TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Southern States scare me
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

I think the David Kay reporte leaves lots to say about Bush and the war.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Infact, there was something shown on the drudge report a few days ago

I wouldn't trust everything you read on there.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As much as we may tend to disagree with Bush for his reasoning for leading us into this war, let us at least try to be factually accurate. I've often stated that when you try to "gauge" the state of the Iraqi people, forget your own opinion and look straight to the source. Granted it's several months old but it likely serves as a better indicator than any kind of conjecture on our part. http://www.cpa-iraq.org/audio/20031...ting-saddam.pdf

Well, aside from their optimism and happiness that Saddam has been toppled, most of them view the current state of Iraq as worse than it was prior to the invasion.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, aside from their optimism and happiness that Saddam has been toppled, most of them view the current state of Iraq as worse than it was prior to the invasion.

All of which they view as being worth it in order to topple Saddam. That should be somewhat indicative of what a pain it was to live under his rule ... they don't care if they're worse off, as long as they're not worse off under him

quote:

Originally posted by occrider they don't care if they're worse off, as long as they're not worse off under him

You see, that's the problem with democracy. People don't know what's good for them!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I wouldn't trust everything you read on there.

Why not? To conservative for you?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Why not? To conservative for you?

technically its 'too' conservative...if thats what you mean.

it definitely leans quite far to the right - but its an okay place to get a synopsis of the news. anything written by Drudge himself is usually inciteful bullshit or pander though.

it helps to take anything on there with a grain of salt.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology technically its 'too' conservative...if thats what you mean. it definitely leans quite far to the right - but its an okay place to get a synopsis of the news. anything written by Drudge himself is usually inciteful bullshit or pander though. it helps to take anything on there with a grain of salt.

Same difference really, Don't worry, just a misstype.

Hey, you can read what you want to read ( Like that rag I deliver ) and I can read what I want to read, That's the beauty of this country.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Why not? To conservative for you?

No because Drudge is a liar.

A news site can give a conservative viewpoint without lying right? If not, then perhaps its audience should reevaluate its beliefs.

I don't read misleader.org for the same reason. I don't like being lied to and manipulated.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz No because Drudge is a liar. A news site can give a conservative viewpoint without lying right? If not, then perhaps its audience should reevaluate its beliefs. I don't read misleader.org for the same reason. I don't like being lied to and manipulated.

Could you provide me some of these lies? I haven't really read much of Drudge, but I haven't yet run into something that was false. Seriously.

Ok, let's call it a misrepresentation of the facts.

On Drudge's website he repeated Ed Gilespie's misleading comments about Clark advocating war in Iraq before the House Armed Services Committee in 2002.

Anyone who has read the entire transcript for themselves can see that he did say Saddam posed some threat, but Al Queda was a far greater threat. He did not advocate abandoning the hunt for Al Queda in order to invade Iraq.

I don't think the hunt for Al Quaeda was abandoned in order to go into Iraq--quite the contrary, both missions are interrelated and occurring simultaneously.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think the hunt for Al Quaeda was abandoned in order to go into Iraq--quite the contrary, both missions are interrelated and occurring simultaneously.

- But the intelligence was diverted, instead of giving it a full resource and force for looking for the Al Quaeda. After the reports Ive erad from David Kay, and the info coming in almost weekly, I see that Bush committed such a Human Kind mistake with this war. What he should have done, was to deal with Al Quaeda 100%, and then deal with the rest. We all know that Bush had beef with Saddam Hussein, even before 9/11, and that he was allready planning such attack, and 9/11 was the best open door for him to make up all this un proved evidence, and blablabla talk against him, and rally all americans ( As we still currently see ) for a war against Iraq, but now, with David Kay even saying it, the US has fallen into a big mistaken trap, in which they never even went with TRUE and reliable evidence.

OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

Because...... these people don't like the Drudge report? Anyway, their opinion on the Drudge report doesn't matter to me. After all,They probably go to get their news from places like CNN, ABC,and The washington post. (All liberal sources. Especially CNN/CNN international.)

