But, that's only one of the differences.

quote:

Perhaps the wrong word - fruitless. Yes, we are saving lives. Yes, Saddam was an evil motherf$cker and a genocidal maniac. Yes, the world is a better place without him. However, this is a terrible argument to enter the war illegally: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1089158,00.html

We aren't entering a war illegally.. Again,go read up on the Spanish-American war. Same situation...

quote:

Of course it was Richard Perle who said this, but it may as well have been Bush. Besides, the point to go to war was because Iraq was an "imminent" threat. That's what Bush was trying to address in his SOU address last February, as what Powell was addressing when attempting to convince the UN last year. They were NOT making their cases for war because of Saddam's brutality to his own people, though it was a point to be made. Otherwise, we should be immediately invading about 12 other countries right now if that were the case now shouldn't we? There are other brutal dictators out there, what separates them from Saddam?

Saddam is the biggest problem right now. You know..It's not only Iraq this is helping.This is more than a favor to the rest of the world aswell.

quote:

There was no imminent threat, as it's been proven countless times, and you notice how the tone of the war went from disarming his WMD to "Operation Freedom"? Gee, I wonder why?

Gee,I know why. Let me inform you... I still strongly believe there are WMD's. Just give us time,we'll find them. But,It's been a mixture of things,all along.Didn't you know? I guess not..

quote:

The point I was making earlier is this: yes, the military is for the most part conservative. Yes, many, if not most support their Commander in Chief. That's usually how it is - the Chain of Command is of the upmost importance to the military. Questioning authority, esp. at times of war, is deeply discouraged. However, there are those in the military who have questioned why they are over there, and question all the politics that put them there in the first place.

That's right,that's how it should be. Respect to the man in charge.
They know the reason they are over there.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Vietnam? hmm.Nope. Not at all... Do you remeber the number of fatalities of US soldiers? We're talking around 60,000 in Vietnam.( I do believe) and we've only lost about...400 US troops, Still very sad. But, that's only one of the differences.

So you're saying the number of fatalities is a better comparison of wars as opposed to motives, intentions, and means for entering the war? I'm sorry, but that's not a worthy comparison. There is a reason why people (yes, people outside those darn liberal TV stations) are making a comparison.

quote:

We aren't entering a war illegally.. Again,go read up on the Spanish-American war. Same situation...

Sir, did you not read the article? Richard Perle, essentially the Neocon brain of Bush, ADMITTED we entered the war illegially. What part of that do you not understand?!? For God's sakes, everyone outside our country new that, and now we have our Admin. ADMITTING it as well.

You've referenced the Spanish-American War some 30x already. Since the burden of proof rests upon you to convince me that our war is justified, you'll have to explain what specific points you are referring to about that war that justifies our means for being in the current one.

quote:

Saddam is the biggest problem right now. You know..It's not only Iraq this is helping.This is more than a favor to the rest of the world aswell.

You didn't address my point as to the biggest reason as to why we were entering the war - the imminent threat Saddam posed upon us with his WMD. Nice dodge. By the way, where are those WMD? Rumsfeld swore he knew:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Damn, it sucks to be caught up in not one, but two lies, doesn't it Rummy?

http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.../211090375/1003

They just might be so darned hard to find:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...4¬Found=true

What about that dangerous "Sarin" that FAUX NEWS reported?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s826802.htm

Or how about those top 100 sites?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042603D.shtml

Damn, it sure sucks when our initial arms hunting team couldn't find anything:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...0¬Found=true

Or how about the Iraqi Survey Group, surely they could have found something recently?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

Perhaps they should have just been honest with us in the first place as to why they went to war:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...how_030425.html

Or as Wolfowitz admits:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=410730

Wait, I found them! Here they are:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,965231,00.html

Shit! That's not it. I know, how about evidence of the makings of WMD? Like this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...,973012,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...,977853,00.html

Though it's been proven (and as I've shown previously) that there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11 (as our President has readily admitted as much - http://www.sundayherald.com/33628), I'm still trying to understand our justification - No WMD, no connection between 9/11 and Saddam, oh yeah, we're there to "free" the Iraqi people.

**crowd snickers**

quote:

Gee,I know why. Let me inform you... I still strongly believe there are WMD's. Just give us time,we'll find them. But,It's been a mixture of things,all along.Didn't you know? I guess not..

