I seem to remember many of you defending the media, citing that they ARE fair and balanced, and not at all anti-Christian, or anti-Conservative. As a matter of fact, it was a predominant belief that the media is actually RIGHT-wing !

Well, today, I hear of yet another example of how Conservatives, and particularly Christians (in this case, because Bush is a Christian), have yet again become the brunt of the animosity held by the left-minded media.

Dan rather made a boo-boo, and tries to blame it on being "misled". However, a part of Bush's decision to go to war was based on CIA documentation that could be construed to have "misled" HIM, yet forgiveness will be bestowed upon Dan, but not on Ol' W.

Why is it that "errors", that were blatantly obvious to far less-trained viewers, within the documentation submitted was not carefully screened by CBS ?

Here is my theory: Dan Rather WANTED to believe it. He wanted to believe it so bad, he didn't bother to check the sources, or the validity of the documentation. He truly is anti-Christian, and most certainly anti-Bush. And you call this BALANCED reporting ? (this is not the only instance, either. I am not basing my opinion on this one report)

Here's the story from several sources, just so I am not accused of bias:



- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

- http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040920_1177.html

- http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/cbs.documents/index.html



So, documents, geared towards discreditting Bush, were deliberately aired on National Television, by a news station reknowned for it's "accurate" news reporting, without verifying authenticity.

Doesn't that seem odd to you ?

And doesn't it seem odd that Bush is openly Christian, and never has a President been MORE hated in the history of the US ?

"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

No favoritism ? When was the last time you saw CBS trying to slander the name of Scary John Kerry ?

Unbelievable...if after this, you still don't agree that the media is slighted to the left, you are blind.

Don't mean to be argumentative, but it is unfathomable to me how certain people can be so obtuse.

Is it on purpose, or are you honestly convinced what you all claim to be truth ?

have you ever considered that they rushed to present it because the media is highly competitive, and being the first to break a huge story like that would be a boon to the investigative credibility of cbs?

i'm not saying that the media is or isn't biased and at times ethically questionable, but to equate a journalist's decision to expose reasonably believable documents before thorough examination with the president's decision to spin a war effort based on allegations that had already been proven false is retarded. at least dan rather himself apologized, bush is still defending the iraq war.

whatever happened to 'the buck stops here?'

also, dan rather's mistake can't be directly implicated with the death of thousands, the complete violation of international sovereignty, the fostering of fanaticism, the nullification of america's democratic principles, the isolation of america's allies, etc, etc, etc,

etc.

The media is biased, not question about that, but "biased towards who?" is the more important question, and it all depends on human psychology to a degree.

Ask a right-winger who the media is biased towards, and they will say the left-wing.

Ask a left-winger, they'll say the right wing.

Both sides can provide equal evidence that their assumption is correct.

So where does all this get us? Nowhere.



[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

have you ever considered that they rushed to present it because the media is highly competitive, and being the first to break a huge story like that would be a boon to the investigative credibility of cbs?

i'm not saying that the media is or isn't biased and at times ethically questionable, but to equate a journalist's decision to expose reasonably believable documents before thorough examination with the president's decision to spin a war effort based on allegations that had already been proven false is retarded. at least dan rather himself apologized, bush is still defending the iraq war.

whatever happened to 'the buck stops here?'

So, that gives them a "get out of jail free" card ?

It is ok for them to present misleading information, all in the name of competition ?

That's pretty cut-throat, and not at all responsible.

They have a specific job...to present the TRUTH, without bias, or opinion. "just the facts, ma'am."

I am not apt to trust a news station that is only out to get the news to the public "first", instead of "accurately".

How were they reasonably believable ? The type that the documents were written in wasn't even available in the 70's. That was the FIRST thing that was used to discredit them, and it was VERY obvious.

Why wasn't it obvious to Danny boy ? Because he didn't care if they were authentic. He believes what he hears about Bush, so long as it is defamitory to his character.

Pathetic. (not to mention unprofessional)

Dan Rather had NO CHOICE but to apologize.

Bush's convictions about the war in Iraq are NOT solely based on the WMD claim...there were MANY other reasons, most of which are largely ignored.

"He's not a humanitarian, he's a war-monger.." Straight from the mouths of babe's that are fed the leftist liberal media baby food.

