:fawk:


Also ... filmpunk18, I bet you're going to get a wave "blah blah ... liberal propaghanda ... blah blah ... where'd you copy/paste that bs from? blah blah ... "

These guys don't debate the issues, only if you wrote it or not.

 

Now I don't need to post :fawk:

But in all seriousness his post was severely one sided...I'll let you figure out which side it was slanted to.

 

:hugglez:

 

it may have been one sided, but its the truth. Which was more important....investigating a blow job or investigating a serious terrorist threat?

They can call it liberal propaganda, one sided...whatever the **** they want, but unless they can legitimately dispute ANY of my claims then they really don't have any place to call it false :db:. If Saddam was so out of control, crazy enough to use mustard gas on his own people (who Iran supported in trying to over throw him) at the time and could deploy weapons in 45mins why would he not use them when it's his only chance at survival? Why, if the weapons could be deployed in 45mins can we not find them after looking for 6 months without any resistance? He knew he wouldn't be leaving the country alive. So it really didn't matter to him...if he went down he'd go down with a bang....but it never happened...and here we are 6 months later and NO weapons have been found, not even facilities to produce these weapons. The "mobile labs" they found (which did not find any traces of chemical or bio weapons) have now been found to likely have been used making pesticides. So...Where are the weapons? Where is Osama? Why did Iraq take precidence over North Korea or Iran, who are and were MUCH more dangerous threats than Iraq ever was. And why was saddam such and INIMENT threat? Ohh WAIT...maybe he gave them to terrorists, right? It would be impossible for such a transfer to take place without US or British Intelligence picking it up, especially with how closely they would have been monitoring Iraq leading up to the war. So...instead of just the conservative catch phrase reactions of "LIBERAL PROPAGANDA, SPIN..BLAH BLAH BLAH" Try to find facts to prove me wrong. If they can give me facts, i'll look them up, and if i'm wrong i will have no problem recanting everything i have said and...i'll go a step further, and support going to war in the first place. They don't even try, they just claim its slanted ect ect.... I'm not twisting or leaving out bits and pieces to try and pursuade you into thinking any differently...It doesn't really make a difference in my life whether you supported the war or not. I could care less, but quit being ignorant at least provide some proof to support what you are saying. Obviously you care enough to take the time to post your opinion, so take some time to research your point then post, at least then you can actually type something with some depth not just hide behind your right wing dismissals. I'm not saying everything liberals do is good, nor that everything conservatives do is bad...which is what they want to turn this into instead of just looking the facts. They want to change the subject to something else....a typical conservative tactic in everything they do. If things are not going their way, they try to focus the attention on something else. The democrats TRY to do this but their just not as good at getting away with it. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting some head from a woman that did something Hillary probably wouldn't (and i'm sure everyone prob knows what i'm talking about....why else would there be a stain on her dress?), but i can gaurantee you that if WMD are not found NOTHING...i mean NOTHING will happen to Bush and his Cronies. How's that for Justice?

You are the ones being misled by the media....you can see perfectly how propaganda works. Despite whos fault it is the economy is in the dump and its the person in office who the people will blame...whether its republican or democrat. The War in Iraq has been nearly a complete failure...we haven't found saddam or weapons of mass destruction, troops are dying every day, the Iraqi people are growing increasingly agrevated with conditions under our military supervision if thats what you want to call it, terrorism has increased in Iraq since the overthrow. We still have not found bin Laden, while North Korea and Iran are becoming a bigger threat every day, gas prices are steadily rising, meanwhile a presidential election is coming up and what is all over the national media? The California recall which effects a single state. Take the peoples minds off the issues and they will make uninformed decisions. Screw the right wing banter Pick up a copy of "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. Things will suddenly be very clear to you. The Left and the Right are both wrong.... which is why we need to educate ourselves and "Take the Power back" as the Rage Against the Machine song goes. Both sides are running away with their own agendas when it is OUR, and when i say "our" i mean: "we the people"s agendas that need to be looked out for. You act like your too smart to be misled...like you can just "see through" the propaganda. Well thats the thing about a good propaganda campaign, and its not just CNN, or FOX...its nearly all american media outlets. Unless you actually use the stories you hear as a reference point, then you will inevitably be part of the "bewildered herd."