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Because...... these people don't like the Drudge report? Anyway, their opinion on the Drudge report doesn't matter to me. After all,They probably go to get their news from places like CNN, ABC,and The washington post. (All liberal sources. Especially CNN/CNN international.)

- Sources that come straight from the mouths of representatives of the Bush Administration, as the guy called " David Kay" who actually retired been the Chief inspector, or maybe from the words that Collin Powell said today in Georgia about the cause of not finding any WMD... FOX is the most BIAS media out there, and the most extremists. ( Right Wing ).I guess those are your sources right?.. atleast CNN, Washington, New York times is all factual information, Not biased.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

When Drudge yanked a few quotes out of the entirety of Clark's testimony, took them out of context, and even scrambled some of them, that constitutes at the very least a misrepresentation of facts.

Luckily the media saw through it.

quote:

For once, press acts just as it should Gene Lyons To me, the single most significant event of the 2004 election campaign hasn�t been the Iowa caucuses or President Bush�s State of the Union address. Rather, it was the quick debunking of an attempted smear of retired Gen. Wesley Clark by a half-dozen or so news organizations functioning exactly as a free press should. Basically, the Republican National Committee got caught doctoring Clark�s words in a vain attempt to manufacture a "flip-flop" on the Iraq war. Given the dreadful standard set during the 2000 campaign, when the Washington insiders who set the tone of political coverage at the nation�s major newspapers, magazines and TV networks conducted themselves like a high school clique trying to fix a prom queen election, the Clark incident came as a welcome surprise. Has war sobered them, or has American journalism begun to recover from Ted Baxter Syndrome ? Ted Baxter, for the uninitiated, was the comically pompous anchorman on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Like many celebrity pundits of the cable TV era, he thought the news was about him. But hold the sociology. First, a quick outline of the ill-fated effort to portray Clark as a two-faced opportunist. Whether or not the incident shows GOP fear of facing the former four-star general in the November election, as Clark insisted, it definitely indicates that turning the Democratic nominee into a caricature won�t be as easy as lampooning Al Gore with phony stories like "inventing the Internet," "earth-tone clothing," etc. What happened was that on the same day RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie had a speech scheduled in Little Rock, Clark�s hometown, the infamous "Drudge Report" just happened to produce one of its "worldwide exclusives" claiming to show that, contrary to his campaign rhetoric in New Hampshire, Clark supported Bush�s rush to war with Iraq during congressional testimony in 2002. In his speech, Gillespie portrayed Clark as a hypocrite and turncoat. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of Gen. Wesley Clark," Gillespie claimed. Drudge "reported" a passage from Clark�s testimony that was suspiciously like to that in an RNC fax. "There�s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark supposedly said. ". . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He�s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn�t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." But the quote turned out to be problematic, as Knight-Ridder reporters Dana Hull and Drew Brown determined in an article headlined: "GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise." Clark�s words had been taken completely out of context. In fact, he had pointedly argued that Iraq was a manageable problem and no imminent threat existed. He�d urged that Bush form "the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies. . . . [Force] should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted." The reporters also noticed that the Drudge/RNC quote "further distorted Clark�s testimony" by adding sentences they were unable to find in the transcript. Dogged research by the estimable Josh Marshall on his Talking Points Memo Web site subsequently determined that the first and last sentences appeared on Page 6, the bit about post-9 /11 defensive posture on Pages 25-26. Indeed, Clark argued that the U.S. was actually in a better strategic position vs. Iraq, leaving ample time for diplomacy. In short, Clark�s words had been yanked out context and their order jumbled to alter their meaning. The ellipses concealed gaps of 11,500 words, roughly a dozen times the length of this column. I�d argue they were essentially manufactured quotes, a firing offense at any self-respecting journalistic organization�not a phrase which describes "The Drudge Report." The heartening part was that it wasn�t only Knight-Ridder and Josh Marshall and liberal watchdog sites like mediawhoresonline.com that blew the whistle. While some of the usual suspects such as The Washington Timesand The Wall Street Journal Editorial page got taken (or pretended to get taken) for a ride, many others did not. According to the Columbia Journalism Review�s brand-new Web site, The Campaign Desk, "most of the major newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Boston Globe ran pieces reflecting the whole story." (The Democrat-Gazette also got it right.) The brainchild of the renowned journalism school�s new dean, Nicholas Lemman, CJR�s new enterprise means to provide "real-time" media criticism putting the Paula Zahns of the world on notice. (On her CNN broadcast, Zahn treated the Drudge quotes as factual.) Next time, sweetheart, do your homework and get the facts. Your professional reputation may once again depend upon it. Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award. 21-01-2004