Bush is defending the cause, which was to bring democracy to a country clothed in turmoil, and bathed in innocent blood. (among other reasons)

And don't tell me people have been killed by this war, because I KNOW.

My point is, where can we get TRULY balanced reporting ?

When is the persecution of those that uphold the Christian faith going to cease ?

The answer is never, and if you all don't start opening your eyes, you will be deceived right into the Gates of Hades.

That's not a threat...that's a plea. I wish there was a way to open the hearts and mind's of America's people, because it is very sad what we are all force-fed to believe.

I wasn't force-fed Christianity...as a matter of fact, in my more immature years, I rejected it. Until I truly learned what the Bible says, and honestly felt the Holy Spirit.

What does that have to do with this thread ?

Everything.

It directly correlates to the fact that Christians are deemed intellectual retards.

That nothing they accomplish deserves any recognition.

It's disheartening.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

The media is biased, not question about that, but "biased towards who?" is the more important question, and it all depends on human psychology to a degree.

Ask a right-winger who the media is biased towards, and they will say the left-wing.

Ask a left-winger, they'll say the right wing.

Both sides can provide equal evidence that their assumption is correct.

So where does all this get us? Nowhere.

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 09-21-2004).]

Christians have been saying that the media is leftist for a LONG time.

In the past ten years, it has become popular for leftists to claim the same, only in the opposite direction.

This has nullified GENUINE Conservative concerns regarding factual news reporting.

It doesn't make it any less true, no matter what psychology you use.

The major news stations that I posted are leftist. I encourage you to find CONSERVATIVE, anti-progressive news reporting among their compendium of past reports.

And these major news stations are predominantly all the average American watches.

Now, if there were a healthy balance of conservative and progressive stations, then at least it would be fair, but that is simply not the case.

A recent study shows that most Americans find Fox News to be fair and balanced...yet further studies conclude that Fox is more Conservative than Progressive (i.e. Liberal).

Since the three major networks are EXTREMELY LIBERAL in their views, I think the American public is getting a raw deal...

In a perfect world, news would actually be FAIR and BALANCED.

It's never going to happen, because men have too much pride. Their opinion is what matters most to themselves, and they will convey it, at any cost.

Dan Rather was convinced he was right, because he hates Bush, and I believe he hates him because he is a Christian. I don't think it has a shred to do with this war.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

also, dan rather's mistake can't be directly implicated with the death of thousands, the complete violation of international sovereignty, the fostering of fanaticism, the nullification of america's democratic principles, the isolation of america's allies, etc, etc, etc,

etc.

Now you're getting off topic.

He misled America, by allowing himself to be misled, based on his preconceived notions about Bush and his character.

Simple as that.

It is a pure example of what the media does, and how the American public is led around by it's proverbial nose.

Ridiculous.

oh, come on!

dan rather didn't just get a slap on the wrist, this is going to further adversely impact the credibility of cbs and the mainstream media, and i wouldn't be too surprised if he is fired or demoted soon. now there is no room to doubt that he has a liberal slant.

but don't you think that's just a littlesimplistic and immature to say that 'christians claimed the media is biased first!'

people of all different political/religious/cultural groups have been claiming media bias for hundreds of years all throughout the globe.

and that's just the problem. you're framing the situation in iraq in terms of religion instead of politics, so of course the media is going to seem biased to you - you're biased! for all the reasons you've given for supporting bush, i see reasons that you under-value our secular democracy.

i hope there is no 'cause' to this war, especially not a christian one. the last thing the world needs is another crusade. this is about division, cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism. exclusion, not inclusion. the very fact that you would see bush as promoting a christian 'cause' is just further reason for real humanitarians to worry about the bleak prospects in the middle east... and in november.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Dan rather made a boo-boo, and tries to blame it on being "misled". However, a part of Bush's decision to go to war was based on CIA documentation that could be construed to have "misled" HIM, yet forgiveness will be bestowed upon Dan, but not on Ol' W.



Mr.Rather didn't end up killing hundreds of thousands over a little mistake either now did he? :-x



Edit:

You delete 1 / by accident, and the post looks FUBAR....



[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 09-21-2004).]

Wow, someone questions Bush, gets burned, and this is an example of the left-ist, anti-christian media.

