NationStates Jolt Archive

Via Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/28.html#a7702) (who's been doing a lot of this lately), I bring you a screenshot from Fox News's coverage of the Moussaoui trial.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/Cavuto-torture.jpg

Look carefully at the subhead beneath the main screen. Yes, it really does ask "Could 9/11 have been avoided if Moussaoui was tortured?"

Granted, this was on during the Neal Cavuto show, which is an opinion show (is there any other kind on Fox?), but what the hell kind of question is that to be asking? What's next for their subheads? "We get off licking Cheney's taint! Suck it!" ?

This is why I don't watch television news.

I bet Dick Cheney has chocolate nipples...

Aaaaaaaaghaaaaaghaghaaaaaa

Did they ever have it?

"Lost it" implies FOX News had it in the first place. Whether it is integrity, sanity, or whatever.

Whats the problem? Its a valid question considering torture can be invaluable and he certainly knew stuff. Btw I dont think we need to be making fun of Mr. Cheney. I dont think his nipples taste like chocolate, I think they taste more like sweetness.

Whats the problem? Its a valid question considering torture can be invaluable and he certainly knew stuff. Btw I dont think we need to be making fun of Mr. Cheney. I dont think his nipples taste like chocolate, I think they taste more like sweetness.
LMFAO!
Is this guy serious? Cheney's nipples taste like sweetness? And is this from experience, may I ask?

*can't stop laughing*

LMFAO!
Is this guy serious? Cheney's nipples taste like sweetness? And is this from experience, may I ask?

*can't stop laughing*
Im just saying, Cheney seems like the guy that would have sweet tasting nipples.

Btw I dont think we need to be making fun of Mr. Cheney. I dont think his nipples taste like chocolate, I think they taste more like sweetness.[/QUOTE]

Oh, dear God!

Im just saying, Cheney seems like the guy that would have sweet tasting nipples.

Well, does chocolate not equal sweetness?

"Lost it" implies FOX News had it in the first place. Whether it is integrity, sanity, or whatever.

Ha ha, beat you to it.

Well, does chocolate not equal sweetness?
not always, Im thinking of a different type of sweet

not always, Im thinking of a different type of sweet

As in semen? Man semen? Not Giraffe semen?

*sweetness by Jimmy Eat World starts playing in the background*

"fox news: we're not even pretending anymore"

As in semen? Man semen? Not Giraffe semen?
:confused: :confused: not really

Whats the problem? Its a valid question considering torture can be invaluable and he certainly knew stuff.

Then the next question is "is torture one of the things that makes the USA a great nation? "

Whats the problem? Its a valid question considering torture can be invaluable and he certainly knew stuff.

The only thing torture has been shown to be invaluable for is extracting false confessions.

Real life is not like an episode of "24".

"fox news: we're not even pretending anymore"

:p

The only thing torture has been shown to be invaluable for is extracting false confessions.

Real life is not like an episode of "24".
Well it should be :mad: . It would be nice if all of Americas problems could be solved in a convienant one hour package.

... Btw I dont think we need to be making fun of Mr. Cheney. I dont think his nipples taste like chocolate, I think they taste more like sweetness.

That is just too demented for words. I don't think I'll ever be able get that image out of my mind now. *shudders* I never wanted to know what they looked like much less tasted/felt like.

But hey, if that's what UN is into, more power to him.

.

Whats the problem? Its a valid question considering torture can be invaluable and he certainly knew stuff. Btw I dont think we need to be making fun of Mr. Cheney. I dont think his nipples taste like chocolate, I think they taste more like sweetness.
THIS is the kind of post that names you this ...
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm


Keep up the good work! I TOLD ya you were a laugh riot!
*FLORT*

That is just too demented for words. I don't think I'll ever be able get that image out of my mind now. *shudders* I never wanted to know what they looked like much less tasted/felt like.

But hey, if that's what UN is into, more power to him.

.
Better him than us. I call him an American hero. Who knows what Cheney would do with those nipples if UN wasn't clamped on tight? Quail hunt, anyone?

As for FOX, they're on crack.

Via Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/28.html#a7702) (who's been doing a lot of this lately), I bring you a screenshot from Fox News's coverage of the Moussaoui trial.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/Cavuto-torture.jpg

Look carefully at the subhead beneath the main screen. Yes, it really does ask "Could 9/11 have been avoided if Moussaoui was tortured?"

Granted, this was on during the Neal Cavuto show, which is an opinion show (is there any other kind on Fox?), but what the hell kind of question is that to be asking? What's next for their subheads? "We get off licking Cheney's taint! Suck it!" ?

The way you guys got hung up on DC's nipples is disgusting and reminds me of a day when I . . . ok, nevermind, I don't need to bring that up. :p

Actually, I think the question posed in the screen shot is one that is worthy of debate. I tend to think the answer is 'no' but there are some who believe otherwise (witness the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials, Nazi regime, Saddam Huessein's government and North Korea and North Vietnam during those conflicts). Let me pose it another way, if you knew for sure that torture would have prevented 9/11 would the torture be ok in your mind then?

Then the next question is "is torture one of the things that makes the USA a great nation? "
Well, we certainly ain't half bad, so Id say yeah

Well, we certainly ain't half bad, so Id say yeah
Dude, torture is not something you want associated with a civilized nation. It is for barbarians and is one of the reasons we went to war.

Could 9/11 have been prevented if Bush had read his 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing?

*reaches out for the Faux Zombie and turns it around with its delerious television staff not even noticing:D *

Could 9/11 have been prevented if Bush had read his 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing?

*reaches out for the Faux Zombie and turns it around with its delerious television staff not even noticing:D *
Ooh! Ooh! Or maybe if his whole so-called "competent crew" had been paying attention to the FULL 52 intelligence issues that came up about that particular topic between April and September 2001 ALONE????


---
Thursday 10 February 2005

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We are writing to request that our Committee hold hearings to investigate two extremely serious questions raised by an article that appeared in this morning's New York Times. The first question is whether the Administration misused the classification process to withhold, for political reasons, official 9/11 Commission staff findings detailing how federal aviation officials received multiple intelligence reports warning of airline hijackings and suicide attacks before September 11. The second question relates to the veracity of statements, briefings, and testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding this issue.

Background

This morning's New York Times reported that in "the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations." [1] The article explained that the Federal Aviation Administration "received 52 intelligence reports" that mentioned Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001, and that the FAA warned airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

This information was included in a staff report by the 9/11 Commission dated August 26, 2004. The 9/11 Commission report found that there was "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11," but that this intelligence "did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures." Although the report did not find that the government had advance information about the specific September 11, 2001, attacks, it reported that the FAA took various measures to warn airport security officials about "the possibility of a suicide hijacking."

---

Dude, torture is not something you want associated with a civilized nation. It is for barbarians and is one of the reasons we went to war.
Are you saying Iraqis are barbarians?

Sigh...it was all so much better when we were hung up on the taste of Dick Cheney's nipples.

Ah well, back to the drawing board!

Show me one major media outlet that is completely fair and equitable in their reporting.

Show me one major media outlet that is completely fair and equitable in their reporting."Completely" or "more"?

Show me one major media outlet that is completely fair and equitable in their reporting.
Are you excusing Fox or condemning all media?

Show me one major media outlet that is completely fair and equitable in their reporting.

The criticism comes not from it being slightly biased, as any news network will have a degree of bias. It is just the complete obviousness (to any thinking person), and strength of it that gets criticised.

Now, the BBC is what I would call a good example. If you look carefully, yes there is a degree of bias, but they largely manage to keep it from interfering with reporting most of the time. Hell, they are even willing to criticise themselves and interview the heads of their programmes, channels, etc quite vigerously. Would you imagine FOX questioning Ruperty Murdochy vigerously?

And yes, the ys are deliberate.

The criticism comes not from it being slightly biased, as any news network will have a degree of bias. It is just the complete obviousness (to any thinking person), and strength of it that gets criticised.

Now, the BBC is what I would call a good example. If you look carefully, yes there is a degree of bias, but they largely manage to keep it from interfering with reporting most of the time. Hell, they are even willing to criticise themselves and interview the heads of their programmes, channels, etc quite vigerously. Would you imagine FOX questioning Ruperty Murdochy vigerously?

And yes, the ys are deliberate.

I wouldn't know about the BBC and how fairly they report the news, and will not even attempt an assessment of that. In America, you have several hundred outlets, in radio, television and print, and they are all biased to a greater or lesser extent, I feel. Without exception. It all just comes down to whether or not you agree with that outlets' overall political philosophy or not. Then you go to the outlet for your news that has your preferred brand of rose colored glasses on that you prefer. Free choice. Grab it and growl, baby.

As far as Fox is concerned, I feel any network that offers a show like "Hannity and Colmes" to its' viewers cannot be entirely all biased.

Are you saying Iraqis are barbarians?

The ones who torture are.

Im just saying, Cheney seems like the guy that would have sweet tasting nipples.

I vote the UN abassadorship for most hilarious troll in ages. Anyone see him offering to fellate george bush yesterday? Classic.

I wouldn't know about the BBC and how fairly they report the news, and will not even attempt an assessment of that. In America, you have several hundred outlets, in radio, television and print, and they are all biased to a greater or lesser extent, I feel. Without exception. It all just comes down to whether or not you agree with that outlets' overall political philosophy or not. Then you go to the outlet for your news that has your preferred brand of rose colored glasses on that you prefer. Free choice. Grab it and growl, baby.