If you hold your breath long enough you'll eventually pass out. Already you're turning blue.....

quote:

That's right,that's how it should be. Respect to the man in charge. They know the reason they are over there.

Did you not read the source I gave you? Did it sound like that man was happy? How about the some 2 dozen suicides? Blind devotion is not as widespread as you might think. Now what war does that remind me of....

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So you're saying the number of fatalities is a better comparison of wars as opposed to motives, intentions, and means for entering the war? I'm sorry, but that's not a worthy comparison. There is a reason why people (yes, people outside those darn liberal TV stations) are making a comparison.

Well one major difference is that we're not bailing out the French this time around. As a matter of fact, unlike many of the wars this country has been involved in, we're not doing it to bail out some European half-ass effort. This war is very different from those in our past. Some reasons I think a lot of liberals and certainly some other groups are trying to label it as a Vietnam is that Vietnam dragged on for years (YEARS--this has been going on since March--not even 1 year yet). The number of casualties is certainly relevant to comparison as well. Hell, there are more casualties in Los Angeles every day than there are in Iraq (maybe not every day, but for comparative reasons, it's FAR from Vietnam when there were 10's of thousands of casualties. To date, there have been far fewer than 1,000 coalition casualties. Yes, every one hurts, but a lot of people are a bit eager to push the panic button and call it a failure--mostly motivated by politics I would surmise). People cry Vietnam because it's the only thing that seems like a relavent comparison. Most people don't really know shit about the Korean War and the major World Wars seem so different that they're hardly applicable. So people just use Vietnam as a comparison because it's such a vivid talking point in recent American History. Also, there is still plenty of misinformation about the Vietnam War. The people who are the most vocal about it tend to be the old hippies who were never even there. Certainly there are plenty of soldiers who came home with horror stories, but there were also many soldiers who felt quite differently. America had little to gain from the Vietnam war. The entire world could gain much if the mission in Iraq is successful. It would be nice to have a more amicable, less overtly hostile Middle East.

quote:

You didn't address my point as to the biggest reason as to why we were entering the war - the imminent threat Saddam posed upon us with his WMD. Nice dodge. By the way, where are those WMD? Rumsfeld swore he knew:

So is it better to wait until you lose another 3,000 people on your home soil to make a move? Things would've been MUCH worse had Bush waited for another attack on U.S. soil, whether it came from Hussein or Bin Laden or Quadaffi or Kim Jong Il. There are plenty of people out there that have disdain for the U.S. for various reasons. Much better to take the battle to your enemy than to let the enemy take it to you. You don't think Saddam was pissed as hell about what happened in Gulf War I? Are you so quick to forget everything that he had already done as far as invading neighboring peaceful nations, killing his own people, while maintaining a shit eating grin and trying to claim that he was innocent?

I think too many people have tried to be too quick to make conclusions and draw opinions from what is only just beginning to happen. The U.S. has been a victim of terrorist attacks since the Carter administration and it's good that someone is finally taking a hardline stance and not just going at it again with an appeasement policy that clearly doesn't work. Whether you like the leaders or not, the actions they are taking are hugely important and I strongly believe that history will show them to have been wise decisions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitlary

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yep FOX Fair and balanced news.^-^ Why? To afraid of the truth? :-/ I'm sorry. It's Fox, It's not Faux. Fox potrays BOTH sides. Liberals,and Conservatives. But,I choose fox..and that's where I will continue getting my news.Thanks.^_^

Again, did you not read the study I posted?

Yeah, FAUX isin't biased huh? So FAUX's chairman Roger Ailes � who had worked as a media adviser for the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr., wouldn't create a biased environment, eh? I especially loved the 2000 election coverage by John "Let Me Call Florida" Ellis, the head of FAUX's coverage (which so happened to be Bush's cousin).

Let's see, Bill O'Reilly (who is a registered Republican, despite his lie that he is an Independent), Brit Hume, Tony Snow (a former speech writer for Bush Sr.), David Asman (former Op-Ed editor at the Wall Street Journal) Sean Hannity (need I say more), frequent contributors like Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard (staunch Conservative publication); Monica Crowley, former assistant to Nixon; Jim Pinkerton, former Reagan and Bush staffer; John Podhoretz, editorial page editor of the New York Post and former Reagan speechwriter; and John Fund, a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and collaborator on Limbaugh's political diatribe, The Way Things Ought to Be.