That's funny considering i never hear ANYONE (CNN included) report openly about how poorly this presidency is going.

I've heard quite a lot more media focus in the "CBS Screwed up bigtime, should Rather resign?" direction than the "Wow, Bush is a big cokehead" direction.

It's amazing that the Daily Show is the only honest news program on TV. At least their distortions have comedic value, or maybe i just miss the joke over at Fox News, oh wait, they are the joke.

theBishop

I typed this exercept out... so you'd better read it...



"FOX News was invented in 1842 by God. If you don't believe this, you are a terrorist. The goal of FOX News is to make the world a better place by forcing you to agree with what they say. It doesn't matter if they bend the rules, becasue their goals are true and just, so they can do whatever they want. Certain scholars have called this treatment unfair; FOX News has already linked these traitors with Noam Chomsky and branded them as holocaust deniers. It is a well-known and Scientology proven fact that everyone who criticizes FOX News is a member of a globally insidious drudic cult headed by imperialistic eco-terrorist mastermind Ralph Nader....

Pompous "press icons" like the LA Times are out to get FOX but all intelligent people (i.e. neo-conservatives) know that this communist rag should be outlawed in the glorios memory of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the greatest American President because he was A) Conservative, and B) Awesome. He was also C) Old. Some Scholars have theorized that Ronald Reagan was so old he could possibly be God's Dad, however this awesome theory was sadly proven wrong when Ronald Reagan died last month. Certain awesome people (i.e. me and my friends) have stated that the death of Ronald Reagan should be used as an excuse to enact a few splendid new laws, such as the complete ban of Micheal Moore's new movie, and Bill Clinton's new book.

Expert researchers at the Neo-conservative Gang of Sweet Dudes, whose national headquarters are in my bedroom, have gone even further by claiming that everything George Bush hates should be illegal. This marvellous solution to Bush's long-standing popularity problem has been seen as a possible election-winner for the Bush camp- since it will be illegal to vote against him. Bush's cheif strategist, Karl Rove, said "this plan kicks ass" and also that "haha, everyone who disagrees with me is going to die". A Democratic think-tank, the We Are Weak Institute of Sissies, has released a white-paper stating "aw, it's not fair". Multiple tea stains were noted to have accumulated on each and every page of the document, which appears to be handwritten and posted out individually to the worldwide audience of seven people who read papers written by left-wing think-tanks.

Let's face the facts: if you disagree with FOX News you are going to jail. It may not be now, it may not even be in the near future, but you can count on it buddy. One day down the track you're going to be chanting an Enya tune while chained to a tree in an old-growth forest, and just when you think the Liberal Media are about to give you sympathy-coverage to your selfish cause, a bunch of awesome policemen will show up with guns and arrest your ass. then it's the big house for you, my Marxist friend, and I don't need tp tell you that there aren't any Koombayah communes in prison. So get real. Get with it. Get FOX News.

- an enraged baboon"

^^^^

Haha, I needed a laugh....

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Now you're getting off topic.

He misled America, by allowing himself to be misled, based on his preconceived notions about Bush and his character.

Simple as that.

It is a pure example of what the media does, and how the American public is led around by it's proverbial nose.

Ridiculous.

that wasn't off-topic at all, that WAS the topic. the fact remains, that bush is PRESIDENT, and he lead us into a WAR that the nation was not abiding until after the presentation of falsified wmd reports before congress. and that's a terrible example of what your proposing, the nation WASN'T mislead in this case - cbs admitted its error. bush, on the other hand, continues to lead us deeper into this quagmire. have you ever heard him once admit that the reasons given for war were erroneous?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 09-21-2004).]

Kerry is unfortunately a Christian too. 70 % of Americans are enslaved by Christianity, so I don't think it would be a good move to bag on w. because he is Christian, rather he is an illegitame,non-mandate having, douche bag. And he's dumb, very dumb. I don't want this moron anywhere near the noocular button.

1. "Just the facts, ma'am" is from dragnet, not any media syndicate, idiot.

quote:How were they reasonably believable ? The type that the documents were written in wasn't even available in the 70's. That was the FIRST thing that was used to discredit them, and it was VERY obvious.

Why wasn't it obvious to Danny boy ? Because he didn't care if they were authentic. He believes what he hears about Bush, so long as it is defamitory to his character.