As far as Fox is concerned, I feel any network that offers a show like "Hannity and Colmes" to its' viewers cannot be entirely all biased.
Wait, one show with a minimilized co-host is all they need to achieve balance?

I wouldn't know about the BBC and how fairly they report the news, and will not even attempt an assessment of that. In America, you have several hundred outlets, in radio, television and print, and they are all biased to a greater or lesser extent, I feel. Without exception. It all just comes down to whether or not you agree with that outlets' overall political philosophy or not. Then you go to the outlet for your news that has your preferred brand of rose colored glasses on that you prefer. Free choice. Grab it and growl, baby.

As far as Fox is concerned, I feel any network that offers a show like "Hannity and Colmes" to its' viewers cannot be entirely all biased.You must understand that in America, the news channels have to compete for ratings. If they don't make it interesting enough, they don't get money.
The BBC and the German ARD and ZDF are different. They rely on public funding for a large part of their budget. The difference between ARD and ZDF news and those of the private channels is massive. ARD and ZDF aren't out to entertain, they're out to inform, and that cuts a lot of bias out of the program.

Wait, one show with a minimilized co-host is all they need to achieve balance?

That was your assessment, not mine. Don't recall using the word balance in my post. Nope. I will however, distill the essence of my post down to One Sentence.

All American media outlets are biased to a greater or lesser extent.

"All" would include Fox. It would also include CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Nobody's perfect. Not even you.

That was your assessment, not mine. Don't recall using the word balance in my post. Nope. I will however, distill the essence of my post down to One Sentence.

All American media outlets are biased to a greater or lesser extent.

"All" would include Fox. It would also include CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Nobody's perfect. Not even you.
Touch-y.

I got the rest of your post, it was the last sentence that was the thrower, as it gives the implication that the aforementioned minimilized co-host is in any way a balancing factor-seems like the fat kid giving the skinny kid on the other end of the teter-toter his candy bar and saying, "See, I it ain't all that bad..."

All American media outlets are biased to a greater or lesser extent.

"All" would include Fox. It would also include CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Nobody's perfect. Not even you.

True. But some try harder to be than others.

Dude, torture is not something you want associated with a civilized nation. It is for barbarians and is one of the reasons we went to war.


Funny how it isn't one of the reasons we're at war with Uganda, North Korea or Turkey.

Oh, that's right, we're not at war with them are we?

We were always going to be in trouble on the subject of torture, when Bush's crony Alberto "The Memo" Gonzales made it clear that he has no problem over doing away with the Geneva Convention.

As for our "reasons" for going to war, *cough*asset-stripping*cough* that's a little more complicated.

I vote the UN abassadorship for most hilarious troll in ages. Anyone see him offering to fellate george bush yesterday? Classic.
Yesterday?
My archives have him saying it within the last couple of weeks, but not YESTERDAY. Link, per chance?

EDIT: here's my offer, and your counter is ....?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659696&postcount=185

Yesterday?
My archives have him saying it within the last couple of weeks, but not YESTERDAY. Link, per chance?

ah, you could be right. Someone linked to it yesterday and thats when i read it. Not sure when it was written, still funny though.

ah, you could be right. Someone linked to it yesterday and thats when i read it. Not sure when it was written, still funny though.
Well, The UN abassadorship certainly can turn a phrase - as well as a stomach, and one hopes for everyone involved, a trick. :D

fox news 'lost it' seven or eight years ago when it stated kissing war mongering assess and feeding us whatever propiganda they wanted it to.

i don't see their latest round of concessions to the pretense of objectivity as substantively chainging that. i belive half of what i hear from alternative indipendent sources and none of what i hear from corporate media.

=^^=
.../\...

You must understand that in America, the news channels have to compete for ratings. If they don't make it interesting enough, they don't get money.
The BBC and the German ARD and ZDF are different. They rely on public funding for a large part of their budget. The difference between ARD and ZDF news and those of the private channels is massive. ARD and ZDF aren't out to entertain, they're out to inform, and that cuts a lot of bias out of the program.

Hmm.. also in Britain there is a law that staes that any TV or radio news programme (other current affair programmes are different. This is for news only) it must be as balanced as possible. They are not allowed to show bias to one side or another. Newspapers are a completely different kettle of fish of course. Dunno what it is like in Germany, but going by what they have in the US, it looks like no such law applies there.

Yeah, so it is completely different. I know which I think produces a better news provider.

Hmm.. also in Britain there is a law that staes that any TV or radio news programme (other current affair programmes are different. This is for news only) it must be as balanced as possible. They are not allowed to show bias to one side or another. Newspapers are a completely different kettle of fish of course. Dunno what it is like in Germany, but going by what they have in the US, it looks like no such law applies there.

Yeah, so it is completely different. I know which I think produces a better news provider.

You sure about that? I'm from britian and have never heard of a law like that. I'd hae thought such a law would be unworkable too.

That was your assessment, not mine. Don't recall using the word balance in my post. Nope. I will however, distill the essence of my post down to One Sentence.

All American media outlets are biased to a greater or lesser extent.

"All" would include Fox. It would also include CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Nobody's perfect. Not even you.
yes. we all know everything is biased is some way. Noone rational would argue otherwise. However, there is a big difference between attempting to be unbiased, and being the "conservative voice on 24 hour news".

You sure about that? I'm from britian and have never heard of a law like that. I'd hae thought such a law would be unworkable too.
Yeah, it's true. They always have to show the opposing view. In the cases where they show a deliberately one sided programme, they'll always have another programme on sometime showing the other view.

I trust the BBC more than anything. They still get it wrong sometimes, but they're the only people who will tell you in their main headlines that they have. Other people don't do that because they think it makes them look unreliable - the Beeb is one of the few organisations in the world that's worked out that it actually does the opposite and shows them to be trustworthy.

You sure about that? I'm from britian and have never heard of a law like that. I'd hae thought such a law would be unworkable too.

It's there and it works to a great extent.

I'm not entirely sure what the law is but i'm sure if a channel were to show a program with a huge degree of bias then you cna bet your hosue on the fact that loads of people will write to the television standards people and likely get the channel fined and forced tomake an appology (like the regular "the BBC would like to appologise to" slot after watchdog when watchdog get caught out).

Now is it just me or does that picture of Moussaoui make him look he is taking part in a bear advert? kicking back and enjoying a good pint...

I vote the UN abassadorship for most hilarious troll in ages. Anyone see him offering to fellate george bush yesterday? Classic.


go easy on UN ambassadorship. he just saw the movie, remembered the line, "You are in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history", and realized where Dubya really was during the Vietnam war and what his problem is.

UNa's just trying to help make peace.

:p

I certainly never had it in the first place! It has always been the propaganda channel of the religious right wing :rolleyes:

Ok, in the US every news channel is biased (more or less), but Fox is showing nothing but bias :rolleyes:

I'm not entirely sure what the law is but i'm sure if a channel were to show a program with a huge degree of bias then you cna bet your hosue on the fact that loads of people will write to the television standards people and likely get the channel fined and forced tomake an appology (like the regular "the BBC would like to appologise to" slot after watchdog when watchdog get caught out).

Now is it just me or does that picture of Moussaoui make him look he is taking part in a bear advert? kicking back and enjoying a good pint...
FOX got out of a whistleblower lawsuit becuase it was determined that it was not unlawful for the news to lie. So, that's what we're up against.

(You can see that here (http://www.foxbghsuit.com/), where they have the official ruling, the meat of which-
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448,102, Akre has failed to state a calim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse teh judgment in her favor and remand tor entry of judgment in favor of WTVT.
Compare that to how FOX reports it, also linked at that site.

I vote the UN abassadorship for most hilarious troll in ages.
He's got my vote as well. I enjoy his rants.
Who is he, anyway? Has anyone worked out who's puppet he is yet?

I occasionally flick onto FOX (mainly because it's channel is between Star world and Star movies on my sattelite reciever) and no matter how low and biased I think it'll be, it never ceases to astound me.
A few weeks ago I watched a reporter being interviewed by the presenter, about congress updates. The reporter said that the democrats were against Bush authorising wire taps without court orders on Al Qaeda terrorists operating inside America and calling outside of the states to arrange terrorist attacks.
I was thinking "WTF? How do you know what those illegal wiretaps are for? No-ones said anything about who or why they were eavesdropping."
Yet it was presented as fact.

I occasionally flick onto FOX (mainly because it's channel is between Star world and Star movies on my sattelite reciever) and no matter how low and biased I think it'll be, it never ceases to astound me.
A few weeks ago I watched a reporter being interviewed by the presenter, about congress updates. The reporter said that the democrats were against Bush authorising wire taps without court orders on Al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Americaand calling outside of the states to arrange terrorist attacks.
I was thinking "WTF? How do you know what those illegal wiretaps are for? No-ones said anything about who or why they were eavesdropping."
Yet it was presented as fact.

Well now they decided screw it we'll just show Bias all the time. If no one thinks we have it then why act like we do. How many public apologies have they made? I wouldn't be surprised if they had to make a apology that some group of christians decided they wanted whoever asked Fox to apologize needed to apologize for making fox apologize. =/. Idiots if you ask me, but i guess if we have such a "liberal media" then we have to let some Conservative morons talk.

I was thinking "WTF? How do you know what those illegal wiretaps are for? No-ones said anything about who or why they were eavesdropping."Yet it was presented as fact.

Why show proof? If they can get away without any then why show it?

