or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Statement to Nations That Hate the US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Statement to Nations That Hate the US - Page 8

post #281 of 512
Geez, whatever!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #282 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Spaceman you lost ANY willingness on my part to discuss things in a open manner the minute you called me a troll. That showed me you didn't want to discuss, you just wanted to win. So I guess if you don't like name calling you shouldn't have casted the first stone. For those of you who missed this part SPACEMAN-SPIFF sent me a private message to stop trolling because I didn't agree with his point of view. You know, the same way he accused BRussell of policing his posts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The difference being that BRussell acknowledged what he was doing.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #283 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>

You know what sjpsu, you can not insite me with an i know more than you attitude nor will your kind ever intimidate anyone. So you loss out on all points and without defense fall back to "i can not understand what your saying because it does not fit into my tiny view of the world around me" and call it "irrelevant". Thankfully the irrelevance falls into the "this board won't make a bit of difference in the world" category.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You really have nothing to say. At least, say it comprehensibly and with punctuation.
post #284 of 512
Hello friends.
I would like to say that i am appalled by the lack of morality among these posts. You people should be ashamed of your utter lack ofvalues and common decency. Thank you
post #285 of 512
The thing that some of you seem to have forgotten is that unless you are an American Indian you come from roots that started in another country. You have in effect forgotten what this country is all about. The mixture of different cultures to make something better.

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them. The very title of this thread can be taken by others as threatening. Do you think that we are better, more right than other countries? If you do you are arrogant. The US has only stood for a little over 200 years. A minor historical footnote by comparison to other cultures.

A side note is that any action taken by another group or country such as what happened on September 11th is deplorable and unacceptable. But that doesn't mean that everyone out there thinks like that.

The Roman empire stood for more than 2000 years and despite the bad press was the closest thing to civilization at that time. Where they failed was arrogance which led to decadence. I'm sure they felt they were the " best " even as the Visagoths came charging over the seven hills of Rome.

As you can see might doesn't always make right. Or even mean that something is going to last forever.

Right now we are the big kid on the block. As I've said before with that comes great responsibility. Part of that is understanding that these other countries are made up of humans just like ourselves. All this constant flag waving and chest beating accomplishes nothing other than earning the disrespect of others.

I know to some it's unthinkable that the US might not even exist a few hundred years from now. but, it's a real possibility if we follow this backward way of thinking. If you want us to make a difference and live up to our potential we can't think of ourselves as superior. We're fools if we do.

Better to think of ourselves as leaders working with the other countries in understanding. But, we can't forget our mistakes. The fact that we raped the culture that was already here in the beginning is one of them.

The minute you start thinking in terms of better or " Master Race " you start down that path that so many have followed before. The next time you start beating your chest and you swell with national pride I suggest you also consider these things.

We have a chance to really make something better but, we won't do that by insulting others or refusing to acknowledge their contributions.

If you want, you have to learn to " think outside the box ". A concept that many of you might be familiar with.

There's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American but, it also must be put into perspective. History awaits ( as always ) the choice is ours.

That's " my statement ".

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #286 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>

You really have nothing to say. At least, say it comprehensibly and with punctuation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please make a point that has more than one narrow unrefined view of the world in it and i will back off of you. Also try to read what is written so that you can comprehend, or at least recognize another side of it. At any point where you would like to comprehend it ask. I believe i can speak in terms more related to your ideaologies so that it fits.


jimmac you can defend his ideas with real reason, but do not try to defend the arrogance of his ignorance. (spjsu you can read that as "you are so blinded by your own supposed wit and cleverness that you fail to see the truth")

My points have all been in counter to yours sjpus. Not because i think i make a splendid debate team captain but to push other ideas into that narrow view of yours. Calling them irrelevant proves what i am saying. Saying you have a hard time reading what i write so it must not be comprehensible is a fools bid to avoid the alternative.

Otherwise you'd see that i do have something to say <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #287 of 512
UOTE]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>The...

... All this constant flag waving and chest beating accomplishes nothing other than earning the disrespect of others.

...Better to think of ourselves as leaders working with the other countries in understanding.

...The minute you start thinking in terms of better or " Master Race " ...

...We have a chance to really make something better but, we won't do that by insulting others or refusing to acknowledge their contributions.

There's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American but, it also must be put into perspective.

That's " my statement ".

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong>[/QUOTE]

jimamc, i think alot of what you said is on target. It's a conservative look at what needs to be done and conveys the concept of all things in moderation well.