You do realize that it was the documents that Bush produced claiming he didn't skip guard duty that were under review for authenticity? And that the difference was that a "th" was superpositioned. Not that noticible.

2. Bush. Never. Gave. Freeing. Iraq. As. A. Reason. Before. The. War.

God Dammit you fucking refuse to listen. Research it on your own. The entire premise given for the war was WMD. Blix, and Bush's own investigator both came to the conclusion that there Were. No. Weapons. Of. Mass. Destruction.

Did breaking the words into seperate sentences make it easier to read?

3. The majority of the media is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is conservative as all hell. At least one half of America is Conservative. A Majority of America is Christian. Now please give me one damn reason why any media conglomerate would alienate at least half of their audience and piss off the man who pays them, just to pander to the left? GIVE ME A REASON TO THINK ARGUEMING WITH YOU IS MORE THAN TALKING TO A BRICK.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

1. "Just the facts" is from dragnet, not any media syndicate, idiot.



Do yourself a favor, and edit this part out. It makes you look like an idiot.

For fucks sake, the media isn't left wing.

They arn't right wing either.

Their only concerns are money, and ratings.

Honestly - which sounds better?

President misleads public, or president is mislead by cia.

I'm not trying to justify it, but just because they decide to pick on Bush because of sensationalism (and because it is the "cool" thing to do), it doesn't make them left wing.

And might I remind you, that they were fucking conservative when it came to Bill Clinton and his intern.

They are out for themselves, pure and simple.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Do yourself a favor, and edit this part out. It makes you look like an idiot.

The fact that she threw "ma'am" at the end makes me certain that it's not from any news organization, even if one added "Just the facts" as it's motto since I stopped watching TV.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

oh, come on!

dan rather didn't just get a slap on the wrist, this is going to further adversely impact the credibility of cbs and the mainstream media, and i wouldn't be too surprised if he is fired or demoted soon. now there is no room to doubt that he has a liberal slant.

but don't you think that's just a littlesimplistic and immature to say that 'christians claimed the media is biased first!'

people of all different political/religious/cultural groups have been claiming media bias for hundreds of years all throughout the globe.

and that's just the problem. you're framing the situation in iraq in terms of religion instead of politics, so of course the media is going to seem biased to you - you're biased! for all the reasons you've given for supporting bush, i see reasons that you under-value our secular democracy.

i hope there is no 'cause' to this war, especially not a christian one. the last thing the world needs is another crusade. this is about division, cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism. exclusion, not inclusion. the very fact that you would see bush as promoting a christian 'cause' is just further reason for real humanitarians to worry about the bleak prospects in the middle east... and in november.



Dan Rather didn't get a slap on the wrist ? Apparently you don't know the REAL Dan Rather. (get some books written by people who have worked with him...you'll be surprised !) He's a dominerring prick, and he has single-handedly taken over CBS, without actually serving as CEO. This isn't my opinion...do some research. He won't get fired, nor demoted.

I did say Christians claimed the media was biased first. However, I ought to have said that Conservatives did (that would have been more appropriate). And I know plenty of Conservatives that aren't Christian, let alone religious.

Hundreds of years, eh ? *laughs* That's truly humorous. Can you provide some evidence for that ? I have never heard that before in my life.

Actually, when I was basing the situation in Iraq strictly on democratic morals and policies, I was attacked for not being "Christian-like", and now that I am looking at it from a Christian perspective, I am an idiot.

Well, which is it ? What way CAN I look at it ? No way will be right to you, so I won't even bother defending myself.

The Media seems biased, regardless of what standpoint I see them from. You're not a Christian, and admit that they are liberally biased, so what's your point ? It is what it is. I could practice voodoo and still see it, plain as day.

I under-value nothing, and you have tried to under-value my intelligence. *tsk tsk*

I don't believe this war has anything to do with Christianity, so if I alluded to that I apologize. However, I think that assumption is a clear case of blatant misinterpretation of my posts. As usual...

I didn't say he was promoting a Christian cause in Iraq. I said, very distinctly, that he is being persecuted becayse he is a Christian.

I never said he was perfect, and that he hasn't, or won't make mistakes, either.

The prospects WERE bleak, prior to the placement of a democratic government system.

I guess you haven't bothered to find out what REAL progress is occuring there.

