New Law

[Regret]

The acronyms were the point. Out of all of the mass media networks, FOX is the only right leaning network. Therefore when it's surrounded by hardcore left leaning networks, I fail to see how it is such a threat. If FOX gets more viewers, did it ever occur to you why that might be?

Left, right, what's the difference when it comes to election manipulation? You are making no sense, again.

[Forboding Angel]

Well first of all, there is no such thing as fair or balanced when news is concerned.

Secondly, you have 10 or more huge media outlets slewing things to the hardcore left, and one huge network slewing towards center-right, and that one is somehow evil? Yet I'm not making sense?

[AF]

[Regret]

Well first of all, there is no such thing as fair or balanced when news is concerned.

Nobody argued about this.

Secondly, you have 10 or more huge media outlets slewing things to the hardcore left, and one huge network slewing towards center-right, and that one is somehow evil?

Yes. Nobody said others are not evil, it was just specifically said that a media giant named FOX manipulated elections. Also nobody gives a damn about your right/left separation, it was not mentioned in the argument, only by you.

Yet I'm not making sense?

Yes. You don't know how to argue, you just spew whatever you think looks good.

[zwzsg]

Secondly, you have 10 or more huge media outlets slewing things to the hardcore left, and one huge network slewing towards center-right

Your hardcore-left is at our right.

Right and left are relative. For instance, by being so over-the-top to the rightest, Fox has skewed your scale and changed your perception of right and left. As well as right and wrong, since you now firmly believe it's okay for your governement to pick up random civilian in foreign country and torture them for years, to wreck up far away countries that did nothing to you just to get a taste of blood, and to deny the low to middle classes of your own country any chance to get some care when they get ill.


As for American elections, I stopped taking them any more seriously than any mild dictatorship when Georges The Second was granted the power even though he had less (despite the massive frauding!) voices than Al Gore.

[Forboding Angel]

As well as right and wrong, since you now firmly believe it's okay for your governement to pick up random civilian in foreign country and torture them for years, to wreck up far away countries that did nothing to you just to get a taste of blood, and to deny the low to middle classes of your own country any chance to get some care when they get ill.

Ok let me get this straight. Because FOX exists (regardless of the fact that I don't watch news on tv (or tv at all for that matter)) I no longer have any sense of what is politically left or right nor do I know what is Right or Wrong.

Do you listen to yourself? Seriously? You and I have had our fair share of differences over the past 6 years or so, but I've never insulted you as much as you just insulted me.

Your entire statement is trolling and ragebait. If that's what you truly believe well then your perception is really screwed up, my friend.

Ok, going from last to first... You should try knowing a little something about that which you are speaking before opening your mouth (Or in this case, pressing a key). The low to middle class in this country don't have trouble getting health care. Emergency rooms will treat you whether you have insurance or not, money or not, doesn't matter, you will get treated. For low income there is medicaid, which uses state taxpayer dollars to provide 100% FREE HEALTHCARE to anyone who happens to meet the loose qualifications.

Furthermore, even fucking mcdonalds and KFC give pretty nice health care and dental benefits. Like wise for 99% of the rest of the fast food joints.

You wanna know the funny thing? These poor people generally refuse the health care insurance because it takes a portion out of their check (generally around 40 bucks a month, which is hardly anything when you get right down to it).

If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change? Everyone thought that saddam had them, if you don't think he was a crazed dictator capable of doing anything heinous then you're off your rocker. Someone who gasses thousands of his own people. Tortures them for years... I mean seriously, wtf?

But that's right, you guys always want proof. Well the last time you demanded proof, it rolled into paris in a panzer tank flying the nazi flag. Is that enough proof? The point is that it's called preemptive for a reason. If north korea stated that they were going to nuke England next month and we had it on fairly good authority that they actually had an ICBM, should England wait until they've been nuked to respond? Is that enough proof?

Random civilians? If that random civilian just happens to be carrying an AK-47 and planting an IED at the time that he gets caught, should we just let him go? Tell him that "oh we caught you this time, but don't ever let it happen again or we'll put an economic sanction on you and your family!"?

*Sigh*

Popular vote is popular vote. The electoral college is when decides elections.

[tombom]

If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change? Everyone thought that saddam had them

Nobody of any intelligence ever believed Iraq had nuclear weapons, and it was never explicitly stated in any government reports - just a generic term "weapons of mass destruction" that was usually referring to chemical/biological weapons. Even then the evidence was often pretty fucking dodgy, with major figures saying so, and the fact that we never found any of these shows that it was all a load of bollocks.

Tortures them for years... I mean seriously, wtf?

hahahahahaha fucking hell, i bet the irony here didn't even cross your mind for a single second

But that's right, you guys always want proof. Well the last time you demanded proof, it rolled into paris in a panzer tank flying the nazi flag.

