April 19, 200422 yr The world court would of been a catastrophe, because individual american soldiers or politicians of ours, and ect go on foreign visits can be "easily" arrested for qar crimes, and I see that as against America's interests. Funny you should mention that. I remember the Clinton administration having the same thought process. They were worried that lobbing tomahawks into a soveign nation in order to take out individual terrorist threats was going to be interpretated as a violation of international law. But now it's a big no-no for a Republican to take the same stance.
April 19, 200422 yr Dont worry about scrutinizing me...I freely admit that I really have no idea what I'm talking about. Maybe I should just stick to baseball and movies until I get more time to actually be well read on these subjects. :thumbup
April 19, 200422 yr Dont worry about scrutinizing me...I freely admit that I really have no idea what I'm talking about. Maybe I should just stick to baseball and movies until I get more time to actually be well read on these subjects. :thumbup I think you are more well informed than the majority of america...which is always good. I don't know everything either, that's why we can learn things via discussion.
April 19, 200422 yr The world court would of been a catastrophe, because individual american soldiers or politicians of ours, and ect go on foreign visits can be "easily" arrested for qar crimes, and I see that as against America's interests. Funny you should mention that. I remember the Clinton administration having the same thought process. They were worried that lobbing tomahawks into a soveign nation in order to take out individual terrorist threats was going to be interpretated as a violation of international law. But now it's a big no-no for a Republican to take the same stance. Yeah, I really don't get this Democrat good Republican bad thing. A friend told me he hated republicans because they cut social programs. I told him the republican party and bush headed the single largest increase in social spending since lyndon johnson. He didn't want to believe me! It is easier to hate all politicians!
April 19, 200422 yr What a love-in. Kumbaya, y'all. How do you delude yourself into thinking your not biased? I think you'd like to be non-partisan but at heart your as right(wing) as they come. Hey now! I was commenting that the first couple posts were as shallow as they come. I wasn't making a blanket statement that everyone opposed to the war is a dirty hippie. I just like snarking on the Kerry sycophants (ohh my God did you see John on Meet the Press yesterday he was so cute and manly. (spooge)) Look at all my posts and see where I gave Bush the same tongue-licking that some of you give Kerry. My thing is that Bush is ehh...okay, but at least willing to do what has to be done. Kerry would be a catastrophe.
April 19, 200422 yr Count me in the hate all politicians group. That would include Kerry and Bush. We're growing! Bush is not okay rippyo, unless killing people for no reason and increasing the size of government is okay.
April 19, 200422 yr :thumbup Well now that Spain pulled out of Iraq, thats 26 less Soldiers we have on our side
April 19, 200422 yr :thumbup Well now that Spain pulled out of Iraq, thats 26 less Soldiers we have on our side 1400
April 19, 200422 yr :thumbup Well now that Spain pulled out of Iraq, thats 26 less Soldiers we have on our side 1400 I know, i saw it on CNN, I wqas getting my Sarcasm on dood :thumbup
April 19, 200422 yr I also just started reading articles from aljazeera.com to balance out the pro-US press at home...interesting stuff. Truly amazing how our opinions, biases, etc are shaped by the media and we dont even realize it. People think they know what they know, but they only spew forth what they hear on CNN or Fox News. Its so hard to know whats right. :confused You think Aljazeera is not bias?
April 19, 200422 yr I also just started reading articles from aljazeera.com to balance out the pro-US press at home...interesting stuff. Truly amazing how our opinions, biases, etc are shaped by the media and we dont even realize it. People think they know what they know, but they only spew forth what they hear on CNN or Fox News. Its so hard to know whats right. :confused You think Aljazeera is not bias? Of course I know it is...I was just saying I use it to balance out the bias at home.
April 19, 200422 yr Bush is not okay rippyo, unless killing people for no reason and increasing the size of government is okay. I am aware of your opinions.
April 19, 200422 yr I also just started reading articles from aljazeera.com to balance out the pro-US press at home...interesting stuff.? Truly amazing how our opinions, biases, etc are shaped by the media and we dont even realize it.? People think they know what they know, but they only spew forth what they hear on CNN or Fox News.? Its so hard to know whats right.? :confused You think Aljazeera is not bias? Of course I know it is...I was just saying I use it to balance out the bias at home. I'm not sure how you can use Aljazeera extreme bias views in order to construct a balance opinion.I understand American media is somewhat bias but Aljazeera take the word bias to another level.
April 19, 200422 yr Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same. How can you quantify who is more biased?
April 19, 200422 yr Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same. How can you quantify who is more biased? We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this.
April 19, 200422 yr Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same.? How can you quantify who is more biased? We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this. Agreed, but I dont see any harm in sampling the major news outlets of other countries and regions.
April 19, 200422 yr Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same.? How can you quantify who is more biased? We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this. Agreed, but I dont see any harm in sampling the major news outlets of other countries and regions. Yeah but saying they're equally biased is laughable. Why wouldn't Al-J show the video of that Italian hostage getting killed?