Granted, this was on during the Neal Cavuto show, which is an opinion show (is there any other kind on Fox?), but what the hell kind of question is that to be asking?
Uh ... I think they call that "freedom of the press." Ya think? :D

I occasionally flick onto FOX (mainly because it's channel is between Star world and Star movies on my sattelite reciever) and no matter how low and biased I think it'll be, it never ceases to astound me.
A few weeks ago I watched a reporter being interviewed by the presenter, about congress updates. The reporter said that the democrats were against Bush authorising wire taps without court orders on Al Qaeda terrorists operating inside America and calling outside of the states to arrange terrorist attacks.
I was thinking "WTF? How do you know what those illegal wiretaps are for? No-ones said anything about who or why they were eavesdropping."
Yet it was presented as fact.

Uhh that is because it has been reported on:

CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC as well. Even President Bush is on record as stating that is what is going on when the news leaked (a violation of National Security Law) and he was forced to answer the question.

Yep. That is what the public record states *nod*

The way you guys got hung up on DC's nipples is disgusting and reminds me of a day when I . . . ok, nevermind, I don't need to bring that up. :p

Actually, I think the question posed in the screen shot is one that is worthy of debate. I tend to think the answer is 'no' but there are some who believe otherwise (witness the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials, Nazi regime, Saddam Huessein's government and North Korea and North Vietnam during those conflicts). Let me pose it another way, if you knew for sure that torture would have prevented 9/11 would the torture be ok in your mind then?

I believe that this post here deserves an answer For those that missed it because of your Fox News bashing, it is on page 2.

My answer to this would be no. As much as I would love too, it would be morally unacceptable to torture him for information.

Uh ... I think they call that "freedom of the press." Ya think? :D
I guess I missed the part of "freedom of the press" where we couldn't say "That's a fucking stupid question." But I guess it's only okay to question a liberal media, right?

Uhh that is because it has been reported on:

CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC as well. Even President Bush is on record as stating that is what is going on when the news leaked (a violation of National Security Law) and he was forced to answer the question.

Yep. That is what the public record states *nod*
And the day I'll believe what Bush says to justify his illegal wiretaping is the day I'll let democracy, freedom of the press and every other basic rights be trampled.

What Bush says and what is the truth are usually mutually exclusive.

Can anyone clear up for me when Massaoui was arrested and when anyone got the idea he had anything to do with 9/11?

Can anyone clear up for me when Massaoui was arrested and when anyone got the idea he had anything to do with 9/11?

He was arrested just prior to 9/11.

And the day I'll believe what Bush says to justify his illegal wiretaping is the day I'll let democracy, freedom of the press and every other basic rights be trampled.

What Bush says and what is the truth are usually mutually exclusive.

Fine! Ignore the public record. I honestly do not care.

I guess I missed the part of "freedom of the press" where we couldn't say "That's a fucking stupid question." But I guess it's only okay to question a liberal media, right?
[ hands Cannot a chill pill ] :)

Also, Congress has been briefed on the wiretappings and what they entailed. If they were, in fact illegal, then why wait to come out with it? Could it be because they felt that it was also legal? Both dems and republicans?

Also, Congress has been briefed on the wiretappings and what they entailed. If they were, in fact illegal, then why wait to come out with it? Could it be because they felt that it was also legal? Both dems and republicans?
Some were probably more concerned with how to hurt Bush than whether these wiretaps were illegal or not. It's called politics. It's why the democrats chose an jackass as their symbol while the Republicans stuck with the elephant(for fatass). It's just the American way of waging peace at a time of peace or war.

Also, Congress has been briefed on the wiretappings and what they entailed.

don't lie

Also, Congress has been briefed on the wiretappings and what they entailed. If they were, in fact illegal, then why wait to come out with it? Could it be because they felt that it was also legal? Both dems and republicans?
Corny, Corny, Corny. *shakes head*

Congress was not briefed on the wiretappings. Select members were briefed--if you can call it that--but multiple members who received sad briefings have stated publicly that the briefings were incomplete, didn't cover the entre scope of the program, and were certainly not subject to Congressional oversight, which the law requires. Further, not even the Republican members of Congress have said that what Bush was doing was legal--instead, they've been working on legislation to make the program retroactively legal. In short, he's breaking the law now, and they want to change the law so that he won't be. Also, yesterday, a group of former FISA judges released a statement that said Bush was in violation of the law, and those are the judges who dealt with the subject intimately as part of their job.

The program isn't legal, Corny--give it up.

don't lie

Congress was indeed briefed on it. Those that were on the Intelligence Committee even said they were briefed on this issue.

Corny, Corny, Corny. *shakes head*

Congress was not briefed on the wiretappings. Select members were briefed--if you can call it that--but multiple members who received sad briefings have stated publicly that the briefings were incomplete, didn't cover the entre scope of the program, and were certainly not subject to Congressional oversight, which the law requires. Further, not even the Republican members of Congress have said that what Bush was doing was legal--instead, they've been working on legislation to make the program retroactively legal. In short, he's breaking the law now, and they want to change the law so that he won't be. Also, yesterday, a group of former FISA judges released a statement that said Bush was in violation of the law, and those are the judges who dealt with the subject intimately as part of their job.

The program isn't legal, Corny--give it up.

Who says they weren't legal? And if this is illegal, then what Clinton did was just as illegal. It doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one person, then you must condemn all the people who have done illegal spying on Americans by skirting the law.

It's why the democrats chose an jackass as their symbol while the Republicans stuck with the elephant

i don't know that it really counts as 'choosing' when a cartoonist in the 1870s does it for you

Who says they weren't legal? And if this is illegal, then what Clinton did was just as illegal. It doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one person, then you must condemn all the people who have done illegal spying on Americans by skirting the law.

Are you actually serious? "He did it too" isn't much of an excuse.

Also, yesterday, a group of former FISA judges released a statement that said Bush was in violation of the law, and those are the judges who dealt with the subject intimately as part of their job.

one of 'em used the phrase 'king george', no less

Congress was indeed briefed on it. Those that were on the Intelligence Committee even said they were briefed on this issue.

don't lie

Are you actually serious? "He did it too" isn't much of an excuse.

I see that you only read a part of it. I said and I quote myself "it doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one man for this, then you must condemn them all."

I see that you only read a part of it. I said and I quote myself "it doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one man for this, then you must condemn them all."

Fine. Clinton's scum. So is Bush. Your opinion?

Fine. Clinton's scum. So is Bush. Your opinion?

That Clinton's an idiot and so is Bush.

Fox new is a government controled news agency that only Bush lovers and Simpson addicts ever watch.:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Fox new is a government controled news agency that only Bush lovers and Simpson addicts ever watch.:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

you know how immature this post looks?

Who says they weren't legal? And if this is illegal, then what Clinton did was just as illegal. It doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one person, then you must condemn all the people who have done illegal spying on Americans by skirting the law.

wait, are you refering to back when the wingnuts discovered the existence of fisa back during the clinton era and freaked out about the obvious danger to liberty of a secret court granting secret warrants to conduct secret searches?

He was arrested just prior to 9/11.
And the second part of my question?

I need some clarification please...

Is it true what Corndog is saying? That Clinton did illegal warantless wiretaps on American citizens like Bush is?

Corndog or anybody, would you be so kind as to provide a source for this?

I need some clarification please...

Is it true what Corndog is saying? That Clinton did illegal warantless wiretaps on American citizens like Bush is?

Corndog or anybody, would you be so kind as to provide a source for this?
Who cares? Let's grant it for the sake of argument and then ask how one guy committing a crime makes it legal for someone else to commit the same crime?

Also, in re any supposed briefing of selected members of Congress, how does an agreement to commit a crime make it legal to commit that crime? Is he claiming it's legal if members of Congress give it the nod? And how many members of Congress have been investigated, indicted, convicted, pushed out of office, and even incarcerated for breaking the law? Savings and Loan Scandal, anyone? Clearly, it is possible for members of Congress to agree to break the law.

I need some clarification please...

Is it true what Corndog is saying? That Clinton did illegal warantless wiretaps on American citizens like Bush is?

Corndog or anybody, would you be so kind as to provide a source for this?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220011

and here (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm) are the freepers freaking out about the existence of fisa because it is clearly a very bad thing

i have a boner

Who cares? Let's grant it for the sake of argument and then ask how one guy committing a crime makes it legal for someone else to commit the same crime?

Also, in re any supposed briefing of selected members of Congress, how does an agreement to commit a crime make it legal to commit that crime? Is he claiming it's legal if members of Congress give it the nod? And how many members of Congress have been investigated, indicted, convicted, pushed out of office, and even incarcerated for breaking the law? Savings and Loan Scandal, anyone? Clearly, it is possible for members of Congress to agree to break the law.


well I do care because I want to know if it is true or not. Not that I am a fan of Clintons anyway.

Corndog did say that he doesnt think the wiretaps weren't the right thing to do, even though he thinks they were legal for some odd reason.

I agree that just because people agree that breaking a law is okay, doesn't actually make it okay.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220011

and here (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm) are the freepers freaking out about the existence of fisa because it is clearly a very bad thing


Thanks, and if Clinton did actualy do an illegal physical search, shame on him, but the second article seems to counter that claim, saying he got a warrant thru the FISA court right?

In any case one physical search does not = who knows how many warrantless wiretaps though.

Could the Iraq War had been averted if Bush was tortured?:p

Who says they weren't legal? And if this is illegal, then what Clinton did was just as illegal. It doesn't make wiretapping right but if your going to condemn one person, then you must condemn all the people who have done illegal spying on Americans by skirting the law.
I listed two groups who said it wasn't legal--Congressional Democrats and former FISA judges--and pointed to a third group that's actively working to make an action that is currently illegal, retroactively legal. Now answer me this little question, Corny--if it was legal all along, then why the hell are Republican Congressmen in such a damn hurry to make it retroactively legal, and thus absolving Bush of any legal jeopardy?