However i have to take a few points with a different spin.

The first is the statement about constant flag waving. Extremists fail at reason, and for the most part that's why it goes to there heads. The real truth about the majority is a lack of caring. They are not interested in these things let alone arrogant in their pride. I don't think the first statement was made by an extremist, i think he wanted instead to make a point about something he cared about. In alot of cases, and to the detriment of the USA, people would ignore a less vehement statement. They want dirty laundry. They can take the idea of national pride or leave it so there needs to be some flag waving to put the idea of it back into the hardened heads of a nation with glazed over eyes and hands free cell phones.

The next is what we are doing i believe. However it got out of hand when technology brought crossing the ocean without a lot of difficulty within reach. We became the world police, and that was a mistake. I believe as SWB put it so well, we should push democracy on those around us. Not American citizenship democracy. I also believe in the global economy that exists today, with rogues nations like iraq that are out there and armed, we'll need to protect our interests and we should.

I do not see the better or master race theory at work here. I think that would consitute an idea that we all agree on being propagated by a deft leader to enpower us against a single nation or culture. That hasn't happened or been a real point of news worthiness in our country. Even the arabic culture is not resoundingly under attack after an incident that could have polarized us all into undertaking a miscarrage of justice. Does that polarization exist in other nations as SWB asked in his title? I believe it does, i think here cooler heads prevail.

The fourth i added because i think it is so well said. Everyone has a part to play and acknowledging the other side is a good way to find a reasonable jump off point.

The last didn't need the perspective, see my first one

i won't go into what i disagree with

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #288 of 512
double post

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #289 of 512
Ruhx,

My statement was in part in response to some of the attitudes displayed here.

Such as : " Here's mine:

Dear nations that hate us:

FOAD

Thank you ".

And there is this one : " I did say I think we are the "best" nation ".

As I've said " There's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American but, it also must be put into perspective ".

Perhaps you don't need the perspective but, I believe others do. Excessive flag waving as can happen in an emotionally charged crisis like this can lead to some of the other attitudes I've read here. My comments weren't aimed at just you.

Otherwise ( and this might surprise you ) agreed.

By the way I believe it's SWD.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #290 of 512
Thread Starter 
Well, actually, its SDW. But whatever.....

Now I'm back, and here we go again.

sjpsu:

Your examples are ridiculous. I read each one, and it obvious to anyone with a brain that the sources are totally biased. In addition, many of them are blatant opinion pieces. "The Council for a Livable World"????
You didn't REALLY think I would let that one go, did you? Get some actual, real, mainstream sources. At least their criminal liberal bias is a bit more concealed. I actually laughed out loud when I read some of your "documentation".

[quote]In the former statement, you opine that they do not violate separation of church and state. While in the latter statement, you state that they do not violate the separation of church and state and further clarify your opinion in commenting on whether or not you like the program.

The latter statement is certainly different than original one. The distinction lies where in the former statement you base an argument on personal judgement, or opinion, while in the latter one you state it like it is based on fact. (Although, you did not support it at all) <hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Whatever. I don't see why it matters. Even the Supreme Court expresses opinions, it is just that they are more qualified than we are. I'm not going to argue this rather mundane point any further.


[quote]Substantively, please. "Your arguments are weak" personally attacks him and contributes nothing to discussion. However, if you said "This is why your arguments are weak" and go on to explain why in the context of the issue, then you can get away with a little personal nudges here and there. <hr></blockquote>

What? I was merely stating that he WAS attacking the ARGUMENTS, not the person. Once again, you love to debate things that have very little to do with the point. It WASN'T ME STATING IT.



[quote]You really have nothing to say. At least, say it comprehensibly and with punctuation. <hr></blockquote>

I know that wasn't directed at me, but once again your passion for attacking things that don't matter stands out.

jimmac writes:

[quote]Do you think that we are better, more right than other countries? If you do you are arrogant. <hr></blockquote>

Yes. Better than those who hate democracy and have no freedoms. Absolutely.

[quote]The Roman empire stood for more than 2000 years and despite the bad press was the closest thing to civilization at that time. Where they failed was arrogance which led to decadence. I'm sure they felt they were the " best " even as the Visagoths came charging over the seven hills of Rome. <hr></blockquote>

We are not Rome. But point taken.