As for FAUX, I will continue calling it FAUX, because that is exactly what it is. And "Fair and Balanced?" Surely you jest. That's the funniest pile of crap that could ever be told. It's about as Fair and Balanced as our current Administration. Wait, perhaps that's because they have a Conservative agenda:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...2&c=1&s=eviatar


Oh yeah, I guess I don't blame you from shying away from all those darn "liberal" media stations:

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

http://www.democraticunderground.co.../07/12_mrc.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061900-101.htm

Hardly "liberal", don't you think?

I know, you'll try to hit me with the study that more journalists voted for Democrats than Repubs., or that more journalists tend to swing liberal (at least in social issues, not economical). To that I say, well, actually the study that Conservatives continue to cite on journalism voting is quite flawed in it's methods:

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stori.../votestudy.html

But even so, what's being reported is quite different than what a journalist votes. Furthermore, can I blame the journalists if they see social issues more liberally? Nope. Perhaps it's because they tend to see those social issues a little more first hand than most, which influences their decisions, rather than what their vast majority conservative editors tend to see.

As one annoying TV judge loves to say, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining." If you honestly believe FAUX News is "Fair and Balanced", then there's some serious brainwashing going on for you. You may attempt to argue that FAUX attempts to "balance" themselves with that darn liberal media, but since I tend not to think of the media as very liberal at all (according to a number of studies), you'll have a difficult time convincing me of that. But in terms of actually being "fair and balanced", FAUX News is far far far from that, and they readily admit their conservative agenda.

Ever heard of BBC? NPR? Try it sometime, it might be enlightening.

quote:

Fox** Unhappiness? Yea, I've seen unhappiness in the press. But,the troops are doing what they are supposed to do. I don't see them complaining.

Really?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/...2ndBrigade.html

quote:

"If Donald Rumsfeld were sitting here in front of us, what would you say to him?" I asked a group of soldiers who gathered around a table, eager to talk to a visiting reporter. "If he was here," said Pfc. Jason Punyahotra, "I would ask him why we're still here, why we've been told so many times and it's changed." In the back of the group, Spc. Clinton Deitz put up his hand. "If Donald Rumsfeld was here," he said, "I'd ask him for his resignation."

Of course, Matt Drudge, that wonderful Bush Co. smear mouthpiece, fired back with the revelation that the writer of this story is not only (gasp!) CANADIAN, but is (double gasp!) GAY!!! Quick, run to the hills!!!

But as stated, troops and their families aren't so happy as the media and the Admin. would like to have them appear:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1070684,00.html

quote:

So we're both from Military family. Atleast we've established that. Bush isn't doing anything incorrect. This,I'm sure of. Liberals just want to find something to pick on him for because they know they are losing. ( yes,Fact/truth.) Further more,I don't trust liberal news stations.All they are known for is lying,and Bush bashing.

Whatever "Bush bashing" you are referring to, to me he well deserves it. Let's see, he contributed to tanking our economy, he'll be the first president in like 50 years to NOT have any job growth, he's successfully widened the gap between the upper and lower classes (essentially pissing on the middle class), he got us into a war killing tens of thousands of people, hundreds of our own troops, for the sole purpose of what again? The rest of the world wants to shit on our faces because Bush's diplomatic skills of seeing black/white (with us/against us) has effectively alienated everyone, literally pissed on the environment for big business purposes, screwing our future with his huge tax breaks combined with big annual spending (more than any of the last 3 Presidents, yes, including Clinton), monumentally increased the deficit which will bite us in the ass real soon with a rise in interest rates, oh and he's lied on a number of occasions, actually a lot of occasions:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations...aughtonfilm.htm

Oh yeah, he's screwing your family and mine on veteran's benefits.

These aren't nit-picky things. These are things that are effectively screwing you and me, as well as our future generations. And you can't continue blaming Clinton for everything, though he was a bonehead on a number of issues as well in his day.

I think I've effectively covered that "liberal news" part you refer to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitlary

...but since I tend not to think of the media as very liberal at all (according to a number of studies), you'll have a difficult time convincing me of that.[/quote]

Please. You're joking. The media is extremely liberal. The reason you don't see them as liberal is that you yourself tend to swing more liberal, so therefore it doesn't seem very out of line with your own beliefs, and therefore relative to you, not liberal. You probably don't think of yourself as very liberal, but as more of a moderate liberal.

quote:

Ever heard of BBC? NPR? Try it sometime, it might be enlightening.