Second, the wiretapping done under Clinton was legal. Want to guess why? I'll give you a hint--it has to do with procuring warrants.

You see, wiretapping is legal when there are warrants involved, which is precisely why Bush is in trouble over this--his NSA program didn't involve getting warrants (even though he said it did). That's what makes it illegal.

Thanks, and if Clinton did actualy do an illegal physical search, shame on him, but the second article seems to counter that claim, saying he got a warrant thru the FISA court right?

In any case one physical search does not = who knows how many warrantless wiretaps though.
As far as that physical search was concerned, when Clinton ordered it, there was no law covering the question of physical searches in that instance. Congress amended the law soon afterward, required a warrant, and thereafter, the Clinton Justice Department got warrants for physical searches in those circumstances. Again--the key (in case Corny is reading this) is that when warrants were required, Clinton's Justice department got them. Bush's hasn't.

Could the Iraq War had been averted if Bush was tortured?:p

Could Bush have been averted if Americans were tortured?

Is this another example of the 'liberal' media that we hear so much about???????????

you mean to say that fox wasnt supose to be a joke? i mean it started out as a HALF HOUR news session, umm yea.. wtf?:confused:

you mean to say that fox wasnt supose to be a joke? i mean it started out as a HALF HOUR news session, umm yea.. wtf?:confused:

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.
Easy to do if you're an entertainment company competing in a news division. Easier to stand out from the crowd.

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.

That's not funny.

i never considered fox 'news' news, ever...

Easy to do if you're an entertainment company competing in a news division. Easier to stand out from the crowd.

Here's something for ya to chew on!

WELCOME TO CABLE NEWS. All it is are opinion shows on all three major networks.

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.

popular propaganda is still propaganda

popular propaganda is still propaganda

News is propaganda.

Originally Posted by Norleans
The way you guys got hung up on DC's nipples is disgusting and reminds me of a day when I . . . ok, nevermind, I don't need to bring that up.

Actually, I think the question posed in the screen shot is one that is worthy of debate. I tend to think the answer is 'no' but there are some who believe otherwise (witness the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials, Nazi regime, Saddam Huessein's government and North Korea and North Vietnam during those conflicts). Let me pose it another way, if you knew for sure that torture would have prevented 9/11 would the torture be ok in your mind then?

I believe that this post here deserves an answer For those that missed it because of your Fox News bashing, it is on page 2.

My answer to this would be no. As much as I would love too, it would be morally unacceptable to torture him for information.

the reason the question posed in the foxnews picture is mindbogglingly stupid is that moussaoui was picked up BEFORE 9/11. the question is really asking "should we have been torturing random foreigners picked up on ins violations just in case they knew something bad was being planned against the US?"

stupid stupid stupid

So, Corny--plenty of time to start new threads, and josh around in this thread about ratings (as if they're an indicator of credibility), but no time to reply to this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661884&postcount=95), I see. Ah, c'est la vie.

Corny sees a comment that plays with his worldview and ignores it.

So, Corny--plenty of time to start new threads, and josh around in this thread about ratings (as if they're an indicator of credibility), but no time to reply to this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661884&postcount=95), I see. Ah, c'est la vie.

Corny sees a comment that plays with his worldview and ignores it.
Business as usual.

I swear, we keep refuting this guy for the sake of newbies who haven't seen him yet. There's no other sane reaon to keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

LMFAO!
Is this guy serious? Cheney's nipples taste like sweetness? And is this from experience, may I ask?

*can't stop laughing*
This guy also advocates tourchering children, and antyhing else that might know somthing.

Business as usual.

I swear, we keep refuting this guy for the sake of newbies who haven't seen him yet. There's no other sane reaon to keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
Yeah--just trying to keep the pollution levels down to a minimum. Do you think he monitors the threads he gets pwned in, waiting until just enough time has passed where he thinks it's safe to come back in?

Yeah--just trying to keep the pollution levels down to a minimum. Do you think he monitors the threads he gets pwned in, waiting until just enough time has passed where he thinks it's safe to come back in?
He has been known to pop back six pages later and argue like nothing happenned....

the reason the question posed in the foxnews picture is mindbogglingly stupid is that moussaoui was picked up BEFORE 9/11. the question is really asking "should we have been torturing random foreigners picked up on ins violations just in case they knew something bad was being planned against the US?"

stupid stupid stupid

I agree with you.

...Also, in re any supposed briefing of selected members of Congress, how does an agreement to commit a crime make it legal to commit that crime? ...

I thought "agreement to commit a crime" was the definition of "conspiracy" to commit a crime.

"Lost it" implies FOX News had it in the first place. Whether it is integrity, sanity, or whatever.


So true. So, so true.

I thought "agreement to commit a crime" was the definition of "conspiracy" to commit a crime.

It is.

What do you mean Fox has lost it?

They are the most popular cable TV news channel
Even more popular than Bill Clinton's channel (CNN)

What do you mean Fox has lost it?

They are the most popular cable TV news channel
Even more popular than Bill Clinton's channel (CNN)

awww, rightwingers are so cute and pathetic

awww, rightwingers are so cute and pathetic
When they aren't making themselves busy telling everybody and their monkeys how to think, feel and consume.

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.

And the WWF destroys Olympic wrestling in the ratings, too.

And the WWF destroys Olympic wrestling in the ratings, too.

And American Idle took down the Olympics too.

And American Idle took down the Olympics too.

What's your point?

I thought "agreement to commit a crime" was the definition of "conspiracy" to commit a crime.
Exactly.

What's your point?

Just that we can keep this up all night :D

Just that we can keep this up all night :D

Right. So you're saying you didn't understand what I was implying with my post.

Just that we can keep this up all night :D
But you can't find time to answer a post that deals directly with claims you made about the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.:rolleyes:

go easy on UN ambassadorship. he just saw the movie, remembered the line, "You are in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history", and realized where Dubya really was during the Vietnam war and what his problem is.

UNa's just trying to help make peace.

:pAnd strangely enough, the martyr complex hasn't set in yet! ;)

Could the Iraq War had been averted if Bush was tortured?:p
I smell a sig!!!! :D

Could Bush have been averted if Americans were tortured?
This just gets better and be-wait, i'm an American! :eek:

Business as usual.

I swear, we keep refuting this guy for the sake of newbies who haven't seen him yet. There's no other sane reason to keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
Hahaha! *FLORT*

For posterity:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10662057&postcount=106

But you can't find time to answer a post that deals directly with claims you made about the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.:rolleyes:
Hey, The Nazz, dunno if you caught this exchange, but i thought your post here merited this for review ...:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659197&postcount=302
and
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659216&postcount=304
followed immediately by
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659233&postcount=305

:D

And American Idle took down the Olympics too.
Did anyone else catch that? Was that intentional?

Either way, quality.

Could the Iraq War had been averted if Bush was tortured?:p

I smell a sig!!!! :D

Agreed!

And maybe a bumper sticker? And a T-shirt?

What's funnier is that they are still destroying CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.And? Europe's largest daily newspaper destroys most other newspapers (hence it being Europe's largest). It still a heap of lies.

The only thing torture has been shown to be invaluable for is extracting false confessions.

Real life is not like an episode of "24".
Wrong. All torture of a person without knowledge does is give false information. OTOH, torture of a person with the knowledge unless they are a very special class of person, invariably gives up the information wanted.

And? Europe's largest daily newspaper destroys most other newspapers (hence it being Europe's largest). It still a heap of lies.

All news is propaganda.

All news is propaganda.

What?

Wrong. All torture of a person without knowledge does is give false information. OTOH, torture of a person with the knowledge unless they are a very special class of person, invariably gives up the information wanted.

And you garuntee you have the right person how?

What?

All news is propaganda. Since it has gotten out of the realm of actual news reporting and towards more commentary than news, it is propaganda.

Hey, The Nazz, dunno if you caught this exchange, but i thought your post here merited this for review ...:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659197&postcount=302
and
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659216&postcount=304
followed immediately by
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659233&postcount=305

:D
Quality nice. :D

So Corny, have you come up with a reply of your own yet, or are you still waiting on your government professor to do your thinking for you?

So Corny, have you come up with a reply of your own yet, or are you still waiting on your government professor to do your thinking for you?

I'm going to be emailing him after my class class. That way, I can copy the question I asked with his answer.

All news is propaganda.Not all. Some of it is similar to children's literature. Popular has never been a good sign of "correct" since human beings enjoy being told what they want to hear.

I'm going to be emailing him after my class class. That way, I can copy the question I asked with his answer.
So you admit that you don't think for yourself. That explains a lot.

Corny, I don't know if anyone has told you this yet, but college is where you're supposed to take thinking for yourself to the next level. You should be able to do that by the time you finish high school, but if you aren't, then college is the place to really make that leap. Puzzle this stuff out for yourself. Don't depend on your professors to bail you out of an argument you're losing. Be an adult--fight your own battles.

Besides, it doesn't matter what your professor tells you--it's your positions thus far that are logically inconsistent, not his. He hasn't been involved in this coversation.

So you admit that you don't think for yourself. That explains a lot.

:confused:

uh? What precisely are you talking about? Are we talking about Bush's Impeachment or something else?

And as for thinking for myself, I have way to much time to think about the Worlds problem. However, I am in the process of re-structuring the way I deal with all of my time to better my education.