[quote]I know to some it's unthinkable that the US might not even exist a few hundred years from now. but, it's a real possibility if we follow this backward way of thinking. If you want us to make a difference and live up to our potential we can't think of ourselves as superior. You're fools if you do. <hr></blockquote>

Again, I see your point here. (And, I unfortunately think it is quite possible we won't exist in 200 years). But I don't agree that my statement falls into "this backward way of thinking". I merely suggested (in what was suppsoed to be a fairly humorous way) that these nations that have zero freedoms, zero economic development, etc, try things "our way". By "our way" I meant modern democracy, which, with the exception of ancient Greece, we invented (though their's was quite different). You can't tell me this is an unthinkable concept. What they (the nations I was referencing) are doing is obviously not working.

[quote]The fact that we raped the culture that was already here in the beginning is one of them. <hr></blockquote>

What do you want to do about this? Did we PERSONALLY do it? Or, are you in favor of reparations? If you are merely stating we should remember and learn from it, I can deal with that.

[quote]The minute you start thinking in terms of better or " Master Race " you start down that path that so many have followed before. <hr></blockquote>

No one even came close to going that far. Saying that one believes his nation to be "the best" isn't the same thing. You have overreached a bit here, I think.

[quote]There's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American but, it also must be put into perspective. History awaits ( as always ) the choice is ours. <hr></blockquote>

Agreed. I still think some of you missed the point of my original statement though.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #291 of 512
again with double posting

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #292 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>My statement was in part in response to some of the attitudes displayed here.

Such as : " Here's mine:

Dear nations that hate us:

FOAD

Thank you ".

And there is this one : " I did say I think we are the "best" nation ".

As I've said " There's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American but, it also must be put into perspective ".

Perhaps you don't need the perspective but, I believe others do. Excessive flag waving as can happen in an emotionally charged crisis like this can lead to some of the other attitudes I've read here. My comments weren't aimed at just you.

Otherwise ( and this might surprise you ) agreed.

By the way I believe it's SWD.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

The statement about being the best nation is one of those ideas that needs to be put forth in my opinion. It's difficult to be part of a group and not feel that you and your group are the best. It's competative, but a little competition in moderation is good. There's a quandry for me in "I believe in it but something else (this is in terms of nations or ideas as a whole not boiled down to one lonesome idea or amendment) is better" so i think yes it's fine to say "we're the best" it's not fine to say "we're the best, we're getting our artillery together, and soon you'll be among the best."

Democracy is not the creeping red giant of communism, it can't be (i'll get to this point later, don't read it as a denial). Yes we both spread our ideas when opportunity arises, we both want the nations in the world to see it our way. But we have not done anything involving an expansionist policy outside the US that i can think of in a combative manner to seize control. What we have provided is some freedom. I need to do a bit of research so no direct evidence right now. But the freedom we provided has allowed countries to elect away their freedom once they became stable enough to vote. Communism on the other hand does not allow for that and once they gain a foot hold it endangers our way of life and takes away the rights of the nation they over come. Please try not to fall into the idea of communism being the only other opposition. Read it as dictator, warlord, or socialist as it best fits your view of the bad guys

This started as my statement of not being suprised that you agree, you have fleshed out ideas that do not hold to single sided ideals or political bias without ethics and morals. So nope i'm not surprised you agree

Apologies SDW, i think you make some very good points. Better still, they fit my political bent
post #293 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
The statement about being the best nation is one of those ideas that needs to be put forth in my opinion...</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a large part of the appeal of the World Cup. Lot of nationalism going on there. It's okay as far as I'm concerned. I was in favor of Bejing getting the Olympics for a similar reason. It's a better outlet for the sometimes hyper-nationalism that you see in China these days.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #294 of 512
Ruhx, quit while you're ahead. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #295 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>Ruhx, quit while you're ahead. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> bring what ever it is you have to the table and let's see who's ahead or behind and will be
post #296 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Well, actually, its SDW. But whatever.....

Now I'm back, and here we go again.

sjpsu:

Your examples are ridiculous. I read each one, and it obvious to anyone with a brain that the sources are totally biased. In addition, many of them are blatant opinion pieces. "The Council for a Livable World"????
You didn't REALLY think I would let that one go, did you? Get some actual, real, mainstream sources. I actually laughed out loud when I read some of your "documentation".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The CLW posted facts. There's nothing disputable about two relatively difficult to spin numbers. I'm surprised you have taken issue with Rich Lowry from the National Review. Do you know who he is? That is the editor to a conservative paper and frequent guest on MSNBC/CNN. I also included the Christian Science Monitor. Surely, you do not believe they are a group of "progressives?" Anyway, I thoroughly refuted your point. Concede.