Enlightening, and extremely liberal. Don't forget the Guardian. The BBC is pretty corrupt, I wouldn't depend on them any more than the next news source.


All media outlets have their own agenda and you should take what every single one says with a grain of salt. You're so willing to give credibility to the BBC while at the same time bashing Drudge. Both have merits, both certainly make mistakes, and both are worthy sources of news if you're intelligent enough to make logical conclusions. Now if you started quoting MTV or the National Enquirer--that might be a different story. You quote Rupert Murdoch as saying he wants to be fair and balanced and conclude that he has an agenda. What about someone like George Soros who CLEARLY has an agenda. If you weren't aware (though you probably are) he has publically stated on many occasions that he'll do ANYTHING to keep Dubya out of office for a second term. Anything? I hope that doesn't include lying and other mischeif. He's probably more full of shit than just about any information source out there!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well one major difference is that we're not bailing out the French this time around. As a matter of fact, unlike many of the wars this country has been involved in, we're not doing it to bail out some European half-ass effort. This war is very different from those in our past. Some reasons I think a lot of liberals and certainly some other groups are trying to label it as a Vietnam is that Vietnam dragged on for years (YEARS--this has been going on since March--not even 1 year yet). The number of casualties is certainly relevant to comparison as well. Hell, there are more casualties in Los Angeles every day than there are in Iraq (maybe not every day, but for comparative reasons, it's FAR from Vietnam when there were 10's of thousands of casualties. To date, there have been far fewer than 1,000 coalition casualties. Yes, every one hurts, but a lot of people are a bit eager to push the panic button and call it a failure--mostly motivated by politics I would surmise). People cry Vietnam because it's the only thing that seems like a relavent comparison. Most people don't really know shit about the Korean War and the major World Wars seem so different that they're hardly applicable. So people just use Vietnam as a comparison because it's such a vivid talking point in recent American History. Also, there is still plenty of misinformation about the Vietnam War. The people who are the most vocal about it tend to be the old hippies who were never even there. Certainly there are plenty of soldiers who came home with horror stories, but there were also many soldiers who felt quite differently. America had little to gain from the Vietnam war. The entire world could gain much if the mission in Iraq is successful. It would be nice to have a more amicable, less overtly hostile Middle East.

My bad. You're right, we should be comparing U.S. troop casualties:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3818786

Wait, that kinda showed we're a little ahead of Vietnam in this war, doesn't it? Umm, oh shit?

quote:

So is it better to wait until you lose another 3,000 people on your home soil to make a move? Things would've been MUCH worse had Bush waited for another attack on U.S. soil, whether it came from Hussein or Bin Laden or Quadaffi or Kim Jong Il. There are plenty of people out there that have disdain for the U.S. for various reasons. Much better to take the battle to your enemy than to let the enemy take it to you. You don't think Saddam was pissed as hell about what happened in Gulf War I? Are you so quick to forget everything that he had already done as far as invading neighboring peaceful nations, killing his own people, while maintaining a shit eating grin and trying to claim that he was innocent? I think too many people have tried to be too quick to make conclusions and draw opinions from what is only just beginning to happen. The U.S. has been a victim of terrorist attacks since the Carter administration and it's good that someone is finally taking a hardline stance and not just going at it again with an appeasement policy that clearly doesn't work. Whether you like the leaders or not, the actions they are taking are hugely important and I strongly believe that history will show them to have been wise decisions.

You're right, we needed to act. We need this pre-emptive Junior Bush doctrine, despite the fact that no other President would have ever supported it. Therefore, we need to attack Iran next. Then I'd say let's beat up on Syria. Then we should go after Somalia. But then it will get real fun to go after N. Korea! Hope they don't bomb the f$ck out of Seoul in the process, right? If we have enough troops, and if our "coalition" is strong enough, why stop there? We've got China to go after next!

And if anyone's alive after that point, look out European Union!

Oh yeah, let's just let Israel nuke the Palestinians while we're at it. Same logic, you know!

And to top things off, why not let other countries have some of this pre-emptive attack fun? I say, fuck India and Pakistan! Let them go by our logic and pre-emptively strike each other! There's only about a billion or so people in India - fuck 'em, right?