If you claim to be a humanitarian, you are a terrible one.

Again, do some research. I am tired of doing it for you all, only to have a blind eye turned to it.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Wow, someone questions Bush, gets burned, and this is an example of the left-ist, anti-christian media.

That's funny considering i never hear ANYONE (CNN included) report openly about how poorly this presidency is going.

I've heard quite a lot more media focus in the "CBS Screwed up bigtime, should Rather resign?" direction than the "Wow, Bush is a big cokehead" direction.

It's amazing that the Daily Show is the only honest news program on TV. At least their distortions have comedic value, or maybe i just miss the joke over at Fox News, oh wait, they are the joke.

theBishop

Oh, no ? How about the time that Dan Rather said, "No matter HOW you feel about Mr. Bush, he is still our President."

Yup, that's objective news coverage for ya.

That is an outright lie. They have been doing NOTHING but rake him over the coals, for years, now.

Actually, you are partly right. They aren't reporting on how poor this Presidency is doing, because it isn't doing poorly.

Instead, they make personal jabs, and allow their liberal opinions seep into the news.

I have heard plenty of "talk" about Bush and his "questionable" Guard duty, his alcoholism, and his coke problem. (oh, and let's not forget his DUI)

I have heard about these far more than I have heard about Kerry abondoning his shipmates in Nam by using some obscure "3 injury" regulation in his favor...more than I have heard about him being a pothead. More than I have heard about him being chummy with Commies.

And what about his accusations about war crimes, only to later admit that he himself committed them ?

Such a hypocrite.

I don't watch Fox news, if that is what you are insinuating. I said that is what the studies are showing at the moment.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

*laughs @ Inquisitor's post*

Yeah...it was funny. Thanks. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

that wasn't off-topic at all, that WAS the topic. the fact remains, that bush is PRESIDENT, and he lead us into a WAR that the nation was not abiding until after the presentation of falsified wmd reports before congress. and that's a terrible example of what your proposing, the nation WASN'T mislead in this case - cbs admitted its error. bush, on the other hand, continues to lead us deeper into this quagmire. have you ever heard him once admit that the reasons given for war were erroneous?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 09-21-2004).]

No, you were getting off topic by focusing on how BAD you think Bush is, when the topic is truly about the MEDIA being biased.

So, you WERE off topic. If you want to get DEEPLY into politics, go to the Politics thread.

The intention here is to show that the media IS biased, and generally against Conservatives, and more particularly against Christians.

The nation WAS misled, at watching the 60 Minutes special.

After the "apology" was released, the truth was out. How convenient for THEM. They still lied, however unwittingly, and are responsible for NOT making sure their sources were legit. And why didn't they try harder to ensure this ? Hmm...I wonder.

And we're heading DEEPER into the quagmire ? When was the last time you checked out the live body count in Iraq ? We have less people over there NOW, than ever.

And the Iraqi people are about to participate in their very first democratic election. Wonders never cease...

And a WOMAN is running ! It's revolutionary.

Power has been restored to areas that have lost it, and implemented in areas that never had it.

Clean water is FINALLY being dispersed equally to ALL inhabited areas, not just major cities.

The people have rights now...and something they never thought they'd experience: FREEDOM.

I think this has merit, though you'd never hear about these things from the liberal news.

I have heard him admit that he had MANY reasons for war. I believe he used the one that would most appeal to the American public in order to gain support. I also believe that this only makes him what he was hired to be...America's cheerleader. Our President.

Just like all the President's before him.

Just like the President's that will follow.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

Kerry is unfortunately a Christian too. 70 % of Americans are enslaved by Christianity, so I don't think it would be a good move to bag on w. because he is Christian, rather he is an illegitame,non-mandate having, douche bag. And he's dumb, very dumb. I don't want this moron anywhere near the noocular button.

He is a "christian", now that he must appeal to every demographic.

He wasn't a Christian before this election, to the best of my knowledge. I could be wrong...ifI am, show me, please. (honestly)

He claims to be Christian, but his actions speak louder than his words.

A Christian wouldn't support the things that he does...wouldn't think the thoughts he does...wouldn't allow him to be as self-important as he is.

For example, the yahoo's on TBN are all self-important, money-grubbing bastards, and have convinced many in the geriatric community that they are "stewards" of God. It's shameful, and nothing but a lie.