Like I've said, if you want to believe fabrications that suit your own self-interest, that's your prerogative. I don't read (or at least take seriously) left-wing "news" sites that fabricate elements of their stories, and I refuse to be manipulated in that way by any media source. The Drudge Report is of little use to any person concerned with truth, except perhaps for an occasional chuckle.

My advice would be to stick to The Wall Street Journal or some more reputable conservative news source.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Sources that come straight from the mouths of representatives of the Bush Administration, as the guy called " David Kay" who actually retired been the Chief inspector, or maybe from the words that Collin Powell said today in Georgia about the cause of not finding any WMD... FOX is the most BIAS media out there, and the most extremists. ( Right Wing ).I guess those are your sources right?.. atleast CNN, Washington, New York times is all factual information, Not biased.

Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI.

No,CNN,New York times,and The washington post are not all factual information.

The New york times is a huge joke,You want to blame the Drudge report for lieing? Well you picked the wrong news source to bring up. The NY times lied,more than once I assure you.

So, what about the guy the New york times fired for making stuff up? Hmm. This should be an interesting reply.

That's true, but he was fired.

Is Drudge going to fire himself? No.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz That's true, but he was fired. Is Drudge going to fire himself? No.

excellent point...


anyone who is liberal or conservative should read the Financial Times, as it gives much insight into global politics - not that Wes Clark ate a crossaint for lunch|

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI. No,CNN,New York times,and The washington post are not all factual information. The New york times is a huge joke,You want to blame the Drudge report for lieing? Well you picked the wrong news source to bring up. The NY times lied,more than once I assure you. So, what about the guy the New york times fired for making stuff up? Hmm. This should be an interesting reply.

Sorry, I expressed myself wrong here. I tried to say that the sources I named ( CNN, NY TIMES etc etc ) I take as more factual then what Fox brings, although I know that the Media in general has been overtaking things differently, therefore not the whole truth has been exposed ( especially here in America lately ). AS for FOX not been bias, ooh please man, everyone knows that, even the most conservatives have admitted it here, why not you. I admit that some liberal sources do bang on Bush, but FOX has brought a right wind extremist enterntainment trend, something that Liberal sources have yet to bring ( O'Railly show for an example ). You can just see it when you see that Bush has a sudden drop or disadvantage, it barely shows on FOX, but when Bush has a rise on his rating or did something good, its place all over FOX highlighted in bold and showned ever 5 seconds, and gone over as if he had just become the World Hero.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI.

What FOX News channel are you watching?

OK back to the South being scary

To whoever said that Texas is not the South, it is the South.

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story....aen&xlc=1115059

quote:

Confederate general, MLK lauded jointly By Peggy Fikac Chief, Express-News Austin Bureau Web Posted : 01/17/2004 12:00 AM AUSTIN � Looking at the coincidence of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Confederate Heroes Day falling on the same Monday, the state's land commissioner, Jerry Patterson, sees common ground. "Martin Luther King Day and Confederate Heroes Day: Honoring Men of Principle," is the headline of an opinion piece he wrote for submission to newspapers. It was routinely distributed to General Land Office staffers Friday. "I hold that this day should be a source of pride for all Texans because I believe this day honors men of high principle: Dr. Martin Luther King and General Robert E. Lee," he wrote. "Men who, in their time, served as leaders of the causes to which they dedicated their lives, but moreover continue to serve as great moral and ethical leaders." Pressing the point, Patterson wrote that Texas and the nation have "been greatly influenced by these men, and they should be considered a role model for anyone seeking integrity, dedication and selflessness." Rep. Ron Wilson � who fought an attempt to link the two holidays during the years-ago battle to have Texas mark King's birthday � made his own point when told of the opinion piece. "If you want to laud Robert E. Lee because he was a great general, you can do that," said Wilson, D-Houston, an African American. "As far as having high moral character and representing all that is best in us as an American people, you'd be better off picking (serial killer) Jeffrey Dahmer." Patterson, whose great-grandfather was a Confederate veteran, said King's accomplishments are well-known and mark him as one of "the greatest Americans of the 20th Century." He said the Confederate military leader's life was not so widely known. He said Lee opposed slavery and was a "dignified, respected soldier." "So if someone says a holiday honoring the birthdays of Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee is inconsistent, patiently explain to them the tie that binds these two men across boundaries of race and time. They were both men of principle," he wrote. Byron E. Miller of San Antonio, who serves on a commission that promotes Juneteenth, which commemorates the freeing of slaves in Texas, said his reading about Lee has led him to "understand him as an honorable man," but added, "I also understand that he was on the wrong side." "Even though the war was fought for many reasons, one of the main reasons was slavery," Miller said. "I think that his timing is bad," he said of Patterson's column. "I just do. I also think that he has a right to his opinion." State agencies are closed on the King holiday, which is the third Monday in January. Confederate Heroes Day always is Jan. 19, Lee's birthday. State agencies usually have a skeleton crew on the Confederate holiday but will be closed Monday since it's also King's day.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI. No,CNN,New York times,and The washington post are not all factual information.

*Sigh*

We're not going to go down this road again with Fox, are we?

quote:

The New york times is a huge joke,You want to blame the Drudge report for lieing? Well you picked the wrong news source to bring up. The NY times lied,more than once I assure you. So, what about the guy the New york times fired for making stuff up? Hmm. This should be an interesting reply.

That was most unfortunate for a paper that is considered the most highly regarded world newspaper. Thank God that little turd reporter was caught.

It is up to the reader, however, to read through and understand bias. This is true for any media sources, whether it be newspaper, TV, radio, or internet. For you to consistently regard Fox as a non-bias news source, when even the most staunch Conservatives consider it biased, only exhibits your true ignorance. You will be hard pressed to find any Conservatives even here that would agree with your non-biased assessment of Fox.

Having a TV outlet created by a staunch Conservative supporter (Murdoch giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican campaign), fill the entire staff up with Conservative reporters and commentators, as well as former Conservative presidential staff members (and writers), and then occasionally have a centrist liberal show up for an alternative opinion (i.e. Alan Colmes) is far from being non-biased. And just to review some people on Faux's staff:

quote:

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). 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. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...2&c=1&s=eviatar (that is a leftist journal, BTW. The facts given however, are undisputed)

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2

I doubt CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, or any other main news outlet has a "liberal" lineup that's equivalent to this. Can you think of one to note?

So to recap: staunch Conservatives vs. centrist Liberals is NOT "Fair and Balanced" (God I hope they don't sue me for using their phrase).

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 *Sigh* We're not going to go down this road again with Fox, are we? That was most unfortunate for a paper that is considered the most highly regarded world newspaper. Thank God that little turd reporter was caught. It is up to the reader, however, to read through and understand bias. This is true for any media sources, whether it be newspaper, TV, radio, or internet. For you to consistently regard Fox as a non-bias news source, when even the most staunch Conservatives consider it biased, only exhibits your true ignorance. You will be hard pressed to find any Conservatives even here that would agree with your non-biased assessment of Fox. Having a TV outlet created by a staunch Conservative supporter (Murdoch giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican campaign), fill the entire staff up with Conservative reporters and commentators, as well as former Conservative presidential staff members (and writers), and then occasionally have a centrist liberal show up for an alternative opinion (i.e. Alan Colmes) is far from being non-biased. And just to review some people on Faux's staff: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2 I doubt CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, or any other main news outlet has a "liberal" lineup that's equivalent to this. Can you think of one to note? So to recap: staunch Conservatives vs. centrist Liberals is NOT "Fair and Balanced" (God I hope they don't sue me for using their phrase).

You appear to make a cogent argument on the surface ... but then I remembered that you're biased. So I'm not falling for your duplicity. Go fox news ... the last bastion of truth in the world today! Except for the bible of course.

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