Also the only way one can learn is ask questions of those who know more than I do.

:confused:

uh? What precisely are you talking about? Are we talking about Bush's Impeachment or something else?

And as for thinking for myself, I have way to much time to think about the Worlds problem. However, I am in the process of re-structuring the way I deal with all of my time to better my education.

Also the only way one can learn is ask questions of those who know more than I do.Well, in this thread, I'm talking about the post I made a couple of
pages back that you have yet to respond to, despite my repeated goading--and don't even play like you missed it, either. The better part of two pages was spent mocking the fact that you would ignore it and act as though you hadn't had your ass handed to you. Then there's the discussion about impeachment which Straughn linked to in this thread, in which you copped out quicker than Malkin on Domenich, and said you had to ask your government teacher about.

And by the way, you learn far more by puzzling out issues for yourself than you ever do by asking a teacher. If you ask teachers, all you get is their answer. You only know what you do because they told you. If you puzzle it out for yourself, you know why the answer is what it is. That's incredibly more valuable.

I do ignore mocking. It really doesn't do nothing to enhance debate.

I do ignore mocking. It really doesn't do nothing to enhance debate.
Well, that's convenient, since you're the one being mocked because you don't actually debate.

Well, that's convenient, since you're the one being mocked because you don't actually debate.

And why I tend to ignore alot that goes on here on NS.

And why I tend to ignore alot that goes on here on NS.
Ever stop to wonder why it's you who winds up being the butt of so much of it? Maybe it has something to do with the way you constantly dodge posts that point out your intellectual inconsistencies.

Ever stop to wonder why it's you who winds up being the butt of so much of it? Maybe it has something to do with the way you constantly dodge posts that point out your intellectual inconsistencies.

You want to know the honest truth?

You want to know the honest truth?
It would be nice for a change.

You want to know the honest truth?

I'd like to know. Why do you avoid actual debating?

It would be nice for a change.

These debates are 100% meaningless. We each have what we both want to believe. We both can come up with evidence to support both of our sides. No minds are going to be changed at all.

When you have a board, like this one, that is predominately tilted to the left, debating becomes pointless. This board does not like Bush and don't like those that support him. Those that support Bush are rideculed and are called stupid for supporting him.

Those who support the Iraq War are called warmongers. This has a tendency to turn off debate as well. Don't deny this doesn't occur Nazz. I've seen it. Yes I support the Iraq War but I am not a warmonger. I really wanted Peace to prevail and the UN to take a hardline. That was how I felt.

Abortion is the same thing. No matter what, those of us who are pro-life are rediculed on this board.

This does make it hard for alot of us to have an actual, proper debate. We are outnumbered. We cannot hold our views because we are rediculed. No wonder alot of those with right-wing views tend to say very extreme things. Do not know if that is what they actually believe but it is just an observation.

You want to know why I take the view on Iraq as I do? Its because its the only view that can get the responses I get. If I gave the moderate view that I actually do hold, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Also, alot of what I say has been taken out of context and no one listens when I try to explain what I said.

Life is not easy on this site for those of us who lean to the right. This is as honest as I can make it without flaming.

These debates are 100% meaningless. We each have what we both want to believe. We both can come up with evidence to support both of our sides. No minds are going to be changed at all.
In a trial, both sides have evidence to support their arguments. They also have differing interpretations of the same evidence. Win or lose, each side will still go home thinking they were right all along. But they still hold the trial. Why? Because the purpose of the trial is not to convince one side to agree with the other. It is to judge whose interpretation of the evidence gives the most reasonable explanation of the evidence.

Likewise, the purpose of debate is not to change people's minds. It is to test our reasoning and communications skills in a form of competition. We put up a model, structured as well as we can make it, and that model is tested by others trying to knock it down or take it apart. If we cannot do that, then you win -- your reasoning and presentation are both sound. If we can take it apart, then you lose -- your reasoning and presentation are not sound. Debate tests the debaters, not their ideas.

When you have a board, like this one, that is predominately tilted to the left, debating becomes pointless. This board does not like Bush and don't like those that support him. Those that support Bush are rideculed and are called stupid for supporting him.

First question: If you don't like it here, why do you come? I'm sure there must be rightwing-specific forums out there where you can post your ideas and get nothing but agreement. Why not stick with those if opposition bothers you so much?

Second question: Are you saying there are more leftists/liberals here than elsewhere? I'm not sure that's accurate, but if you feel like a minority here, are you sure it's not because you are an actual minority in the world? You're an American like me, right? This is an international forum. It's a known fact that most of the world, Europe especially, is demographically more leftist/liberal than the US. So what's your problem then -- that you're uncomfortable realizing that you're a minority?

Third question: Do your feelings get hurt when people put you down? What a coincidence -- ours too. Insults come flying from the right just as much as they do from the left. Gosh, it would be nice if everyone could be nice, but it seems they can't. So what?

Those who support the Iraq War are called warmongers. This has a tendency to turn off debate as well. Don't deny this doesn't occur Nazz. I've seen it. Yes I support the Iraq War but I am not a warmonger. I really wanted Peace to prevail and the UN to take a hardline. That was how I felt.

Abortion is the same thing. No matter what, those of us who are pro-life are rediculed on this board.

See my statement above. If you can't take opposition, seek a forum full of people who already agree with you. Sure, there are some people who just toss insults at their opponents, as if that's an argument. I agree with you on that -- I have seen it. But I have also seen people, including you, Corneliu, claim that attacks on your arguments are personal attacks against you, and on the basis of that say you are being insulted, when in fact all that's happening is that your argument is being taken down by an opposing debater who has found its flaws.

This does make it hard for alot of us to have an actual, proper debate. We are outnumbered. We cannot hold our views because we are rediculed. No wonder alot of those with right-wing views tend to say very extreme things. Do not know if that is what they actually believe but it is just an observation.

You want to know why I take the view on Iraq as I do? Its because its the only view that can get the responses I get. If I gave the moderate view that I actually do hold, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Also, alot of what I say has been taken out of context and no one listens when I try to explain what I said.
Are you saying here that you deliberately put up arguments and express views you don't really believe in? Then why do you take opposition so personally? If this is true, then we're not actually arguing with you, are we? Also, if you know you are putting up extreme statements, why should you be surprised to get extreme responses?

As for not listening to your explanations -- frankly, C, we do listen, and we examine, and we find flaws, and we expose those flaws, take your explanations apart, and hand them back to you. That's called debating. Now what you should do is come back with further argument that fixes the flaws and see if we can knock that down -- only you don't do that. You just keep trying to defeat our reasoning using the same argument that we have already defeated. It quickly becomes repetitive and, after a while, it does get boring and, yeah, some people do start dismissing you. But the sheer fact that you participate and get into active debates in so many threads should be a hint that we are not just ignoring your or shutting you out.

Life is not easy on this site for those of us who lean to the right. This is as honest as I can make it without flaming.
You did it very well. Thank you. I hope you'll see that my responses are not flaming, either.

In a trial, both sides have evidence to support their arguments. They also have differing interpretations of the same evidence. Win or lose, each side will still go home thinking they were right all along. But they still hold the trial. Why? Because the purpose of the trial is not to convince one side to agree with the other. It is to judge whose interpretation of the evidence gives the most reasonable explanation of the evidence.

I would've used a different example than a trial. Reason being that in a trial, it is the prosecution's obligation to do his best to convict the defendent. It is the defense's job to get him off. You always have someone to announce wether the defendent is either guilty or not. This is done by a jury or by a judge.

Likewise, the purpose of debate is not to change people's minds. It is to test our reasoning and communications skills in a form of competition. We put up a model, structured as well as we can make it, and that model is tested by others trying to knock it down or take it apart. If we cannot do that, then you win -- your reasoning and presentation are both sound. If we can take it apart, then you lose -- your reasoning and presentation are not sound. Debate tests the debaters, not their ideas.

But it is supposed to test the ideas. The purpose of debate is to get both sides of an issue out there and let the people decide for themselves what they want to believe. That is the whole purpose of this. The idea isn't to win debates. It is to let both sides air out what they believe in a civilized manner without all the headaches that comes with having an opposing view point. It is that person's opinion, right or wrong, and he shouldn't be chastized for it. I see alot of that on both sides of any issue on this board. It shouldn't be happening. To many people on this board is more interesting in winning debates instead of actually listening to what is being said.

First question: If you don't like it here, why do you come? I'm sure there must be rightwing-specific forums out there where you can post your ideas and get nothing but agreement. Why not stick with those if opposition bothers you so much?[/qoute]

Because I'm not as right wing as I'm being characterize here. If you met me in person, I think you'll be able to see that. I have my views but they are not extreme. Besides that, why would I want to debate people who agree with me? That's why I come here. I come to debate and am not interested in winning debates. I'm here to get my views and opinions out and I should be able to do this without getting chastized for it. No one should be chastized for their views. I'll admit, I am guilty myself of doing this. I shouldn't be chastizing other posters for their views, no matter how dumb they may be. We all have our own views and those views should be just as respected as any other view.

[quote]Second question: Are you saying there are more leftists/liberals here than elsewhere? I'm not sure that's accurate, but if you feel like a minority here, are you sure it's not because you are an actual minority in the world? You're an American like me, right? This is an international forum. It's a known fact that most of the world, Europe especially, is demographically more leftist/liberal than the US. So what's your problem then -- that you're uncomfortable realizing that you're a minority?