Oh, and a common debating tactic is to label anything an opinion. You must have learned from watching Bill O'Reilly.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
Whatever. I don't see why it matters. Even the Supreme Court expresses opinions, it is just that they are more qualified than we are. I'm not going to argue this rather mundane point any further.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right. You lost the argument so it doesn't really matter. You're about as transparent as a Powerbook screen turned all the way up.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
At least their criminal liberal bias is a bit more concealed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no liberal bias in the media. That is a fallacy in the guise of FOX NEWS' conservative fare.
<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html" target="_blank">The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel</a>
<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html" target="_blank">Fox's Slanted Sources</a>
<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html" target="_blank">The "Oh Really?" Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins...</a>
<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/patriotism-and-censorship.html#sidebar" target="_blank">Patriotism and Censorship</a>
<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/oreilly.html" target="_blank">Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness: Don't Call Him Conservatie But He Is</a>

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #297 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> bring what ever it is you have to the table and let's see who's ahead or behind and will be</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #298 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> so you concede?

Give me one instance where a conservative has said:

"don't help the needy".

Don't make it black and white, give it your best go at understanding what is being said and make a point for liberalism that is also not black and white and refutes the claims made. Try to put facts to the backing of the liberal claim. Not opinions based on kind hearted over optimistic views based on utopia.
post #299 of 512
America: personally I love it. The imperialist bastards.

Complex, beautiful, ugly, hypocritical, visionary, rich, poor, arrogant, self-critical, very very very dangerous, a people that are incredibly free, a people that don't realise how imprisoned they are, kind, open hearted, vicious, close minded, creative, destructive ...

But "best"?

SDW should thank "those nations that hate the US" because they've enabled a climate where the government can intern its *own citizens* indefinitely and without recourse to transparent justice ... a precedent that would scare the shît out of me (cf Cuba, Russia, Axis of Evil) but with which his country's more then comfortable.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #300 of 512
^ Ruhx, get a clue.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #301 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>America: personally I love it. The imperialist bastards.

Complex, beautiful, ugly, hypocritical, visionary, rich, poor, arrogant, self-critical, very very very dangerous, a people that are incredibly free, a people that don't realise how imprisoned they are, kind, open hearted, vicious, close minded, creative, destructive ...

But "best"?

SDW should thank "those nations that hate the US" because they've enabled a climate where the government can intern its *own citizens* indefinitely and without recourse to transparent justice ... a precedent that would scare the shît out of me (cf Cuba, Russia, Axis of Evil) but with which his country's more then comfortable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #302 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>^ Ruhx, get a clue.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've got one and it is waiting for you when you want it.

Tell me about conservative welfare reform. If helping the needy is to broad for you.
post #303 of 512
^ Enlighten me.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #304 of 512
SDW,

" What do you want to do about this "?

Remember it so we don't do something like it again. I'm not trying to throw every mistake back in our faces but, by the same token I don't want to pretend they don't exist. I think it's important to remember our mistakes and not act like we're perfect.

Yes it is SDW ( sorry one too many rum and cokes by then ).

" I merely suggested (in what was suppsoed to be a fairly humorous way) "

You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #305 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>^ Enlighten me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Harald i am assuming this is a 2 parter. My comment is based on his early statements of opinion, as well as the fact that i think he sees only those things that support his points, not those that oppose or even enhance them. He has repeatedly tried to use obstinance or inability as a counter to our posts and has said:

"i have made my point i put forth what i needed to and it was unbiased"

However most of his resulting fact finding and support has been either out of context, has had only one severely limited point of support (he refused to concede the ethics of not critizing the president in a time of war because the only thing that got through his haze was "don't speak freely against the president" leaving out the timing for it, the fact that it was in defense of the current leader, and it was used by the opposing political party, which he supports, to sway votes), or has been a completely biased look at the topic.

I am now asking him to flesh out a point he made earlier about conservatives not helping the needy unless the liberals force them to. I've asked that he give the good and bad of each side and them tell me why the liberals are right and the conservatives are not only wrong but also trying to take his freedoms and not help the needy.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #306 of 512
" ..and they sucked me back in" said in a mock brooklyn accent, hair greased just so hands slowly clenching..


anyway, this following little phrase, that was so blithely thrown out, and so completely ignored, reveals the level of ignorance that we are dealing with: from SDW "...criminal liberal"

what exactly does this boy/man/whatever believe this means?!?!?