 

filmpunk,

What bothers me about your post and the media is they only focus on the bad things that are happening in Iraq and anything that can possibly be taken as a negative towards the Bush administration. You never hear about the good things that are going on in Iraq, and if you do it is from a short clip from some Marine Major or Army Captain. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. focus on the number of people killed, and the terrorist bombings in Iraq rather than talking about the good things American and British soldiers are doing, like getting schools ready for the school year, donating equipment to hospitals, distributing food, water, and aid to the Iraqi people.

I do not think we are the ones being misled by the media. Look at your posts, everything you wrote comes straight from what you learn on the cable news networks or the New York Times...I atleast know that those stories are only part of the truth and the very left of the truth. How can you call the war in Iraq a failure? So far it has been a large success. If there is any failure to be had it is the fact we did not go sooner...WMD are still unaccounted for and missing. I hope they are still in Iraq and that the delays to going to war did not give Iraq time to give them to someone else.

And the difference between Clinton lying about a BJ and getting in trouble is a large difference to Bush's speaches on Iraq's WMD. Clinton knew the exact story...he knew what he did, and still got infront of the American people and flat out lied...not only that he also obstructed justice from learning the truth. In Bush's case, if Iraqs WMD are found to not be true then it is a serious lapse in intelligence that duped not only the President but large numbers of Senators and Congressmen as well. The only person that would not be tarnished would be Howard Dean.

 

I see you guys met my buddy.

now you know my co-writer

Quote:

What bothers me about your post and the media is they only focus on the bad things that are happening in Iraq and anything that can possibly be taken as a negative towards the Bush administration.

well, the first part is right. There's a reason you hear all the bad things. It sells, and people buy it. Then they watch the news channel, and ratings go up.

mass-media economics 101: the story with lies/sex/violence is the story that sells.

as for bush and negativity, I think you're being a baby. He's the president, and presidents get shit. Remember Kosovo, when clinton got sooooo much flack from the GOP?

ahh, but he lied on oath about oral sex....

Quote:

You never hear about the good things that are going on in Iraq,

because there are none

Quote:

and if you do it is from a short clip from some Marine Major or Army Captain. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. focus on the number of people killed,

again, this is the media, who are scavengers. What do you expect?

Quote:

and the terrorist bombings in Iraq rather than talking about the good things American and British soldiers are doing, like getting schools ready for the school year, donating equipment to hospitals, distributing food, water, and aid to the Iraqi people.

but those arn't the reasons we REALLY went there. We should actually be digging holes, and checking around, looking for the WMD's. But thanks to the bush admisistrations agenda, we're up shit creek without a paddle, or WMD's.

Quote:

I do not think we are the ones being misled by the media.

but we are

Quote:

Look at your posts, everything you wrote comes straight from what you learn on the cable news networks or the New York Times...

NYT is alot more respectable than most publications.

Quote:

I atleast know that those stories are only part of the truth and the very left of the truth.

but the right-wing controls the media. Look at Rush, and CNN, and Fox News. Murdock and all his money. The GOP has many, many influences.

Quote:

How can you call the war in Iraq a failure?

WMDs?

WMSs?!?!

Quote:

So far it has been a large success.

WMDS!!!!!!!

Quote:

If there is any failure to be had it is the fact we did not go sooner...

WMDS!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

WMD are still unaccounted for and missing. I hope they are still in Iraq and that the delays to going to war did not give Iraq time to give them to someone else.

god, you're soooooo innocent. how cute.

Quote:

And the difference between Clinton lying about a BJ and getting in trouble is a large difference to Bush's speaches on Iraq's WMD.

well, what about bush lying durring his campain. Everything he said he wouldn't do, he's doing.

but we've all convieniently forgotten.....

Quote:

Clinton knew the exact story...

you act like hes the only one to ever lie. BTW, still quite the story going on in Britian, where they're still trying to figure out why Kelly killed himself after they sourced him for the dossier

Quote:

he knew what he did,

and so does bush.

Quote:

and still got infront of the American people and flat out lied...

so did bush. But bush is still lying

Quote:

not only that he also obstructed justice from learning the truth.

kinda like bush obstructing us from learning the truth about Enron?

Quote:

In Bush's case, if Iraqs WMD are found to not be true then it is a serious lapse in intelligence that duped not only the President but large numbers of Senators and Congressmen as well.