To continue your tortured, demented Nazi analogy:
"But that's right, you guys always want proof. Well the last time you demanded proof, it rolled into Jerusalem and nailed the Son of God to the cross." It's impossible to overstate how absurd what you're suggesting here means. You're saying that we don't need proof of the existence of a threat to pursue actions to combat alleged threat, even if said actions would be incredibly detrimental to people including yourselves.

[Forboding Angel]

If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change? Everyone thought that saddam had them

Nobody of any intelligence ever believed Iraq had nuclear weapons, and it was never explicitly stated in any government reports - just a generic term "weapons of mass destruction" that was usually referring to chemical/biological weapons. Even then the evidence was often pretty fucking dodgy, with major figures saying so, and the fact that we never found any of these shows that it was all a load of bollocks.

Hmm, hindsight really is 20/20, and it even allows you to maintain a moral highhorse, how convenient.

@#2. Depends on your view of torture. My view is iron maidens, racks, repeatedly kicking people in the balls, castration, flaying people alive, burning people alive, etc... none of which has the military done. The worst has been waterboarding which causes no physical harm. I mean when you define listening to brittany spears songs for 24 hours straight as torture, it could be easily argued that radio stations promote torture.

@#3. No, you're missing the point. The point is that you aren't always going to have 100% proof. Thinking otherwise is just madness. If you were int he airport on 9/11, and you saw one of the bombers, just a regular middle eastern looking guy, and noticed that he was acting really strangely, and also noticed that he slipped something that looked wierd into his jacket while boarding... Would you have done anything about it? Told a stewardess? Anything? Or would you have gone about minding your own business?

I myself would probably have minded my own business in that situation (chalking it up to flying nervousness or something), and in hindsight, my natural reaction would have been the wrong one.

Look, after an event has taken place, you can cut up the corpse any way that you like, the reality is that shit happens, and shit doesn't always turn out the way that you want or expect it to, so what is the point of beating the overly dead horse until it's hamburger? When did I ever say that anyone's actions were perfect? I don't remember saying that. Oh that's right, because I didn't. You have to look at the big picture sometimes and ignore all the bullshit that happened inbetween. That doesn't mean that you forget about it, but it also doesn't mean that you need to bring it up every time you get a chance.

Big picture being, how did it all turn out in the end? Well the ending still hasn't happened yet. When it does we can look at the overall and see if it ended up being a good thing or not.

[SpliFF]

I don't see the relevance of any of that. It wasn't a lack of evidence that led to the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" intelligence. There wasn't any "intelligence" of the sort. All there was a was a GREAT BIG FUCKING LIE. Somebody KNEW it was a lie, and Bush Inc. were the ones who created it. Whether FOX knew the truth or simply didn't bother getting the truth is irrelevant.

There is plenty of evidence indicating that the LIE was known throughout most of the world. The real issue is why was nobody ever punished for the LIE, given that the LIE cost thousands of lives.

I say Bush Inc. are mass-murderers. I say FOX knew or suspected this, and really didn't care all that much. I'm not saying the other news services were much better, just that FOX was the most vocal in supporting and even adding to the LIE. All news services should be ashamed of themselves for the way they behaved throughout and post 9-11. So desperate for government boogeyman stories that they never once seriously investigated the prospect that the boogeymen doesn't exist (or the boogeyman lives in Washington).

[Forboding Angel]

Speaking of boogyman stories... FOX news "Knew"? They're a freaking news outlet! For the love of all that isn't holy, listen to yourself!

Conspiracy theories much?

[SpliFF]

They have all the information they need to question the official story and chose not to. The only "conspiracy theory" here is that the government never lies.

A theory is only a theory until evidence supports it becoming fact. Evidence is overwhelming that the CIA never claimed Iraq had nukes and that all claims they did originated from the Whitehouse. Even a basic examination of the original story would have revealed this. In fact this WAS revealed but FOX never stopped the war drums, they just changed the story.

In Dec 2000, the CIA were only saying:

"We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains IraqÔÇÖs most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon."

In other words, not only did they not know how to build a bomb, they didn't have enough uranium either. Keep in mind that the same could be said about pretty much every sovereign nation in the world that doesn't have nukes already. As a pretense to war its patently absurd.

Bush later claimed Iraq was trying to buy yellow-cake from some African nation. This WAS also exposed as a LIE. Are you seeing the pattern here?

[zwzsg]

Ok let me get this straight. Because FOX exists (regardless of the fact that I don't watch news on tv (or tv at all for that matter)) I no longer have any sense of what is politically left or right nor do I know what is Right or Wrong.