Is this phrase to be taken with his other remarks that liberals are Fascists?..
..(of course completely disregarding the reality of what distinguishes Fascism from other politics, particualarly its odd blend of corporatism with militaristic police state controls, an aesthetic based on the "beauty" of the nation-in-question's peoples, AKA: nationalist aesthetics)
or is this phrase to be taken with the broad claim that liberals are Communists?
(by the way, the two extremes lumped together are actually very mutually antagonistic political positions yet both characterized by tyrannies)

Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place. The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Lets not forget that it was under a Democratic administration that the US won WW2! against the Fascists under Roosevelt!!!
And again, against the Emperialist Japanese under Truman.

Is this the "criminal liberal" background that you are talking about.

Or is it Kennedy, who's family you all love to slander, is he the "criminal liberal" for his success against the Communist's attempts to install nuclear missiles in Cuba?!?!?

or was it monica lewinsky and Clinton's private sex life
rathr than say real criminal activities such as Guns for hostages sold to the "axis of Evil" itself, or real criminal activities like breaking and entering....water*ehem*gate . . .

or do you just buy the corporate media line that liberals are really all criminals, and femi-nazis, and communists?!?!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #307 of 512
SDW,

One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.

As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #308 of 512
Ruhx. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No one listens to your bullshit. If you really have something to say, cut the **** out of it. Hiding questions wrapped in nonsense has gotten you nowhere.
post #309 of 512
There is something inherently wrong with assigning a label to "the media", i.e. newspapers, TV broadcasts, etc. The media isn't liberal by nature, or conservative by nature.

But, if being a bit liberal on this topic or that will rake in a few more ad dollars/neilsen points/subscribers, then they will certainly do it. And likewise if putting a conservative slant on a topic will do the same.

The corporations that run the media outlets are forced to have an obsession with the acquisition (and retention) of money, more nowadays than in the past. And, more often than not, that imperative conflicts with the traditional tenets of journalism.

That's why, in my experience, small, independent (and possibly non-profit; indymedia.org comes to mind) news organizations provide opportunities for the least tainted journalism available.

Using CNBC as a "corroborating source" for what CNN says isn't exactly media diversity. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
post #310 of 512
^ Agreed. Though Fox is conservative by nature.
post #311 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>Ruhx. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No one listens to your bullshit. If you really have something to say, cut the **** out of it. Hiding questions wrapped in nonsense has gotten you nowhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>

First of you obnoxious piece garbage. Your the only one disagreeing.

Why can't you understand what i am saying? Because your opinions belong to someone else. You leached onto them and want to spout them but can not support them. No questions in this one. Your a simpleminded ignoramous who can not defend through comparison only by spouting aligned bullsh*t posted by some liberal nut who feels oppressed.

You agree so they are right. what an idiot. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #312 of 512
Case in point. If you want to personally attack me, please do so through private messages. Your comments really don't belong in this thread.
post #313 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>Case in point. If you want to personally attack me, please do so through private messages. Your comments really don't belong in this thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok you have done nothing but personally attack my posts. Why? Simply because you can not defend your views, and you can have the last word here. I accept that the world is worse for having you in it and i am moving on.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #314 of 512
dp

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
post #315 of 512
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Let us not forget, (and be hornswoggled into believing the Reagan rhetoric), that it was under a Democratic administration that a Policy of Containment was put into place... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. And I have nothing but respect for Truman.

[quote]<strong>... The policy of containment which meant that the US and its allies were going to vigillantly check communist expansion throughout the globe. . . that doesn't sound like what SDW meant to say does it . . . perhaps he didn't realize that the Democratic party has a very profound history of Anti-communism . . . perhaps he bought and paid for that rhetorical catch phrase of Reagan as being the thing responcible for Communism's decline <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>

But let us also not forget that post-Vietnam most of the Democratic party had forsaken containment. Henry (Scoop) Jackson was reliable on the issue but he was the exception, not the rule. This was one of the reasons Reagan was so successful at winning Democratic (especially trade union) votes. People like George Meany and Lane Kirkland were fierce anti-communists too. But by the '70s the McGovernite wing had seized power and blue collar types started to feel increasingly uncomfortable within the Democratic party. That's what Reagan Democrats were - disaffected, ethnic (Catholic), blue collar types. (They also had problems with where the party was headed on social issues, like abortion.)