April 19, 200422 yr Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same. How can you quantify who is more biased? Just based on current events that have occur in recent years.Their intentions are to mobilize region opinion in favor of the muslim narrative.Portraying a drama that is far from the truth.
April 19, 200422 yr People are putting words in my mouth left and right...jebus. Lets take a look at what I said... Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same. How can you quantify who is more biased? Aljazeera may seem more biased in our eyes, but to the people they serve it seems right on target. I never said anything about "equally biased" I said that both entities serve their consituents. Why wont US media show the maimed and killed Iraqi children that aljazeera shows? question. Dead Iraqi child Check this link at your own risk...
April 19, 200422 yr People are putting words in my mouth left and right...jebus. Lets take a look at what I said... Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same.? How can you quantify who is more biased? Aljazeera may seem more biased in our eyes, but to the people they serve it seems right on target. I never said anything about "equally biased" I said that both entities serve their consituents. Why wont US media show the maimed and killed Iraqi children that aljazeera shows? question. Dead Iraqi child Check this link at your own risk... Perhaps they should. But whatever the impact, this child died by accidental fire, not the targeted killings that the Iraqi guerrillas specialize in. Relativism sucks.
April 19, 200422 yr We targeted civilians in Vietnam, what makes you think we havn't engaged in the same behavior in Iraq?
April 19, 200422 yr Author People are putting words in my mouth left and right...jebus. Lets take a look at what I said... Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same.? How can you quantify who is more biased? Aljazeera may seem more biased in our eyes, but to the people they serve it seems right on target. I never said anything about "equally biased" I said that both entities serve their consituents. Why wont US media show the maimed and killed Iraqi children that aljazeera shows? question. Dead Iraqi child Check this link at your own risk... Perhaps they should. But whatever the impact, this child died by accidental fire, not the targeted killings that the Iraqi guerrillas specialize in. Relativism sucks.Dont speak of relativity. Youve objectified Al-Jazeera and based on what? You seem to know right and wrong of everything and it comports well with your views on the world. The reality is if something goes against you its interpretative and if it goes with you its righteous. Don?t pretend youre not a right wing conservative. It effuses itself from your pours. Shamrock, your behavior is known as intellectual integrity. I applaud your willingness to hear how others see what is going on and treat all bodies of media with equal candor rather than following toe in line with your own personal views and those that substantate them. Ill admit you are more willing than I am. Your Henny-Penny claims of the sky is falling as further endorsing factors for Kerry is laughable. I was commenting that the first couple posts were as shallow as they come. I wasn't making a blanket statement that everyone opposed to the war is a dirty hippie. I just like snarking on the Kerry sycophants (ohh my God did you see John on Meet the Press yesterday he was so cute and manly. (spooge)) My thing is that Bush is ehh...okay, but at least willing to do what has to be done. Kerry would be a catastrophe. The most interesting observation I have is that some people have the audicity to pretend that what others say lacks substance and are just partisan feed yet add very little substance to what they say themselves and mostly present fluff. Look at some of the things above. Rippy-O backtracks his "lame quip" by saying we were "spooging" on Kerry and that we are Kerry sycophants. Im essentially no longers suprised with this blatant inconsistency. How many times was Kerry mentioned? What was said about Kerry that so gave one this unyielding impression? The primary thrust of the thread was Bush's foreign policy. Yet Rippy-O and friends are so enthralled that someone might not actually follow the defamation that has been pushed about Kerry that they find it "laughable." Have they even presented anything of substance to defend their views on Kerry? He demanded substance from me in a previous thread and I gave him what I had and I asked the same of him for his seemingly gut reactions on Kerry and what does he or even the other give us? Absolutely nothing. Not a single response. They can barely defend Bush(despite the pretext posts he expects us to swallow) so they have to take the narrow-minded shots at Kerry. I?m waiting for substance on their views of Kerry. I?ve been waiting for a quite a bit of time. I?m sick and tired of hearing the same old things from these people. Stop comporting your opinion with Fox news and give me something substantive. Those opposed to Bush have clearly presented why they are so. I don?t want to hear any of this indistinct ?he is a strong person? or ?he is decisive and is bad for terrorists? stuff. I dont want to hear any of these "he is a liberal and hence weak" or he "voted against some defense bills" without adding more to it.
April 19, 200422 yr Author We targeted civilians in Vietnam, what makes you think we havn't engaged in the same behavior in Iraq? Civilians are collateral damage. Did we every see the images of numerous neighborhoods destroyed because we thought for sure that Hussein was hiding in a house? Whatever argument he has for the necessity of the death of civilians(and I have my suspicions on them), can't sit here and pretend the mainstream American media is willing to show images considered "negative" to the cause. Im not talking about storylines either. Im talking about the serious consequences that might alter the public opinion. We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this. Waita cite the cure rather than the disease. American media has become more and more centralized. Yes we have dissenting views but your average American only watches mainstream media and that mainstream media does not present alternatives very well. Our potential for being an open society doesnt mean we are.