You can claim to be a Christian all you want, but you MUST walk the walk, or there is room for questioning motives.

Kerry is a chameleon. He hangs out with the Native American community here in Flagstaff, and then turns his loyalties elsewhere, as soon as he is out of earshot. I saw this personally, as I went to both his rally's here in AZ, and then on to Bush's, in Phoenix.

He is most CERTAINLY not a Christian, and I find that completely offensive that you would even suggest such a thing.

What has he done that would supoprt the ideals of a Christian ? NOTHING.

70% of Americans are Christians ? LMAO !! Show me some stats...I have reputable sites thatI have posted before, showing that only a third of Americans consider themselves Christian, and of those, very few are practicing.

Noocular ? And you call HIM dumb ?

HOw is he dumb, because he is short, and concise with his answers ? Instead of embellishing, and BSing his way through a debate ?

Has he made blunders during speeches, and televised interviews ? SURE.

But YOU try running the country...and please show me a President that HASN'T.

bias in the press (whether printed, broadcast, or written on stone tablets) has been with us since the dawn of civilization.

http://icarus.uic.edu/~hlee37/article_ii.htm

now before you keep blathering on and spinning this tragic 'oh woe is me' song and dance, let me point something out that you have obviously missed. there is no misinterpreting your posts. your agenda is completely visible to any objective thinker.

WAIT! don't resnort just yet. you - by definition - are not an objective thinker. you think dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by god to fool the wicked. despite all objectively observable phenomenon.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, you were getting off topic by focusing on how BAD you think Bush is, when the topic is truly about the MEDIA being biased.



god, that is so absurd. how could you even type that?? i was countering the point you made initially. geez digital... you're sounding more and more desperate every day.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

1. "Just the facts, ma'am" is from dragnet, not any media syndicate, idiot.

You do realize that it was the documents that Bush produced claiming he didn't skip guard duty that were under review for authenticity? And that the difference was that a "th" was superpositioned. Not that noticible.

2. Bush. Never. Gave. Freeing. Iraq. As. A. Reason. Before. The. War.

God Dammit you fucking refuse to listen. Research it on your own. The entire premise given for the war was WMD. Blix, and Bush's own investigator both came to the conclusion that there Were. No. Weapons. Of. Mass. Destruction.

Did breaking the words into seperate sentences make it easier to read?

3. The majority of the media is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is conservative as all hell. At least one half of America is Conservative. A Majority of America is Christian. Now please give me one damn reason why any media conglomerate would alienate at least half of their audience and piss off the man who pays them, just to pander to the left? GIVE ME A REASON TO THINK ARGUEMING WITH YOU IS MORE THAN TALKING TO A BRICK.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 09-21-2004).]

LMAO !!!!!

I hate to say it, but you haven't got two cells in your head to rub together.

I never said that quote was from a media source.

I am a TV fanatic (from my childhood years), and am well aware of where the phrase came from. That's why I used it.

The "th" WAS noticable.

The documents were NOT provided by Bush, and if you had read the articles I posted, you would know that.

The documents you a referring to are completely different.

2. Yes. He. Did. (do your homework)

It was one of several reasons.

Another was that Iraq was viewed as an "Axis" in the terrorist network, along with North Korea. And they are next...

This wasn't an act of singling out...you'll see.

I have done my research, outside of the liberal media news sources. That is why I am not blind to both the GOOD and the BAD of this presidency.

I also know what Blix said, and I never alluded to the fact that I was ignorant of his findings, or that there ever truly WERE. The threat was there, and they had capabilities in the past.

"And monster is how many people do see Murdoch. He is subjected to far more criticism, if not abuse, than any other contemporary media mogul (except perhaps Bill Gates, and in both cases, mythomania plays a part). Throughout his life he has been attacked for his right-wing politics and for allegedly lowering the standards of everything he touches." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107991025-33716,00.html

Hmmm...thanks for pointing out some more anti-Conservative, anti-Christian liberal media garbage. Perfect example of how Christians are persecuted publicly.