Actuallly, this isn't as accurate as one might think. It is true that the "conservatives" in europe are a bit more liberal than the conservatives in America, but you have to look past what is actually printed and look at the culture of these nations. I'm in a Comparative Politics class right now and it is actually fascinating. I just wish it wasn't at 8 AM :D

Third question: Do your feelings get hurt when people put you down? What a coincidence -- ours too. Insults come flying from the right just as much as they do from the left. Gosh, it would be nice if everyone could be nice, but it seems they can't. So what?

I actually do not care if my feelings get hurt. I just do not take well to being insulted. Its the insults I object to. Not only do they do nothing to the debate but it brings down the point what the poster is trying to make. I've pointed this out but I guess most people just do not care about proper debating decorum. I am also guilty of this. I try not to do it but sometimes, my anger gets the better of me and I just type it without thinking.

See my statement above. If you can't take opposition, seek a forum full of people who already agree with you. Sure, there are some people who just toss insults at their opponents, as if that's an argument. I agree with you on that -- I have seen it. But I have also seen people, including you, Corneliu, claim that attacks on your arguments are personal attacks against you, and on the basis of that say you are being insulted, when in fact all that's happening is that your argument is being taken down by an opposing debater who has found its flaws.

And I really shouldn't take everything so personally. It is one of my failings that I am asking Help from God to help me overcome. I really do need to overcome it if I'm going to make it in politics.

Are you saying here that you deliberately put up arguments and express views you don't really believe in? Then why do you take opposition so personally? If this is true, then we're not actually arguing with you, are we? Also, if you know you are putting up extreme statements, why should you be surprised to get extreme responses?

Depending upon the topic, I'll will state precisely what I believe. In others, I still do the samething but do embelish it. Hey this is the internet. "No one here is exactly what he appears" Ambassador G'Kar of the Narn Regime.

As for not listening to your explanations -- frankly, C, we do listen, and we examine, and we find flaws, and we expose those flaws, take your explanations apart, and hand them back to you. That's called debating. Now what you should do is come back with further argument that fixes the flaws and see if we can knock that down -- only you don't do that. You just keep trying to defeat our reasoning using the same argument that we have already defeated. It quickly becomes repetitive and, after a while, it does get boring and, yeah, some people do start dismissing you. But the sheer fact that you participate and get into active debates in so many threads should be a hint that we are not just ignoring your or shutting you out.

In debates, you present yourside, I present myside, then we ask eachother questions on why we believe the way we do in a civilized manner. One reason why I dont watch the Presidental debates. They are way to polite and you can tell it is scripted. Debating over the internet is something else entirely. I actually like debating people in person. It is the best way to judge someone is by how they think on their feet. With the internet, you cannot judge someone by that. One can take days if he really wanted to to come up with any sort of evidence to present as fact. The internet is not the know all be all of knowledge. We rely to much on the net for our information. Granted, it does come in handy. Especially if your looking up the Congressional Record or UN resolutions. However, there is alot of false information out on the net as well. This is why I do not trust the net all that much for my source of news. Some of the news sites are fine but there are some that are not. I do not trust the NYT because of the lies they have reported on. Even my Journalism Professor does not like the times because of their ethics.

You did it very well. Thank you. I hope you'll see that my responses are not flaming, either.

I actually thank you for your post. This is a rarity where I can actually express precisely where I am coming from without the fear of being persecuted for my views by some of the people on here. It really is quite refreshing to actually state what I actually needed to say.

I would've used a different example than a trial. Reason being that in a trial, it is the prosecution's obligation to do his best to convict the defendent. It is the defense's job to get him off. You always have someone to announce wether the defendent is either guilty or not. This is done by a jury or by a judge.
<snip>
I only used the trial analogy because trials are a clear example of an adversarial method of presenting opposing ideas, each with supporting evidence. Debate is also an adversarial method but with different goals and less rigidly defined formats. I used the trial example because its rigid form makes it a simpler tool for illustrating the particular point I was making.

I'm glad to get this insight into your thinking. I would only say -- and not as any kind of criticism -- that I see a certain vascillation between you wanting and not wanting debate. Your post tended to go back and forth between wanting to just test ideas and wanting to win support for those ideas, between wanting to be challenged for your statements and wanting your statements to be merely accepted and passed as your personal opinions.

It's been my experience that NS General is the kind of forum on which any statment of either fact or opinion is taken as an invitation to debate, an invitation to oppose (note I said "invitation," not "challenge" or "dare"). I think debate is treated as a game or sport here. Therefore, it is extremely rare that even a personal opinion or belief will go unchallenged by someone. I'm just pointing this out in case you might find it useful in having more fun here.

EDIT: Provided, of course, that you can find "fun" in my relentless harping on your lack of factual support for your political assertions. ;) :p

These debates are 100% meaningless. We each have what we both want to believe. We both can come up with evidence to support both of our sides. No minds are going to be changed at all.

When you have a board, like this one, that is predominately tilted to the left, debating becomes pointless. This board does not like Bush and don't like those that support him. Those that support Bush are rideculed and are called stupid for supporting him.

Those who support the Iraq War are called warmongers. This has a tendency to turn off debate as well. Don't deny this doesn't occur Nazz. I've seen it. Yes I support the Iraq War but I am not a warmonger. I really wanted Peace to prevail and the UN to take a hardline. That was how I felt.

Abortion is the same thing. No matter what, those of us who are pro-life are rediculed on this board.

This does make it hard for alot of us to have an actual, proper debate. We are outnumbered. We cannot hold our views because we are rediculed. No wonder alot of those with right-wing views tend to say very extreme things. Do not know if that is what they actually believe but it is just an observation.

You want to know why I take the view on Iraq as I do? Its because its the only view that can get the responses I get. If I gave the moderate view that I actually do hold, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Also, alot of what I say has been taken out of context and no one listens when I try to explain what I said.

Life is not easy on this site for those of us who lean to the right. This is as honest as I can make it without flaming.Once again, you show that you don't get it. This has nothing to do with your views and everything to do with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies of your positions. I agree with Myrmidonisia about once every two months, but he's consistent in his arguments, and guess what? He never gets mocked. But you just walk away from arguments you're losing and act as though your arguments hadn't been utterly destroyed, often by your own words. I'm not asking you to agree with me--just acknowledge when you've been proven wrong about matters of objective fact. But you act as though fact and opinion are made of the same stuff, and that people can honestly disagree about objective facts. There's room for disagreement in the interpretation of facts, but not about the facts themselves, and that's where you have trouble differentiating between the two. When faced with undisputed facts that are contrary to your positions (like the illegality of the NSA program, to cite a recent example), you often act as though that because you disagree with the implications, you can therefore dispute the objective, undisputed facts. The real world doesn't work that way, Corny.

Once again, you show that you don't get it. This has nothing to do with your views and everything to do with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies of your positions. I agree with Myrmidonisia about once every two months, but he's consistent in his arguments, and guess what? He never gets mocked. But you just walk away from arguments you're losing and act as though your arguments hadn't been utterly destroyed, often by your own words. I'm not asking you to agree with me--just acknowledge when you've been proven wrong about matters of objective fact. But you act as though fact and opinion are made of the same stuff, and that people can honestly disagree about objective facts. There's room for disagreement in the interpretation of facts, but not about the facts themselves, and that's where you have trouble differentiating between the two. When faced with undisputed facts that are contrary to your positions (like the illegality of the NSA program, to cite a recent example), you often act as though that because you disagree with the implications, you can therefore dispute the objective, undisputed facts. The real world doesn't work that way, Corny.

I do not walk away because I feel like i'm losing. I walk away because it doesn't do any good to respond to half of what is said.

So instead of lecturing me, since that is precisely what you are doing, why don't you take an honest look at that post. It took me a long time to actually type it out and I literally poured everything out that I have had building up inside me.

No matter what I say, regardless if its right or wrong, it gets constently rediculed by most everyone because of my ideology. Frankly, I really do not care if what I say gets lambasted or not. It is still my opinion and that is all that counts in my book. I have different views than most of the people on here and thats fine. When the attacks start though, that ain't fine. My problem is that I am really a to nice of an individual to really say what I want to say. I guess it goes back to my upbringing. I am pro-military. The majority of my family has been associated with the military of one branch or another. I am pro-life because I believe that all life is sacred. I am pro-environment because this is what God gave us to protect. I am also religious. I believe that God Created the world and everything in it.

This isn't about being right or wrong Nazz. Its about opinions. Its nice to have news links at your fingertips when we are debating online. However, alot of that is also opinion. Everyone has opinions, even those that write the news stories. Quotes are nice but they are also that person's opinion and it is those opinions that give us the news. We can find things at all levels to fit whatever we believe.

I am for the Iraq War because of all of Hussein's atrocities and his failure to comply with the United Nations. My support is not based on WMD. I base it on all factors.

As for Fox News, its the right wing version of CNN. I do not trust Fox News 100% of the time, not even 60% of the time. There are a few shows on there I watch. Special Report with Brit Hume is one of my favorites. His panel discussions he has with those across the political spectrum are wonderful. Yes those are their opinions and they go back and forth. I do watch Bill O'Reilly occassionaly but only occassionally because of how my work schedule goes. It really irritates me when Fox News gets bashed but people do not tolerate the bashing of CNN or MSNBC. All the cable networks are bias.

Everyone is bias. There is no way around it. My journalism professor told us that we have to recognize those biases and do our best to make sure they do not interfer in our duty of writing stories. Yes I am in a journalism class and I am having a wonderful time in it.