Yes. Because, as I said, left and right are relative. If everything around you is rightish, then you think of right as the norm. Your media ranges from right to far-right. You're not exposed to any actual left. So, when building your mental representation of right and left, you take the extreme around you, and think the middle is center. This would work if you were exposed to left and right sided opinions. But you're only exposed to right and more right! So your middle, is actually skewed to the right. As for right and wrong, I'm not sure how you came to lose the balance.

These poor people generally refuse the health care insurance because it takes a portion out of their check

Yes, these poor people are not rich enough to afford health care. My point.

If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change?

You should try knowing a little something about that which you are speaking before opening your mouth (Or in this case, pressing a key). I was an European. You're not. I can tell you that everybody here knew it was an ignominious lie: The only Nuclear Plant Saddam ever had (that Jacques Chirac sold to him in 1975) had been reduced to rubble many years ago. Irak had been completly choked by ten years of embargo, had become extremely poor and not able to do anything. It was quite a feat to make your whole nation somehow think striking an unrelated country had anything to do with the world trade center fall, but that magic trick didn't work accross the ocean.

if you don't think he was a crazed dictator capable of doing anything heinous then you're off your rocker. Someone who gasses thousands of his own people. Tortures them for years... I mean seriously, wtf?

Oh, he was a very bad person, he gased tons of kurds, killed whole town of his own people to make exemple, killed anyone who might stand his way one day. But he was not into offshore terrorism. His slaughters remained limited to his own country or neighbours. There's plenty of murderous dictator like him on earth, and some are good friend or even were put in place by Amerika.

The point is that it's called preemptive for a reason.

The concept of preemptive war is something that goes agaisnt logic.

Oh, and during the cold war, the USSR had it on good authority the US had nukes, that the US had pointed their nuke toward them, and that all the US army corps had the finger on the trigger, ready to fire. According to your logic, they should have preemptively vitrified the USA. You should be grateful not everybody is as a mindless warmonger as you, your own them your existence.

fairly good authority

We don't have the same reference when it comes to fairly good authority. As these threads show, you believe blindly what I know to be lies.

should England wait until they've been nuked to respond? Is that enough proof?

Yes. But not before different independant studies have proven the bomb to be from Korea.

@#2. Depends on your view of torture. My view is iron maidens, racks, repeatedly kicking people in the balls, castration, flaying people alive, burning people alive, etc... none of which has the military done. The worst has been waterboarding which causes no physical harm.

Yes, thanks to their huge supply of prisoners and disregard for any human rights, your military has achieved tremendous progress in the science of torture, they have have developped and perfected methods with which to torture for extended period without causing physical harm, so they can torture the same person forever, free of the risk of causing premature death. As a bonus, the prisoners won't have any scar to show to the socialist press if one ever escape, haha!

Random civilians? If that random civilian just happens to be carrying an AK-47 and planting an IED at the time that he gets caught, should we just let him go?

No. Random civilian is just one who happend to spend his holiday in the wrong country, to have a too tanned skin color, to pray in the wrong place of worship, to have said things that displeased some people, to have once talked to someone that had a file on, or just plain anybody the CIA wants. Since there's no proper trial, they can grab anybody and not have to give a reason. Knowing your mindset, you probably believe that even if they could, they would not, but that's only because you don't know human nature. The only way to prevent arbitarty arrestation is to arrest people openly, and give them a proper trial. Whenever a whole body is allowed to shadowly kidnap people and torture them without having to own any explanation, there's growing abuse, leading to dictature.

just a regular middle eastern looking guy, and noticed that he was acting really strangely, and also noticed that he slipped something that looked wierd into his jacket while boarding... Would you have done anything about it?

I myself would probably have minded my own business in that situation (chalking it up to flying nervousness or something), and in hindsight, my natural reaction would have been the wrong one.

As opposed to the right reaction of LYNCH THE MIDDLE EASTERN MAN! HE LOOKS NERVOUS!!

[SpliFF]

It was quite a feat to make your whole nation somehow think striking an unrelated country had anything to do with the world trade center fall, but that magic trick didn't work accross the ocean.

I can confirm that here in Australia. Our media was towing the Bush Inc. line (probably cause Murdoch - aka Fox - owns most of it) and our illustrious, diminutive little shit of a leader was giving Bush hand-jobs but everyone I spoke to about it was trying to work out why Bush Inc. would be saying Bin Laden was in Afghanistan while sending half the army to Iraq.

Speaking of Murdoch, I find it rather suspicious that the only 3 countries in Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" have major right-wing news networks run by Murdoch (Foxtel and most major papers in Australia, BSkyB/The Sun/The Times in Britain and The Fox Network, Wall Street Journal and others in the US).

[Forboding Angel]

Wall of text

No, if you read the post Z I offered 2 possible alternatives. 1# Ignore the guy and mind my own business (my default kneejerk reaction). 2# Alert a stewardess. I didn't say anything about lynching.