You see where this pre-emptive logic fails? If we pre-emptively strike every one of our so-called enemies before they supposedly strike us first, we have to take out a great many countries. Furthermore, other countries have their God/Allah/Buddah-given right to pre-emptively attack their enemies just like we do, what's to stop them? We did it, why shouldn't they?

This is the crux of the fallacy of pre-emptive striking. Besides, I thought Iraq was supposed to be a threat to us? WMD anyone? The truth is, we had that little ****** over there contained, and the UN weapons inspectors were doing their jobs but couldn't find anything (kinda like our weapons inspectors now, huh?). We had conclusions drawn to attack Saddam immediately after 9/11, even though no connections can be drawn whatsoever. This faith-based policy of drawing conclusions and skewing the evidence to support those conclusions is logically flawed and quite dangerous (as is evidenced by our actions today). Kinda also reminds me of Creationists arguments, but that's a tasty little off-topic.

I fully supported the President for going into Afghanistan. The evidence fully supported that decision to attack the Taliban. No evidence supports or even remotely outweighs our attacking Iraq. Quite the contrary, as I've pointed out numerous times earlier.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitlary

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Please. You're joking. The media is extremely liberal. The reason you don't see them as liberal is that you yourself tend to swing more liberal, so therefore it doesn't seem very out of line with your own beliefs, and therefore relative to you, not liberal. You probably don't think of yourself as very liberal, but as more of a moderate liberal.

To be honest, I'm not sure where I'm at anymore. I used to be pretty darn moderate, borderline conservative moderate, but I think it's obvious I'm swaying more to the left these days. I wish I could help it, but there's just a lot of issues out there that are quite maddening to me lately.

As for the media being liberal/conservative, I think I made my case about Faux News. As for other media outlets, I've seen studies on both sides, and the ones I pointed out have lately given me a more lean to the left. Corporate conglomeration has taken over the media, and it seems quite obvious who's pocketbooks they line lately.

Do I think the media is 1 giant right wing conspiracy? I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do tend to believe they sway quite a bit more to the right than the left, based on studies I've seen on both sides. I'll get to Soros below.



Enlightening, and extremely liberal. Don't forget the Guardian. The BBC is pretty corrupt, I wouldn't depend on them any more than the next news source.

The BBC is the only non-government funded newsgroup in Britain. Corrupt is an extremely harsh word for a news corp. that doesn't have a government agenda. Do they have problems? Most certainly. Are they as left-wing biased as, say, Murdoch's London Times is right-wing biased? That would be quite difficult to prove.


All media outlets have their own agenda and you should take what every single one says with a grain of salt. You're so willing to give credibility to the BBC while at the same time bashing Drudge. Both have merits, both certainly make mistakes, and both are worthy sources of news if you're intelligent enough to make logical conclusions. Now if you started quoting MTV or the National Enquirer--that might be a different story. You quote Rupert Murdoch as saying he wants to be fair and balanced and conclude that he has an agenda. What about someone like George Soros who CLEARLY has an agenda. If you weren't aware (though you probably are) he has publically stated on many occasions that he'll do ANYTHING to keep Dubya out of office for a second term. Anything? I hope that doesn't include lying and other mischeif. He's probably more full of shit than just about any information source out there! [/QUOTE]

As you may know, Soros owned Harken when Bush was on the Board and owned stock. So I ask you, who wouldn't know Bush better? He doesn't like Bush and the way he's running the country. Perhaps he got a taste of how Bush did things with Harken. Soros is no saint, to be sure. But I fail to see why so many conservatives are crying "foul" when they see a progressive supporting Democratic agendas, when so little is said about the likes of Murdoch?

You're right this though - all media outlets, esp. the extremes, should be taken with a grain of salt, and I certainly ought to take that into consideration more.

On the subject of Fox--I will definitely concede that Fox & Friends is a room full of bufoons. I feel the same way about every morning news show though. They're just a bunch of coffee fiends that make for annoying background noise. I do not watch Fox & Friends because I find it comical--however in my case I'm usually at work watching CNBC (a.k.a. Bubblevision) at that point. There aren't many good quality news shows--to Fox's credit they put on a lot of good prime time programming that at least questions a lot of pertinent issues (whether you agree with the points of view or not).

O'Reilly is loud, but he does ask good questions. I don't like that he tends to cut people off, but they tend to take it in stride, knowing that he thinks he's a know it all.