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #316 of 512
Thread Starter 
sjpsu:

Your sources are bunk. Each and every one of them. I had just spent some time reply-quoting to each article, with specific examples, then a browser error caused me to lose my writing. So, without going back and redoing it all, I'll post the most ridiculous parts of each one.

1. Weekly Trade News Digest: "US President rolls back more of Clinton's key environmental actions".

Truly amusing. As if Clinton was the environmental equivalent of Jesus Christ. Never mind many of his "protections" were of questionable value and harmed US and world businesses tremendously.

and then there is:

[quote]"The EU and other countries have strongly criticised the US President George W. Bush's recent turnaround in his stance on the Kyoto Protocol climate change negotiations. Bush's lack of commitment to curbing greenhouse gas emissions marks a significant setback after promising signs at the G8 meeting earlier this month that the US and EU might be coming closer to an agreement on climate change (see BRIDGES Weekly, 6 March 2001).
The EU criticism came in response to a letter from President Bush to Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska last week in which Bush reverted a campaign pledge by saying that he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide (CO2) at US power plants as caps on CO2 would force a shift from coal to natural gas which he claims would lead to higher electricity prices. He also reasserted his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent by 2012. "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy," he wrote. Bush furthermore referred to "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global warming". <hr></blockquote>

A. Bush is right...it would exempt 80 percent of the world.
B. It would increase electricity prices.
C. Where is the documentation on the campaign promise? Shoud I take the writer's word?


2. Christian Science Monitor:

[quote]"In one of its first major internal clashes over policy, the Bush administration has sided with energy interests over the environment - exposing tensions within the cabinet and undercutting bipartisanship on Capitol Hill."<hr></blockquote>

Opinion and interpretation.

and

[quote]By deciding not to regulate power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the president this week sided with some of his most ardent backers in the business community and reversed a campaign pledge.
<hr></blockquote>

Opinion.

and

[quote]Others in the administration with backgrounds in oil production, automobile manufacturing, and mining - including Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Interior Department Assistant Secretary J. Steven Griles - have been more inclined to question the science of global warming while resisting stiff measures to limit greenhouse gases.
<hr></blockquote>

Slander.


[quote] Up until now, many activists had been pleasantly surprised at the administration's early attitude toward the environment. <hr></blockquote>

Hilarious. We all know how reasonable those activists are.

There is more on that one, but I have to stop now. I'm laughing too hard.

3. Yucca: Bush never promised to oppose dumping in Yucca. I'm not even going to bother with the article, which at one point actually mocks a White House Official. Worthless.

4. National Review: Bush does not promise to veto or sign either bill. You just took the writer's word that Bush was reversing himself because he expressed concerns. Interpretation and opinion

5. Council for a Livable World:

First sentence of article: "In another clear reversal of a campaign promise, President Bush reportedly plans to slash fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy funding for nonproliferation programs with Russia. "

I think that pretty much sums up what is to follow. Not to mention that the article is quoting fiscal PROJECTIONS, not actual allocations. The article even slams Bush for INCREASING funding to a particular program, because he didn't double it, "as expected". Expected by whom?

The last one may be the most biased of all. It uses terms like "slashed the budget" and "cutbacks" and other colorful terms to paint Bush as nuke lovin' hick.
BLATANT BIAS is the term I'm looking for.

[quote]Anyway, I thoroughly refuted your point. Concede. <hr></blockquote>

No. You didn't. The numbers CAN BE SPUN, and when they can't, the data can be "interpreted". It is also the way the data is PRESENTED. See above.

[quote]Oh, and a common debating tactic is to label anything an opinion. You must have learned from watching Bill O'Reilly. <hr></blockquote>

That's because there is so much OPINION out there. If Bush made a clear, strong campaign statment like "I will not support any dumping in Yucca mountain", then issued a statment later that said he would, that would be another thing. These articles don't even come close to that level. They are all conclusions drawn by the writer, with interpreted quotes.