The question posed here really is over the top. Norleans actually had a perfectly reasonable question. A question that most of you have totally ignored but instead lambasted into Fox News for eve reporting such a thing.

Also, most of you actually missed my answer to his question as well which is also quite surprising since I seem to be the most quoted individual here. My answer to Norleans' question was no, I wouldn't support torture. I do not support it in anyway. Now this can open up a whole can of worms like what constitutes torture. We all have our own opinions on this issue too and we can go around and around on it all we like.

My positions on matters have been consistent. I have argued for the Iraq War and have used the exact same documents in all the debates I have had. I never onced wavered from them. I have kept to my pro-life ideals and have argued for tougher stands on abortions BUT NOT for an all out ban on it. Of course I try to stay out of the Abortion debate but sometimes I can't help myself. I have been consistent on creationism. It is a theory after all and I do think it should be taught along side evolutionism.

In the name of confessions, I am going through an upheavel in my life. I lost my grandfather a few weeks back and it sucked the life out of me. Lately though, I have had an influx of full moral support from my friends around here and have gone back to reading my Bible once again. I am also involved in student government now here on campus as I have been accepted onto the Student Senate.

I know this has been a long post and I'm sorry if I went off on a tangent in places but I just had to get this out there and this seemed like a good time to do it.

If anyone has questions, please feel free to telegram me. I'm going to be offline probably for awhile so that I can eat and study before my student senate meeting and I also have work tonight as well.

Thank you for reading all of this.

this is about the 10th time i've posted this link, and it's not meant to detract from the validity of concern over such a retarded headline, but...

if an American wanted a fairly balanced (American Democrat/Republican) version of the news, and he wanted to get it from TV...

he'd watch Brit Hume's show on Fox News and ABC's 'World News'


----------------------------------------------------------------
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

As in semen? Man semen? Not Giraffe semen?
My nipples never emit semen. Do you think Cheney's do? Of course, he is all Dick.

I am for the Iraq War because of all of Hussein's atrocities and his failure to comply with the United Nations. My support is not based on WMD. I base it on all factors.


Your support for the war on those grounds is not under attack (usually), its your attempts to state that this was legal grounds for the war. The war was illegal and attempting to argue otherwise is a waste of time. What you should concentrate on is whether or not it was justified. Wasting your time there too, but you have at least room to manouvere for a spell.

this is about the 10th time i've posted this link, and it's not meant to detract from the validity of concern over such a retarded headline, but...

And every time you'e posted it, numerous people have pointed out what a shit-bad study it is because of the utterly retarded assumptions it makes. Get over yourself.

Your support for the war on those grounds is not under attack (usually), its your attempts to state that this was legal grounds for the war. The war was illegal and attempting to argue otherwise is a waste of time. What you should concentrate on is whether or not it was justified. Wasting your time there too, but you have at least room to manouvere for a spell.

Nodinia, yes most of the resolutions dealt with WMD but not all of them.

Corneliu, I have to say you've got me scratching my head. I won't answer all of it because we haven't talked much before so I doubt it'd mean much to you but I just have to ask about some things and maybe comment.

... I am pro-military. The majority of my family has been associated with the military of one branch or another. I am pro-life because I believe that all life is sacred. ...

okay, now I'd better intro this and say I did my time in 'nam, and came around to opposing that war and war in general because of of what I saw there. and I don't care if you're religious or not. that's between you and whoever or whatever might be answering you and I admit I've seen some things in my life that aren't easy to explain. but it leaves me with a question.

how is it you're "pro-military" and you're pro-life specifically because you "believe that all life is sacred"? if all life is sacred, how do you oppose the killing of unborn babies one by one at the hands of parents but justify the killing of people of all ages (and that includes unborn babies, new babies, the whole thing, as well as other soldiers) by the 10s and 100s and 1000s at the hands of other soldiers? I'm not disagreeing with either position so much as trying to figure out how you make them co-exist. I think if you were pro-life for some other reason I'd find it easier, but you said you believe "all life is sacred".

does that mean you think abortion desecrates the sacredness of life but bullets and bombs wielded in hate and fear (and sometimes, just plain orneryness) don't?

I am for the Iraq War because of all of Hussein's atrocities and his failure to comply with the United Nations. My support is not based on WMD. I base it on all factors.

FWIW, I can't see how anybody'd even want to try to excuse an invasion on false pretenses. I know you said you don't base it on WMD, but how many other reasons were we given at the beginning for invading Iraq? AFAICR it was WMD, Al Qaeda, WMD, terrorism, WMD, the failure to comply with the UN (mostly but not only over searching for WMD) ... oh yeah, and WMD. tut-tutting over what a bad man Saddam is, started out as an after-thought. it was only important after we ran out of other reasons.

let's work by giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. let's pretend he really is the innocent victim of bad intell reports. first, it's not the job of the commander-in-chief to obey intell, it's his job to weigh it up and cross-check it against other input. second, once it was obvious even to him that the intell was wrong, it would have been more morally defensible to come out and admit it: "we were wrong, and I was wrong, and I apologize for being wrong, and I'm going to fix it." and then it would have been a good idea to really fix it and get out of there. not this buck-passing and trying to bluff his way through that now that we know we're wrong it's okay to keep doing it because we meant well and at least we got rid of Saddam. the only way to be sorry for doing something wrong is to stop.

the intell was wrong, not just about WMD but about Iraq and Al Qaeda. and when that became apparent the job of an honest commander-in-chief should have been rectifying the errors, not worrying about handling the bad PR.

of course, if Bush doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, the straight line from him to political culpability is much shorter.

As for Fox News, its the right wing version of CNN. ... It really irritates me when Fox News gets bashed but people do not tolerate the bashing of CNN or MSNBC....

first off, ever since I discovered how much of our own news is kept back from us I've stopped watching US news as much. I have a friend in England and I've compared what he gets on the BBC with what I can see and hear here, and I just don't believe our news anymore, left or right, without checking it with other sources. even the left is letting stuff slide that we should know, and some of it is stuff that would turn more people against the war if we did know. when I visited England I saw stuff that my friends here told me either never came out here or was played down a lot. when journalists are afraid to tell something because they're threatened with being excluded from White House briefings, it's censorship. I don't care about left and right, I want a free and unfettered press.

BTW, I've read people here bashing CNN and MSNBC regularly too. can you tell me where are the people who "do not tolerate" it? what I've seen so far has tended to be pretty even attacks on all news sources, but most of the defending I've seen has been defending of Fox. what have I missed?

...My answer to Norleans' question was no, I wouldn't support torture. I do not support it in anyway. Now this can open up a whole can of worms like what constitutes torture. We all have our own opinions on this issue too and we can go around and around on it all we like.

personally, I don't think we have to worry that we might not be sure what is or isn't torture. first, we have enough history of the use of torture in wartime and other situations we have historical definitions. also, the 20th century saw a lot of research being done on it. and the Geneva Convention (you know, that document that Bush and some of his advisers want our troops to ignore in this "new kind of war") is helpful. fact is, the things being done by some of our people aren't anywhere near the "gray areas" of defining torture. if they were done to any of us we'd be in no doubt. and there's no point saying "well, Saddam tortured too". yep. and the only way we can claim to be fit to judge him wrong is if we don't stoop to it.

I saw torture in 'nam. officially we never did it. but we handed hard-nut VC over to the South Koreans there with us. so much more convenient than flying prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured, we had specialists right there with us. and none of us had any doubt that what we saw and heard was torture. so much for us having clean hands. but we should have become better people and a better nation after 30 years.

... I have kept to my pro-life ideals and have argued for tougher stands on abortions BUT NOT for an all out ban on it. ...

in the light of the bit at the start of this, I don't get why you don't oppose all abortion since all life is sacred. shouldn't you have said "most or some life is sacred"? or else say, "life may be sacred but that doesn't have anything to do with whether you kill or not" and then find another reason to oppose abortion sometimes?

... I lost my grandfather a few weeks back and it sucked the life out of me. ....

I'm really sorry about your grandfather. I remember losing my grandparents. bad news. and I'm at the age when my relatives and now even some friends are dying off, and it's a bummer. I hope you find comfort.

..
Thank you for reading all of this.

and if you have been, thanks for reading this too...

My nipples never emit semen. Do you think Cheney's do? Of course, he is all Dick.


yeah, but he's limp.

Though I read all of your post Beach Boys, I'll have to get back to you on a response. I thank you for your post and I will answer it.

yeah, but he's limp.
no hes not

no hes not

Though I do not talk about this I cannot help but say this:

You speak from experience?

My nipples never emit semen. Do you think Cheney's do? Of course, he is all Dick.
You know this totally and utterly threw me off into a horrible world, just for a second, after getting into Corneliu, Muravyets, and The Nazz's dialogue there. I guess i shouldn't be so bothered, but ... damn.

EDIT: I should also say i liked The Beach Boys contribution as well.

Though I do not talk about this I cannot help but say this:

You speak from experience?
No, Im saying he seems like the type of guy to be hard often.

No, Im saying he seems like the type of guy to be hard often.

Oh you make this so easy.

How would you know?

Oh you make this so easy.

How would you know?
think about it, he gets to spread freedom, which is exciting. If I was in his position of spreading freedom, Id be excited all the time. How could you not? Plus he's the vp, so he gets the best medical care. Meaning his access to to 'helpful' drugs if he needs them, but I dont think he does.

I am pro-life because I believe that all life is sacred. I am pro-environment because this is what God gave us to protect. I am also religious. I believe that God Created the world and everything in it.

Can I conclude from this that you are a vegan ?