CIA has been saying for quite a while that the intelligence issue wasn't acurate. I blame Rice for allowing it to be put into the State of the Union, and bush for reading it to the people. What a crook.

Quote:

The only person that would not be tarnished would be Howard Dean.

you know, I might actually vote democrat in '04

 

I am not being a baby about this...sure presidents do take a lot of shit, and that is fine. Noone is perfect, that is what makes us human. What bothers me is the fact the media loves to only talk about the negatives...it is the liberal bias that does this.

See here is a perfect example of how the media influences the American people. You say there are none. Why? Probabaly because you only here the negatives coming from the liberal media.

I agree. There is nothing more I expect but there is also another side to the story not being portrayed here.

Again I agree, our military should not be policing Iraq...but that is a shitty situation they are in. I would much rather them be digging up the desert but how can you when people keep attacking you. I do not think it is the Bush administrations agenda, I do think it was a severe underestimation of resistance after the war ended that is doing this. And yes that is a fault of the Bush administration particularily Rumsfeld.

I strongly question this. Awards given by liberals to liberal media organizations don't hold squat in my book.

The GOP may have some influences through media...particularily with the cable news channels and talk radio, but the networked news channels and newspapers are strongly controlled by liberals and make for a much larger audience.

Give it time we will find them, till then we have made large successes in this war. That is something you cannot deny. Will you only acknowledge those successes after we find WMD?

What lies? What did he say he would do that he is not? I also do not think that he had planned on spending so much money on a war to fight terrorism. That would change any Presidents agenda.

Clinton lied blatantly to the American public on purpose. He is not the only one to lie I am sure of it though...however he got cought with both hands in the cookie jar and his pants around his ankles and still lied.

That story in Britain is interesting...still waiting to see how it plays out.

Like I said it will still be considered as a lapse in intelligence. And the same people that would have to vote for impeachment are the same people that believed the same evidence. To become a hypocrite would be to commit political suicide...now it is just another card they can cash in at a later date. Its all politics.

Oh and save this post...I do not think I have ever agreed with 18sec so much.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york090403.asp

 

I noticed you fail to quote the Kosovo part, as well.

that went sucessful, don't you think? Actually, Clinton did a fine job in the counter-terrorism department, considering the pre-9-11-01 atmosphere. And thats not just me who thinks that. Two of the Reagan-era top counter-terrorism officals felt the same way. I could quote them, but don't feel like it.

of course, he did propose the dept. of homeland defense. And wanted the bush administration to keep and eye on Al queda. But naturally, the bush admin. declined it. They were busy pushing their missle defense system.

which brings me to a point: During the 70's and 80's, when rummy and chenney were more involved in the pentigon and things of that sort (DOD), there was alot, and I mean ALOT of scandle. I already mentioned the failed f14 and f111 projects, and how a group of people who actually had to stand up against the dinosaurs of the high-ranking, often corrupt officers. These 'rebels' pushed the much more successful f15, a plane just as good as the f14, and much MUCH cheaper. See, the pentigon has this facination of 'more complex means better' but actually, it means more expensive to develop, build, maintain, and use. Which means money to these officers, because the fact is, many would leave their pentigon position and then go to work for these defense contractors, which unfortunatly, is techniclly legal. Look at chenney when he left his seat as sec. of defense for Bush sr. He went and became CEO of Haliburton, which oversee's much of the nation rebuilding. I think they've been award well over a billion in governmental contracts, while the next highest competetor receive under 600 million.

think I'm lying? Read "The Pentigon Wars" I'll get you the authors name if you want, too.

but of course, you'll just over look this, like most of my points

Quote:

See here is a perfect example of how the media influences the American people. You say there are none. Why? Probabaly because you only here the negatives coming from the liberal media.

first of all, I'll admit alot of this is covered in Frankens new book. And if it was just written by him, then maybe you'd be right.

but he had harvard on his side. I'll beleive him before I beleive you or Coulter or fat-ass radio personallity.

I'm gonna pull this out of his book for a sec:

"tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush during '00 campaign"

postitive: 13% gore, 24% bush
neutral: 31% gore, 27% bush
negative: 56% gore, 49% bush

so if there really is a liberal bias, then why the fuck did gore have less positive coverage than bush. If you're right, this graph makes no sense at all.