[quote] Right. You lost the argument so it doesn't really matter. You're about as transparent as a Powerbook screen turned all the way up. <hr></blockquote>

OH MY GOD! :eek: Why DOES it matter? As I already said, we are ALL expressing opinions. So, once AGAIN, just so I'm CLEAR:

ACCORDING TO INFORMATION I HAVE AT THIS PRESENT TIME, AND AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND DELIBERATION, I DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH'S FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

What else do you want? Technically that is an opinion. So is "Roe V. Wade", actually. Now, can me move on please?

[quote]There is no liberal bias in the media. That is a fallacy in the guise of FOX NEWS' conservative fare <hr></blockquote>

BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE? And I firmly disagree with your assertion that Fox is biased, despite your ridiculous links you posted. Once again, THEY ARE EDITORIALS!!!!!! But, let us assume they ARE biased, for a moment. Even if they WERE, how how horrible it would be to have a conservative News Channel in the midst of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather's liberal propoganda!!!!

I love this, too:

"FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation."

Oh, OK.

I will give you O'Reilly: He is a bit over the top, but entertaining, no? I don't consider him news. Just like I don't consider Chris Mathews "news" either. Though, your source is still funny. "FAIR Activists".......ha.


Basically, I think your sources on Bush's reversals are truly ludicrous. I think that Fox News isn't biased when it comes to its reporting, and that MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS are. NBC walks the line, but does often have a slight liberal slant. Meet the Press is a good example, not in the number of conservative and liberal guests, but in the content of the questions. I do agree the O'Reilly is a little extreme.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #317 of 512
Thread Starter 
Now, to tie up the loose ends:

pfllam:


"Criminal Liberal" doesn't have to do with the Democratic party per se. It is the overwhelming bias that exists in media. It is when "news" is created instead of reported (such as when Dan Rather "reports" that "many" have "grave concerns" over Bush's decision to_________). It is when certain liberals revise history by making it seem as if the Reagan years were a decade of economic decline. That is "criminally liberal"---the gross distortion of facts in the name of the "news".

I do not have a probem with all democrats. I should have clarified. I do have a problem with traditionally liberal stances on most issues. I am also willing to defend my points of view, because I assure you that they are well thought out, despite the fact that many disagree with them.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #318 of 512
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>SDW,

One more thing. You really should get off the liberals are evil kick. I do believe that the media is bias but it's not exclusively run by liberals. Some people think it's run by the conservatives. Both are wrong. Who runs the media and causes blatant editorialism in what should be a " just the facts ma'am " news cast? Sensationalism. The media has become completely tabloid in nature ( in a manner that would make my old highschool journalism teacher puke ). What ever stirs up the most excitement is their take on things true or false.

As far as conservatives vs. liberals.....one can't exist without the other. That's the way our system works! Yin and yang. It's the checks and balances between different opinions that makes this country great.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


I never said they were evil. I said, in several ways, that I strongly, vehmently disgaree with the liberal agenda, much of which I believe is impractical and based on raw emotion.

I also agree the media is biased, but I am willing to concede that some newscorp. heads are conservatives.
Then there is Ted Turner, though......

Your point about the general tabloid content of the media is well taken.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #319 of 512
Thread Starter 
jimmac:

[quote]You gotta work on that comedy act. Don't quit your day job though. <hr></blockquote>

If you can't see that the general tone, at least by the end, of the original statement was intentionally "cavalier" (i.e. "How about trying things our way?), then that's too bad. I think I have a valid point when I suggest that failing nations try democracy instead of total oppression.

Does anyone want to take me on with my assertion? Does anyone here ACTUALLY DISAGREE with the notion that Iraq and North Korea would be better off with a freely elected government? Do you disagree that Saddam wants to acquire nukes? Do you think we SHOULDN'T stop him? Does anyone disagree that Iraq and North Korea are in economic turmoil? Does anyone challenge that this is at least in part due to their oppresive regime governments?

THAT was the point.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #320 of 512
Please read FAIR's findings and tell me what you think.

I will concede the other articles because they are not worth it. However, articles from many different sources exist concerning Bush's CO2 emissions reduction reversal. The fact that he reneged on his campaign promised to reduce CO2 emissions remains indisputable regardless of whatever spin or reason you want to justify it with. I believe you challenged me to find one instance where Bush broke a campaign promise, and I have. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/14/bush.carbon.dioxide/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45542,00.html" target="_blank">FOX News</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1219000/1219237.stm" target="_blank">BBC News</a>, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/bushenv_3-29.html" target="_blank">NewsHour with Jim Lehrer</a> provide coverage.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Statement to Nations That Hate the US