April 20, 200422 yr People are putting words in my mouth left and right...jebus.? Lets take a look at what I said... Our media prints stories and opinions that we prefer and aljazeera does the same.? How can you quantify who is more biased? Aljazeera may seem more biased in our eyes, but to the people they serve it seems right on target. I never said anything about "equally biased" I said that both entities serve their consituents. Why wont US media show the maimed and killed Iraqi children that aljazeera shows? question. Dead Iraqi child Check this link at your own risk... Perhaps they should. But whatever the impact, this child died by accidental fire, not the targeted killings that the Iraqi guerrillas specialize in. Relativism sucks.Dont speak of relativity. Youve objectified Al-Jazeera and based on what? You seem to know right and wrong of everything and it comports well with your views on the world. The reality is if something goes against you its interpretative and if it goes with you its righteous. Don?t pretend youre not a right wing conservative. It effuses itself from your pours. Shamrock, your behavior is known as intellectual integrity. I applaud your willingness to hear how others see what is going on and treat all bodies of media with equal candor rather than following toe in line with your own personal views and those that substantate them. Ill admit you are more willing than I am. Your Henny-Penny claims of the sky is falling as further endorsing factors for Kerry is laughable. I was commenting that the first couple posts were as shallow as they come. I wasn't making a blanket statement that everyone opposed to the war is a dirty hippie. I just like snarking on the Kerry sycophants (ohh my God did you see John on Meet the Press yesterday he was so cute and manly. (spooge)) My thing is that Bush is ehh...okay, but at least willing to do what has to be done. Kerry would be a catastrophe. The most interesting observation I have is that some people have the audicity to pretend that what others say lacks substance and are just partisan feed yet add very little substance to what they say themselves and mostly present fluff. Look at some of the things above. Rippy-O backtracks his "lame quip" by saying we were "spooging" on Kerry and that we are Kerry sycophants. Im essentially no longers suprised with this blatant inconsistency. How many times was Kerry mentioned? What was said about Kerry that so gave one this unyielding impression? The primary thrust of the thread was Bush's foreign policy. Yet Rippy-O and friends are so enthralled that someone might not actually follow the defamation that has been pushed about Kerry that they find it "laughable." Have they even presented anything of substance to defend their views on Kerry? He demanded substance from me in a previous thread and I gave him what I had and I asked the same of him for his seemingly gut reactions on Kerry and what does he or even the other give us? Absolutely nothing. Not a single response. They can barely defend Bush(despite the pretext posts he expects us to swallow) so they have to take the narrow-minded shots at Kerry. I?m waiting for substance on their views of Kerry. I?ve been waiting for a quite a bit of time. I?m sick and tired of hearing the same old things from these people. Stop comporting your opinion with Fox news and give me something substantive. Those opposed to Bush have clearly presented why they are so. I don?t want to hear any of this indistinct ?he is a strong person? or ?he is decisive and is bad for terrorists? stuff. I dont want to hear any of these "he is a liberal and hence weak" or he "voted against some defense bills" without adding more to it.Well, FM, any response I cannot give is because I don't have the time to sort through your spastic and frequent rhetoric. I would need an assistant to help me out. The Kerry comment was in direct reference to LC's comment on how supposedly wonderful Kerry was on MTP. You should know that I have never thought Bush was the greatest guy on Earth, just the man I would choose to occupy the Oval Office over his main challenger. Nothing I have said is dogmatic in the way that Bush bashers on this board have been, rather it is a reaction to what I see as outrageous and predictable arguments that take a few flying leaps to make sense. I made my case on Al-Jazeera, saying that they have more a monopoly on the Arab region vis a vis American media has on the U.S. And your response "Well....it is becoming more centralized, and doesn't present alternatives very well." A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN AL-JAZEERA does! Explain in specific detail how this is turning into a whitewash of Bush's transgressions. The rest is attacking me as a right-wing conservative. I cannot answer to that, because you have your strongly-held beliefs and trying to convince you otherwise would be a waste of my time. My attacks on Kerry have been mostly about personality. I believe that a candidate's temperament is key in how they will perform in office. I could sit down with a copy of the latest newsletters from every thinktank in existence a and deliver a blow-by-blow on why Kerry's defense initiative is bupkus, but unfortunately I have a job and a life and I am physically unable to. I can only say that I have taken the opportunity to look at John Kerry and hear many of his remarks unedited, and can safely say that he is merely a political hack. He offers nothing but wishywashing and lame conjectures. One example: He voted for the War in Iraq. He voted for the Patriot Act. But now he has problems with "how it was enacted." Well that's just great. Everyone should take that attitude. No more tough decisions. Just take the politically popular tack, then scamper away from the naughty parts. And offer vague descriptions that are sure to appease everyone. He has no courage, and no vision. You say I "label" Kerry and don't go into depth. That's because most of the specifics stem from his superficiality. He is a career politician, a Washington hack, and he is too concerned with his "legacy" and "electability" to put the U.S. ahead of himself. None of this should be construed as saying Bush is the exact opposite of Kerry (i.e. the 2nd coming of Lincoln), and you should be smart enough to know that. You want me to be more ubiquitous when I see Kerry acting in a way that makes me retch. You got it, pal. I can do that.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.