Can I conclude from this that you are a vegan ?

Me a vegan? Please. I love my BBQ Bacon Cheeseburgers :D

Can I conclude from this that you are a vegan ?
God also created a food chain :D

Can I conclude from this that you are a vegan ?
Not because he loves animals, but because he hates plants.

Not because he loves animals, but because he hates plants.

:confused:

Would you like to explain this?

Via Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/28.html#a7702) (who's been doing a lot of this lately), I bring you a screenshot from Fox News's coverage of the Moussaoui trial.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/Cavuto-torture.jpg

Look carefully at the subhead beneath the main screen. Yes, it really does ask "Could 9/11 have been avoided if Moussaoui was tortured?"

Granted, this was on during the Neal Cavuto show, which is an opinion show (is there any other kind on Fox?), but what the hell kind of question is that to be asking? What's next for their subheads? "We get off licking Cheney's taint! Suck it!" ?

Well maybe you need to understand the audience they play to. There are many people in what can be described as Red State America that get their opinion from Fox (no I'm not kidding lived there for a bit). To those people that is a legit question, more importantly it prepares them for when Dick Cheney campaigns for Torture (well Dick Cheney or someone else from the administration). Course it doesn't get to become Federal law but they can make it legal in a couple of states and then they can hide behind (State laws should not be interfered with by Federal law (remember when they over ruled a State in the Shaivo case) works both ways of course , what ever works to get what they want and Fox News is a more effective tool than you would realize (well thats one reason they are reducing Education funding (help promote more people from being close minded when they are not exposed to a different point of view (well the push for Home Schooling part of that process).
So I'd like to point out that Fox News hasn't lost it , it does what works for it , which is to pander to a specific group and serve a specific political base.

:confused:

Would you like to explain this?
You've seriously never heard that one? For shame, Corny. :(

You've seriously never heard that one? For shame, Corny. :(

You said I hate plants. I'm sorry but I do not get the reference.

You said I hate plants. I'm sorry but I do not get the reference.
I'll put it to you this way ... what are the reasons usually cited for being a vegan?

Me a vegan? Please. I love my BBQ Bacon Cheeseburgers :D

Then I am curious as to your exact definition of "all life is sacred" ;)

I'll put it to you this way ... what are the reasons usually cited for being a vegan?

You got me. I doubt pay attention to people's eating habits or why they eat the way they do. None of my business.

Then I am curious as to your exact definition of "all life is sacred" ;)

You mean vegetables aren't alive, too? You kill what you want to eat, and I'll kill mine.

http://www.eagle-wing.net/FunStuff/Goodies/images/Carrot%20Juice%20Is%20Murder.mp3


Carrot Juice Is Murder
The Arrogant Worms

Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppresion, served on our tables each night
The killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, cole slaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cuz a radish can't
scream

CHORUS
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides
revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables grow)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue
If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two
I'm a political prisoner trapped in a windowless cage
Cuz I stopped the slughter of turnips by killing three men in a
rage
I told the judge when he sentenced me, this is my finest hour
I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower

CHORUS

How low as people do we dare to stoop
Making young broccoli's bleed in the soup
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes, let potted plants free
Don't mash that potatoe

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir fry are
sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels (leave them out in the fields)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes your compost's a grave)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

Power to the peas
Give peas a chance
All we are saying is give peas a chance

You mean vegetables aren't alive, too? You kill what you want to eat, and I'll kill mine.

http://www.eagle-wing.net/FunStuff/Goodies/images/Carrot%20Juice%20Is%20Murder.mp3


Carrot Juice Is Murder
The Arrogant Worms

Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppresion, served on our tables each night
The killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, cole slaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cuz a radish can't
scream

CHORUS
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides
revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables grow)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue
If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two
I'm a political prisoner trapped in a windowless cage
Cuz I stopped the slughter of turnips by killing three men in a
rage
I told the judge when he sentenced me, this is my finest hour
I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower

CHORUS

How low as people do we dare to stoop
Making young broccoli's bleed in the soup
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes, let potted plants free
Don't mash that potatoe

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir fry are
sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels (leave them out in the fields)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes your compost's a grave)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

Power to the peas
Give peas a chance
All we are saying is give peas a chance
You're really coming around, i must say. :D

You got me. I doubt pay attention to people's eating habits or why they eat the way they do. None of my business.
None of your business? Then why are you on the forums so much? :confused:

None of your business? Then why are you on the forums so much? :confused:

The way people eat is none of my business. Don't you read :D

You mean vegetables aren't alive, too? You kill what you want to eat, and I'll kill mine.

http://www.eagle-wing.net/FunStuff/Goodies/images/Carrot%20Juice%20Is%20Murder.mp3


Carrot Juice Is Murder
The Arrogant Worms

Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppresion, served on our tables each night
The killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, cole slaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cuz a radish can't
scream

CHORUS
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides
revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables grow)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue
If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two
I'm a political prisoner trapped in a windowless cage
Cuz I stopped the slughter of turnips by killing three men in a
rage
I told the judge when he sentenced me, this is my finest hour
I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower

CHORUS

How low as people do we dare to stoop
Making young broccoli's bleed in the soup
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes, let potted plants free
Don't mash that potatoe

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir fry are
sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels (leave them out in the fields)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes your compost's a grave)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

Power to the peas
Give peas a chance
All we are saying is give peas a chance


Nice one! Totally brilliant!

And that leads me to say this: unless you're eating 100% non-organic rock and soil, (rock and soil, incidentally, that has no micro-organisms growing in it) or you're manufacturing food from artificial non-organic ingredients, you can't avoid killing to eat.

The decision by some people to imagine that a vegan diet wouldn't depend on the death of other species is arbitrary and false. I think we have to understand that the sacredness of life is tempered by the reality of eating to live. Speaking of which -- where did I put my bacon, egg and Swiss cheese sandwich?

Corneliu, I have to say you've got me scratching my head.
What an excellent set of analyses -- thanks!

1. On the internal inconsistency of believing that "all life is sacred" AND being pro-military AND wanting to restrict abortion but not ban it: Total agreement.

2. On why Bush has been a bad commander-in-chief: Excellent. Total agreement.

3. On why we shouldn't trust any single US news source: Total agreement. And also no excuse for not seeking global input since we're already on the freaking internet. A misled public is a lazy public.

4. On civilized people know what torture is, so don't even try to hand us that self-serving nonsense: Total agreement. I'm so sick of this torture shit, I can't handle it anymore.

I could not have said any of this better myself, and god knows, I've said it often enough.

Nice one! Totally brilliant!

And that leads me to say this: unless you're eating 100% non-organic rock and soil, (rock and soil, incidentally, that has no micro-organisms growing in it) or you're manufacturing food from artificial non-organic ingredients, you can't avoid killing to eat.

The decision by some people to imagine that a vegan diet wouldn't depend on the death of other species is arbitrary and false. I think we have to understand that the sacredness of life is tempered by the reality of eating to live. Speaking of which -- where did I put my bacon, egg and Swiss cheese sandwich?
Mmmm....Twinkies....

The way people eat is none of my business. Don't you read :D
Yeah, and i was trying to decipher this part ...

-
Originally Posted by Corneliu:
You got me. I doubt pay attention to people's eating habits or why they eat the way they do. None of my business.
-
You really know how to stretch the integrity of a joke.

Yeah, and i was trying to decipher this part ...

-
Originally Posted by Corneliu:
You got me. I doubt pay attention to people's eating habits or why they eat the way they do. None of my business.
-
You really know how to stretch the integrity of a joke.

Well jokes really aren't my thing. In my international Law class last semester, we had a few flies in our room and the professor made a comment about the flies and I quipped that we are near Philly :D

<disclaimer> I am not a FoxNews viewer

Anyway, with the caption down the bottom, I think it is more of a thought provoking question in reference to the old argument; 'knowing now what we do, would you torture the captured individual to stop Sept 11' - the question isn't so much the support or condemnation of torture, but whether there are times when torture is considered 'acceptable' - when the 'ends justify the means'.

The again, for your average block-head American, he'll think its good to torture after sucking down the Fox Pravda report.

Well jokes really aren't my thing. In my international Law class last semester, we had a few flies in our room and the professor made a comment about the flies and I quipped that we are near Philly :D
So ... how did the class and the professor react? Was there any pelting? Or did they tell you your wit doesn't belong IRL and perhaps you'd have more success as a target of political flamers on some forum somewhere? :D

So ... how did the class and the professor react? Was there any pelting? Or did they tell you your wit doesn't belong IRL and perhaps you'd have more success as a target of political flamers on some forum somewhere? :D

My professor told me that I shouldn't have come to class with a joke like that :D

Alwell. That is what happens when your surrounded by Philadelphia Flyer fans :D

My professor told me that I shouldn't have come to class with a joke like that :D

Alwell. That is what happens when your surrounded by Philadelphia Flyer fans :D
At least you didn't have an "adjustment" with a bag of doorknobs, or perhaps some horrible public sexual humiliation. AFAIK.
:D

At least you didn't have an "adjustment" with a bag of doorknobs, or perhaps some horrible public sexual humiliation. AFAIK.
:D

Nah. Just a few snickers and that was it.

Nah. Just a few snickers and that was it.
Maybe you needed to do it louder or more obnoxiously, or even more offensively! C'mon, it's college, after all ... ;)

Maybe you needed to do it louder or more obnoxiously, or even more offensively! C'mon, it's college, after all ... ;)

Naw...

I'm to nice a guy.