I'm only exposed to right and more right? Are you crazy? I'll say this is really big text so hopefully this time you'll actually read it.

I don't watch tv news, and I never have.

Why? Because tv is boring. I watch all my shows (all 2 of them - Burn Notice and Lie to Me) online. Other than that, I watch movies. My tv has a fairly decent sized layer of dust on it because it never gets used.

So don't presume to tell me what I am exposed to, and what I am not.

[quote"zwzsg"]I'm not sure how you came to lose the balance.[/quote]
lolwow

Yes, these poor people are not rich enough to afford health care. My point.

Mcdonalds pays as a standard for 10 - 12 bucks per hour. A 1 bedroom apartment can be had kin kansas city for easily $400 dollars.

So lets do the math. McDonalds employee working 40 hours a week making $10 dollars an hour gets $2000 dollars a month. Minus taxes which will probably be about 200 of that. So you're left with 1800 bucks. -400 for rent. 1400. Minus 40 (actually lets do 80, which is a LOT considering that your employer will pay 50-75% of the premium) for health insurance. 1320.

Yeah them there poor folk are sure in a tough spot. Take away another 200 for groceries, another 300 for gas and you've still got 820 bucks.

Perhaps you haven't realized that poor people are generally poor because they manage their money badly.

I on the other hand am poor for an entirely different reason. Last year I started my own business, things have been going fairly well, but there are many months that go by where I wonder where the money is going to come from to pay bills, but I manage, and I live very comfortably. And I do it on an average of about 1200 bucks a month. Sure I could go work for a corporation making 20-25 bucks an hour if I wanted, but I like the freedom that I have and business so far this year has really been picking up for me.

The difference? I manage my money very wisely, and I'm still able to go out with friends and have a good time. Unlike them though, I don't blow 100 bucks at the bar. I blow 10 or 15 bucks.

Your point falls flat on it's face.

Next...

We don't have the same reference when it comes to fairly good authority. As these threads show, you believe blindly what I know to be lies.

Uh huh

Yes. But not before different independant studies have proven the bomb to be from Korea.

You going to volunteer to be part of one of the crews cleaning up the crater in the middle of london?

Yes, thanks to their huge supply of prisoners and disregard for any human rights, your military has achieved tremendous progress in the science of torture, they have have developped and perfected methods with which to torture for extended period without causing physical harm, so they can torture the same person forever, free of the risk of causing premature death. As a bonus, the prisoners won't have any scar to show to the socialist press if one ever escape, haha!

You are aware that our own soldiers are waterboarded aren't you?

Moreover, how else do you propose that we get information out of terrorists? Give them permanent US citizenship and a job at Boeing?

No. Random civilian is just one who happend to spend his holiday in the wrong country, to have a too tanned skin color, to pray in the wrong place of worship, to have said things that displeased some people, to have once talked to someone that had a file on, or just plain anybody the CIA wants.

Hmm, how does he explain all those 30 minute calls to a known terrorist organization (e.g. Al-Queida)? Should we just figure that he was bitching to a brother in law about his ex-wife?

Z, nonono, iraq was completely different from 911 and afganistan. Do you even pay attention to what goes on internally over here? Did you listen to the state of the union address in 2002? If you didn't you probably should.

So for clarification's sake. If Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy and rises from the ashes of being a 3rd world country within the next 20 years as a result of US involvement. Was it worth it?

It's a trick question, because if you answer yes, you are advocating the war. If you answer no, then you condemn the Iraqui people to the life of a 3rd world country and living under the thumb of a dictator.

Anyway, spliff managed to derail the thread, nice job. I'm getting tired of all the drivel in it from the normal "Bash America" crowd, so as a result, I'm not going to continue with it.

[SpliFF]

Bash America? ha ha ha. I was bashing a guy you didn't even vote in and another guy who was born in Australia. Can't you read?

You know I just LOVE the way the words "conspiracy theory" and "america bashing" come up whenever America, or more specifically its leads (elected or otherwise) does something truly evil or stupid.

[smoth]

Hey guys.

[Forboding Angel]

There's more than one political thread in offtopic, spliff.

[smoth]

You know I just LOVE the way the words "conspiracy theory" and "XNATION bashing" come up whenever XNATION, or more specifically its leads (elected or otherwise) do what politicians do.

[SpliFF]

I only mentioned Fox in relation to election stealing (ontopic). You derailed by defending them in depth (though naturally while lacking details or facts). My point was simply that a news outlet the size of Fox has as much or more influence as overt political donations since air-time and biased reporting are basically donations in themselves. My point about Bush was simply he stole elections prior to this new law. I don't know why you have to argue about that, it's pretty obvious what was going on.

[smoth]

all of them are corrupt though. I don't even have cable because of it.