Hannity - What exactly is your beef with him? I think he's a pretty sharp guy who makes some very good points.

Regardless, at least they have guests on who present a viewpoint other than their own. How else could you explain all of the bickering you can find when you tune into Fox during prime time?

But alas, news is news. I just try to read the facts and draw my own conclusions based on my own personal philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka On the subject of Fox--I will definitely concede that Fox & Friends is a room full of bufoons. I feel the same way about every morning news show though. They're just a bunch of coffee fiends that make for annoying background noise. I do not watch Fox & Friends because I find it comical--however in my case I'm usually at work watching CNBC (a.k.a. Bubblevision) at that point. There aren't many good quality news shows--to Fox's credit they put on a lot of good prime time programming that at least questions a lot of pertinent issues (whether you agree with the points of view or not). O'Reilly is loud, but he does ask good questions. I don't like that he tends to cut people off, but they tend to take it in stride, knowing that he thinks he's a know it all. Hannity - What exactly is your beef with him? I think he's a pretty sharp guy who makes some very good points. Regardless, at least they have guests on who present a viewpoint other than their own. How else could you explain all of the bickering you can find when you tune into Fox during prime time? But alas, news is news. I just try to read the facts and draw my own conclusions based on my own personal philosophy.

Agreed on a lot of morning talk shows. I also agree on O'Reilly - as annoying and right leaning as he can be most of the time (self-proclaimed libertarian), he has had some interesting moments and topics from time to time (I do listen to him occasionally).

As for Hannity, yes he is sharp, but seems more like a Limbaugh-lite. Anyone who has nothing but a one-way agenda I can't take too seriously (and that goes for the likes of Franken, M. Moore, etc). His book had a number of critical flaws/lies in it as well, which I thought was a little inconsiderate.

He is also notoriously known for throwing out unsupported claims, which Colmes (a moderate by all measures), to his credit, spends most of his time trying to show the errors of Hannity's judgements and hasty conclusions. That whole show is a strange setup, giving Hannity the majority of airtime to shout out whatever the hell he wants, while Colmes seemingly does little of the same. Again, a good ploy by the conservative Faux News. But I will grant you this, Sean is a sharp one.

And I should also give credit where it's due to Murdoch - he is contemplating on airing a liberal show. I highly doubt it will go much further than contemplation, but at least he's at least showing he might go that far.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 He is also notoriously known for throwing out unsupported claims, which Colmes (a moderate by all measures), to his credit, spends most of his time trying to show the errors of Hannity's judgements and hasty conclusions. That whole show is a strange setup, giving Hannity the majority of airtime to shout out whatever the hell he wants, while Colmes seemingly does little of the same. Again, a good ploy by the conservative Faux News. But I will grant you this, Sean is a sharp one.

It's because Colmes is so damn UGLY! Too much Colmes would make too many people change the channel from fright! I tend to think of Colmes as a bit to the left as a counterbalance, but I agree with your point.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's because Colmes is so damn UGLY! Too much Colmes would make too many people change the channel from fright! I tend to think of Colmes as a bit to the left as a counterbalance, but I agree with your point.

With that, you'll get no argument from me. LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So you're saying the number of fatalities is a better comparison of wars as opposed to motives, intentions, and means for entering the war? I'm sorry, but that's not a worthy comparison. There is a reason why people (yes, people outside those darn liberal TV stations) are making a comparison.

That's not what I meant. This war is nothing like vietnam.

quote:

Sir, did you not read the article? Richard Perle, essentially the Neocon brain of Bush, ADMITTED we entered the war illegially. What part of that do you not understand?!? For God's sakes, everyone outside our country new that, and now we have our Admin. ADMITTING it as well.

erm, Well. I'm not sir.If this helps,my names Vanessa.

We didn't enter the war illegally. But show me your source.

quote:

You've referenced the Spanish-American War some 30x already. Since the burden of proof rests upon you to convince me that our war is justified, you'll have to explain what specific points you are referring to about that war that justifies our means for being in the current one.