"He told me recently that he saw himself pretty much as a libertarian: "What does libertarian mean? As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. But I'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit." " Yup...a pure Christian ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

BORN March 11, 1931, in Melbourne

1953 Takes News Ltd. reins

1964 Launches Australian

1967 Marries Anna Torv

1969 Takes over U.K. News of the World and Sun

1976 Buys New York Post

1981 Takes over Times and Sunday Times

1985 Buys 50% of 20th Century Fox; becomes an American citizen

1987 Takes over Herald and Weekly Times

1997 Fox co-releases Titanic, highest-grossing film in history ($1.8 billion)

I don't see where he started buying up the "majority" of the media. The list above is the extent of it, unless he purchased them all recently, which is doubtful.

Your supoprting evidence has holes in it.

Bad example, Oh, Angry One.

Again, you question my ability to read, allude to the fact that I am a moron, and discredit my intelligence.

Why are you talking to me ?

Crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

My idiocy is apparently too painful for you to withstand.

Go spew your hatred elsewhere. I won't entertain it anymore...I have an inkling that you have more deep-seeded issues than just your flawed political affiliations.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

bias in the press (whether printed, broadcast, or written on stone tablets) has been with us since the dawn of civilization.

http://icarus.uic.edu/~hlee37/article_ii.htm

now before you keep blathering on and spinning this tragic 'oh woe is me' song and dance, let me point something out that you have obviously missed. there is no misinterpreting your posts. your agenda is completely visible to any objective thinker.

WAIT! don't resnort just yet. you - by definition - are not an objective thinker. you think dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by god to fool the wicked. despite all objectively observable phenomenon.

I haven't looked at your link yet, but I will.

Blathering ? "Woe is me ?" *LMAO*

It is the truth...but how can I expect you to see it here, when you can't even truthfully see the world around you ?

I don't have an agenda ! *LAUGHS* That would indicate that I am hiding something exclusive, in order to manipulate others into thinking the same way I do...

How about this: THINK, PERIOD ! That'd be nice.

I don't think dinosaur bones were planted by God. *laughs* Thanks for stereotyping.

I think God created Dinosaurs, and that their bones are their remnants.

I just don't happen to believe that these remnants are millions of years old, based on inconclusive (at best) testing.

And now you are making this personal, because you have no other recourse.

Very mature, Eil !

I thought you were better than that.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

god, that is so absurd. how could you even type that?? i was countering the point you made initially. geez digital... you're sounding more and more desperate every day.

I'll tell you...one key stroke at a time. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I have never sounded desperate, and am not even close to it now..

Again, petty rhetoric, aimed at discreditting ME, when it is the MEDIA we are talking about.

Go get some sleep !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He is a "christian", now that he must appeal to every demographic.

He wasn't a Christian before this election, to the best of my knowledge. I could be wrong...ifI am, show me, please. (honestly)

__________________________________________________

It's a very well known fact that Kerry is a Catholic. Whether he is a good one, would be up to God himself to judge,no?

Kerry is a chameleon. He hangs out with the Native American community here in Flagstaff, and then turns his loyalties elsewhere, as soon as he is out of earshot. I saw this personally, as I went to both his rally's here in AZ, and then on to Bush's, in Phoenix.

__________________________________________________ _____

Yeah, and bush is a real working man's Texan.

Talk about a chameleon. Just gotta love the farm implements in front of w.'s crawford "ranch" haha

__________________________________________________ ________



70% of Americans are Christians ? LMAO !! Show me some stats...I have reputable sites thatI have posted before, showing that only a third of Americans consider themselves Christian, and of those, very few are practicing.

__________________________________________________ _______

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

That's one.

Maybe they're not all christian fanatics, but the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christians. Again, God will judge.

__________________________________________________ ______

Noocular ? And you call HIM dumb ?

__________________________________________________ ____

I was mocking bush's moronic, habitual mis-pronunciation of the word: nuclear.

__________________________________________________ ____-

HOw is he dumb, because he is short, and concise with his answers ? Instead of embellishing, and BSing his way through a debate ?

__________________________________________________ ___

w. is concise out of necessity.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Has he made blunders during speeches, and televised interviews ? SURE.

But YOU try running the country...and please show me a President that HASN'T.

__________________________________________________ ________________

All of them, at least not to the degree w. has.

Can you imagine bush debating Clinton? I would pay to see that.