BTW, the % is calculated by the Pew Charitable Trusts Projection for Excellence in Journalizm, based in the top-rated Columbia school of journalizm, a non-partisan group. The numbers are from a study of 1,149 stories from seventeen leading sources.

yeah, real liberal. In fact, get frankens book and turn to page 37, and read it for yourself. Maybe if he was like Coulter, or Hammity, and wrote books by himself, he'd be biased.

but the fact is, franken did unbiased research.

Quote:

I agree. There is nothing more I expect but there is also another side to the story not being portrayed here.

the truth?

Quote:

Again I agree, our military should not be policing Iraq...but that is a shitty situation they are in.

then why are you backing Bush and the war? You know, it IS our right to speak out against things we don't beleive. But the Neo-cons up in DC want you to keep shut because it undermines THEIR power, which is what this is really all about. Well, that and money.

Quote:

I would much rather them be digging up the desert but how can you when people keep attacking you. I do not think it is the Bush administrations agenda, I do think it was a severe underestimation of resistance after the war ended that is doing this. And yes that is a fault of the Bush administration particularily Rumsfeld.

but its something that could have been avoided, say, if we went along with the UN in the first place.

Now we want their help again. I hope they say no. I really do. They didn't make the mess, so why should they clean it?

or maybe I just think that because I'm the youngest of 5 children, and learned that you must make sacrafice and compromise to make everyone happy.

Quote:

I strongly question this. Awards given by liberals to liberal media organizations don't hold squat in my book.

and what book is that? Listen to the stupid blond because she's "cute?"

Quote:

The GOP may have some influences through media...particularily with the cable news channels and talk radio, but the networked news channels and newspapers are strongly controlled by liberals and make for a much larger audience.

lets look at this:

Fox News (the highest rated news channel) is owned by Rupert Murdock (who is GOP influenced), who owns TV guide, The Weekly Standard, and 23 other magazine publications. And owns Fox, and HarperCollins publishing. And 20th Century Fox, and most satalite services around the world. And the London Times (total bullshit paper). And the New York Post (another total bullshit paper. I should know. One of its writers was fired because he ripped off an artical from a paper here in town, the Express News).

Clear Channel, which led pro-war rallies after the Dixie Chicks spoke their mind, and led subsequencial boycot of them that lasted maybe a week, owns over 250 radio stations nationwide. The next highest competitor? 70. Most range between 10 and 20. Some less than that. Oh, they're also based here in San Antonio....

CNN isn't very liberal, with shows like Crossfire that feature that dumbass Bill O'Reilly. The guy's a nutcase. I think the fact that he lied about his two "peabody awards" is grounds enough.

Plus, I saw franken on crossfire recently, promoting his new book. He was about to get into bush, and he called him a liar, and they cut him off and went to commercial. Thing is, they just came back from commercial. Where's that first ammendment?

The fact is, the only real liberal news show is probably the Daily Show, and no one takes comedy central serious. Too bad... :happysad:

Quote:

Give it time we will find them, till then we have made large successes in this war. That is something you cannot deny. Will you only acknowledge those successes after we find WMD?

hmm, give them time. Well, they've had time. Maybe we'll find them before I die?

large successes in the war. You mean increased terrorist attacks, anarchy, a shady provisional government. And they still don't have power.

I'll acknowledge the only success, finding the WMD. Thats why we went there in the first place. Thats what justified the preemptive strike in the first place.

Now we're trying nation building again. This went well in the east (vietnam primarily), and gulf war I, and south/central america, right?

Quote:

What lies? What did he say he would do that he is not?

Question: What politician once made these obeservations about US foreign policy?
-"if we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us"
-"I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders"
-"We've got to be very careful when we commit our troops....(it would depend on) whether or not there was an exit strategy."

Give you a hint. His nick name is dubya.

but yeah, those were just campaign slogans. We're still familiar with "read my lips, no new taxes", right?

Quote:

I also do not think that he had planned on spending so much money on a war to fight terrorism. That would change any Presidents agenda.

commen sense would tell one "wait, this isn't gonna be easy like we think it will"

didn't our government learn their lesson in Vietnam? Or Korea? Or did they fall off somewhere. Sure, Gulf War was easy, but we actually HAD a collition. This time we didn't. You know, if other countrys were actually with us on this thing, that would be one thing. But they weren't. Doesn't that tell you something? Its not because they hate us. Its because we're making stupid choices. But rush just told you to eat you're freedom fries, so I guess whatever.