Yep,That's because people need to read about the Spanish-American war. It's JUST like this war we're in now.All you have to do is read up on it.

quote:

You didn't address my point as to the biggest reason as to why we were entering the war - the imminent threat Saddam posed upon us with his WMD. Nice dodge. By the way, where are those WMD? Rumsfeld swore he knew:

Hmm,Alright. 1) We're there to help the Iraqi people,and neighboring countries from a ruthless terrorist. 2) We're there to help irricate one of the many threats 3) We're there to help save many other countries from attacks... etc

I'm positive the WMD's are out there.Just give us time.We'll find them.

quote:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

We'll find them.

quote:

Damn, it sucks to be caught up in not one, but two lies, doesn't it Rummy?

He's not caught up in a lie,or even two for that fact.

quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...4¬Found=true

Oh,now I TOTALLY do not read the Washington Post.Never have,never will. I may deliver the rag,but that doesn't mean I read it.

quote:

What about that dangerous "Sarin" that FAUX NEWS reported?

Man,you aren't having fun with this word! Fox**

quote:

Though it's been proven (and as I've shown previously) that there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11 (as our President has readily admitted as much - http://www.sundayherald.com/33628), I'm still trying to understand our justification - No WMD, no connection between 9/11 and Saddam, oh yeah, we're there to "free" the Iraqi people.

Heavens,you like liberal news sources.
Such a pity.

quote:

If you hold your breath long enough you'll eventually pass out. Already you're turning blue.....

Hmm? Oh no.I'm perfectly fine.Thanks.^-^

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 ... Yep,That's because people need to read about the Spanish-American war. It's JUST like this war we're in now.All you have to do is read up on it. ...

You keep saying that, but you cannot name any even *basic* similarities to back up your claims?

All I see is that there are parallels between media conglomerates controlling what we see and hear in the US - influencing opinion, and deluding facts for the average, uninformed American.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 That's not what I meant. This war is nothing like vietnam.

Okay, explain what you mean. How is it different?

And I retracted what I said about using casualties:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3818786

This is a descent means of comparison to Vietnam after all.

quote:

erm, Well. I'm not sir.If this helps,my names Vanessa. We didn't enter the war illegally. But show me your source.

Apologies Vanessa. Somewhat judgemental of me to think you're a man (I guess it's because the majority of folks here are guys - and guys seemingly tend to like to argue politics more, so it seems).

Anyways, I did show you my source, but just for the sake of argument, here it is again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1089158,00.html

quote:

Yep,That's because people need to read about the Spanish-American war. It's JUST like this war we're in now.All you have to do is read up on it.

Again you referenced this war without detailing specifics. I reiterate - the burden of proof is upon you to show me that we didn't enter this war illegally. Therefore it is up to YOU to show me what specifics from the Sp-Am war are similar to our justifications for going into this war.

quote:

Hmm,Alright. 1) We're there to help the Iraqi people,and neighboring countries from a ruthless terrorist. 2) We're there to help irricate one of the many threats 3) We're there to help save many other countries from attacks... etc I'm positive the WMD's are out there.Just give us time.We'll find them.

quote:

We'll find them.

Vanessa, we looked there. Quite extensively, in fact. We looked all throughout that region was Rummy claimed that's where they were, and nothing was found. In fact, we've given up and moved on from that area.

*sigh*

You're positive we'll find them? Despite all the evidence that points to the contrary? Did you not read the reports I gave you about not finding any so far, and that it's likely we won't find any in the future (including Bush himself admitting as much)?

Besides, you still dodged the primary reason why we entered the war - it was NOT, repeat, NOT because we needed to free the Iraqi people. Congress gave approval (yes, even the Democrats, those suckers!) because Bush and his Admin. showed what later proved to be faulty evidence of WMD. This was what Bush primarily addressed in his SOTU speech, as is the same reason why Powell tried to convince the UN why we should attack. Again, this was the primary reason. When it was seen that WMD likely couldn't be found, the focus shifted to "Operation Freedom". Get it?

quote:

He's not caught up in a lie,or even two for that fact.

Did you read the article? It shows he said one thing, then it shows he said something completely contradictory 2x. That's called lying, for a fact.

Please explain how this could not be interpreted as a lie.

quote:

Oh,now I TOTALLY do not read the Washington Post.Never have,never will. I may deliver the rag,but that doesn't mean I read it.

Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? You just made one.

It's entirely your perogative as to which paper you decide to read. The facts in the article, however, are indisputed. Please comment on the material and facts given, not on the source (which is a highly regarded world newspaper, despite your opinions).

quote:

Man,you aren't having fun with this word! Fox** Heavens,you like liberal news sources. Such a pity.

Hand waving and ad hominem. Do try to address the facts which have been presented in the articles, instead of merely waving them off as heresy.

quote:

Hmm? Oh no.I'm perfectly fine.Thanks.^-^

We'll be waiting a long, long time for those darn WMD to show up. Meanwhile, shouldn't we focus a little more on our own countries' problems?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hand waving and ad hominem. Do try to address the facts which have been presented in the articles, instead of merely waving them off as heresy.

Liberal news sources ...

It's true!!! I've seen you post sources from commondreams!!! Let's examine that title ... commondreams ... as if a disention in ranks are uncommondreams???? Hahahahaha I'm warming up my sacrifical liberal gutting knife! I don't understand how the chiefs can be so good considering what hippies they are ... what drugs are they on??? Ah well, I am infallible so long as I post news sources from newsmax ... news that is to the MAX!

i'm so gawdamn tired of hearing people doing "liberal" and "conservative" name calling and claiming.

it always seems like this team rivalry

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Liberal news sources ... It's true!!! I've seen you post sources from commondreams!!! Let's examine that title ... commondreams ... as if a disention in ranks are uncommondreams???? Hahahahaha I'm warming up my sacrifical liberal gutting knife! I don't understand how the chiefs can be so good considering what hippies they are ... what drugs are they on??? Ah well, I am infallible so long as I post news sources from newsmax ... news that is to the MAX!

Hey Dick, where ya been, man?

You happened to see my stash anywhere, man? I think I left it over in the Oval Office somewhere, man. Give me a buzz on my beeper if ya find somethin'.

What's with that gutting knife thing, man? I thought all you carried around was a butterknife? How ya gonna gut me with that, man?

Commondreams is a liberal site, to be sure, but much of the news they post come from other non-liberal sources (ex: Reuters). Then again, everything outside of Faux news is liberal . To be honest, I came upon commondreams through a google search for older news articles. Unfortunately, most of the news websites charge for older archives, or don't have them altogether. So when google searching for those specific pieces, lo and behold there are Progressive sites that keep ahold of them.

Ain't that nice?

I have many loved ones that signed up to be in the military. I just recently spoke to one in fact. He is being sent to Iraq. He told me he has no clue why, and he lost all track of why specifically we are fighting this war.

He told me the military is changing their stories everyday, and he no longer knows which way is right, and which is wrong.

So far, we've been sending our troops endlessly over to Iraq. I can't help but wonder, if we are even really wanted there by the Iraqi people themselves?

Saddam is a major threat, agreed. But he has gone into hiding. Perhaps not all of his followers have as well, but what kind of a man goes into hiding after attacking the US? He knew we were going to go there. He is too much of a coward to face up to what he has done. He can't even come out of hiding. It surprises me that all of his followers still worship him.

As for Bush, I don't like the man. So nothing I will say will really be in too much of support of him. All I know is what I've heard from hearsay of the troops, and they don't like him too much either. They think it's a joke that Bush went over there to eat Thanksgiving dinner.

Some words of my friend being shipped off:

"He went there to eat Thanksgiving dinner with us. What are we supposed to be thanking exactly? That we are all in Iraq? I don't think so. It was a joke. Simply a joke."

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I personally strongly endorse even illegal pre-emptive military action when absolutely necessary, but there is a second aspect about Globocops which I can't accept. The main problem I have with the US actions in the Middle-East is that the threshold for using force is much lower. A military tends to only respond to a military threat, but a cop tends to respond to anyone who looks suspicious and illegal. For example, Saddam was toppled because he was suspected to act in an illegal and hostile manner. I don't think a cop is a successful model for a modern soldier. Military force should still be used only when facing a definite military threat. I believe that bad guys will almost always prevail, and countries develop only in a chaotic fashion at their own pace, so that's why I believe that democracy projects like in Iraq are doomed to fail. On the other hand, Neoconservatives are optimists enough to believe that good guys will win, and they believe that democracy is a deterministic force, so that's why they believe in the possibility of democratic transformation in Iraq. Many American Conservative politicians and military officers opposed the Iraq War. Their criticism was not only about the chaos resulting from toppling Saddam, but they were also terrified about Neoconservatives' very low threshold of unleashing Globocops.

I think this was very well-written. It describes exactly how I see the situation.

Well said.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.