Quote:

Clinton lied blatantly to the American public on purpose.

so did bush. So we could go to war and make him look like he's doing something. Because he sure wasn't doing anything prior to it. Unless you call vacationing at fort hood/bragg and running off to crawford "work"

one of these days, I'm gonna lead a group of people to crawford. That'd be fun....

Quote:

He is not the only one to lie I am sure of it though...however he got cought with both hands in the cookie jar and his pants around his ankles and still lied.

maybe, but Bush is doing the same.

Quote:

That story in Britain is interesting...still waiting to see how it plays out.

I thought you were with blair all the way....?

Quote:

Like I said it will still be considered as a lapse in intelligence.

that could have been avioded, say.... if the government was actually working for us, and not themselves.

Quote:

And the same people that would have to vote for impeachment are the same people that believed the same evidence.

I think they should impeach him. Actually, I was thinking along the lines of a tribunal. There is a thing called war-crimes, you know.

Quote:

To become a hypocrite would be to commit political suicide...

but maybe politics is the problem

Quote:

now it is just another card they can cash in at a later date. Its all politics.

I think washington (thats right, geoge) said it best when he dismissed political parties. He knew they'd fuck us up, and by God, they did.

Maybe, God forbid, we should elect people who actually want to make america "the land of the free" instead of "the land of the free, so long as you can afford it"

 

how can you say the war is successfull?
Funny how none of that would need to be done if we hadn't overthrown them in the first place. Most of the Iraqi people believe they were better off under Saddams rule. So....maybe its successfull in our eyes as americans, we are not effected by the problems, but it DOES effect the Iraqi's lives directly. You still haven't answered any questions or given any evidence....you just give your opinions and use terms like probably to support your arguement. Your entire case is 100% speculation.

Actually why don't you go to the New York times site, or search the cable news sites....you'll be sadly disapointed to find nearly 99.9% came from other sources, so that kinda shoots down your "liberal media" defense

Seems your missing/ avoiding the point. I wasn't comparing Clinton's lying about a blow job and bush lying about weapons of mass destruction. Now...answer this straight up. WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT, Investigating a blow job or investigated terrorists in flight schools? There, the question is in bold for you...maybe you'll see it this time.

Now I'll talk about the blow job. Why did whether he got a blow job or not matter? I mean, Did there REALLY need to be an investigation into whether he got one or not? How did this effect your life...or my life...or anyone one except Him, and his family? Was it a risk to national security? The fact is it really didn't matter. It never effected any other Americans. Where as, launching a unjust war on a country, without solid evidence (which there is no argueing this war was unjust. By military standards for a pre-emptive war to be just there has to be a clear and present danger. Well here we are 6 months later without WMD so the threat obviously wasn't clear and certainly not present.) does effect Americans. Too many Americans have lost their lives fighting in war that was called "immediatley necissary to the safety of Americans" and now the entire reason for the war has still not been found. And even worse, is widely believed (even by the intelligence community) that put us in even more danger.

Give me a break, the president wasn't duped, he had been told by both the CIA and the FBI that the intelligence wasn't completely accurate, and they told him that attacking Iraq could put us in more danger. Thats certainly not the message he tried to convey to the american people. Because all you right wing nuts were 100% possitive he had the weapons before the war, and now they still have not found. The congressmen weren't duped either, they didn't say "lets go to war now" many of them gave the go ahead because they thought there would be more verification of the intelligence and alliance building if war was necissary. Our administration needed our fear of Iraq, could you imagine the protests if everyone thought Iraq was not a threat? Intentional or not, congress gave the approval for Bush to wage war based on FALSE information. As for the WMD. We have no evidence... in our legal system you need a preponderance of evidence at the very least. We are the accusers. This has been the complaint of the international community. We sent people into Iraq to find evidence (inspectors)... any evidence.. and while still searching for evidence the US decides 'Well we don't need any evidence'. What is that? If we were so right about this war why was our alliance so small, and where are the weapons? Obviously most of the world believed Iraq was not a threat, and these are the countries that could have been directly within range of saddams weapons (if they existed). The political/economic reasons for the war are there. You seem to be completely unconcerned with President Bush's motivation as you are with the result. AMERICANS ARE DYING EVERYDAY, over a war we have NO PROOF was necissary. There is no justification for it.