All you have is a mistake. You don't know they printed it on purpose. You don't know they knew it was fake. You don't know that even if they did it, it was done because they are anti-Christian. Simply put, you have nothing.

A conspiracy theory. I might as well say you hate Dan Rather because he has brown hair. You brown-hair-hating scum! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



P.S. Remember that thread you haven't replied to? I do.

I'd very much prefer you stopped saying what a Christian can and cannot support politically. I believe in Jesus and i agree with just about every thing Kerry supports.

Are you going to say that i'm not a christian too?

And let me say political choices don't necissarily reflect personal opinion. A good example is the first amendment. There has been a lot of vulgar, horrible, garbage that is allowed to exist because we live in a country with "Freedom of Speech". And "Freedom of Speech" is more important than censoring a few things that rub us the wrong way.

Another example is abortion, which is horrible. Kerry has said more than once how terrible abortion is, and how terrible it is that it's becoming so commonplace. Yet, at the same time he has voted to protect the right because it's something he feels should be left up to the masses to decide.

Too many christians want to live in a christian theocracy, and no matter what they do, the US will never be a christian theocracy. Not only that a Christian theocracy would never work led by man.

theBishop

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:A Christian wouldn't support the things that he does...wouldn't think the thoughts he does...wouldn't allow him to be as self-important as he is.

I could say the same thing about Bush.

Jhn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

George Bush had 152 people executed while he was Governor of texas. (http://www.bushkills.com)



Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

need an energy bill that encourages consumption." - Mr. Bush (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org)

Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

"Bring them on" - Mr. Bush (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm)

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mr. Bush has taken billions of dollars hard working americans have paid in taxes, and "reallocated" them into the hands of the top 1% and then has the nerve to say "It's our money" (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0103.htm)



You, digital_savior, and the rest of the Right, do not have the right to pick and choose what issues are "christian" issues.

theBishop



[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 09-21-2004).]

1. Right. I'm sure you knew beforehand that typewriters able to superposition a "th" were not available in Alabama in 1972. It is, after all, common knowledge.

2. You have yet to provide a single source of information which shows Bush claiming that freeing the Iraqi People was a priority prior to the actual invasion. And if this wasn't an "act of singling out", then why havn't we invaded Iran? Or North Korea?

And you are blind as all hell reguarding this administration. You refuse to see anything bad that Bush might do, because he hates fags and babykillers, just like you. By your own admissions, and claims about what makes someone a christian, Bush doesn't count. You try to recant, and only drive yourself deeper into a hole of your own shit.

3. "Rupert Murdoch's achievement is that he is the only media mogul to have created and to control a truly global media empire."

"His life since then can be seen as a series of international leaps in which he's acquired more and more properties, jazzing them up or dumbing them down, according to your taste. In the '60s, it was Sydney (the Mirror), London (the News of the World and the Sun); in the '70s, New York (the New York Post which he turned from a staid liberal matron into a provocative conservative roustabout); in the '80s, Hollywood (20th Century Fox and Fox TV) and again London (acquiring the Times and Sunday Times, facing down the unions at Wapping and launching satellite television, later called BSkyB, in Britain); in the '90s, Asia (Star Television). Murdoch himself has called these acquisitions a series of battles in an unending war for more."

"Since then, its comeback has been sensational. The News Corp holdings now include a lion's share of the newspaper industry in Australia, about one-third of British newspapers (including raunchy, intrusive tabloids and the broadsheet Times) and BSkyB, which is now immensely successful. In the U.S. he has film and TV interests, newspapers, book publishers, sports teams, and much more. In Asia he has Star Television.

Of all these, Star, which Murdoch bought in 1993, has been the most difficult to grow. Its potential is vast: the footprint of its satellites extends from Japan to the Middle East via Southeast Asia and covers two-thirds of the world's population. "

"Murdoch, a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist"

"He sees himself as a radical conservative in the mold of Margaret Thatcher, whom he supported."

All of that was from the same article you quoted. Maybe you should learn to read the whole thing. Or maybe you're just biased as all hell, and ignored everything that didn't support your little fantasy world. Incidentally, Libertarians are the only real conservative party left. The Republican party of neo-cons has become decidedly fascist, and economically carefree in recent years.

Also, I never said Murdoch was a christian. I said he was a conservative, and never would have alluded to such a thing, because while I know about his politics, I know nothing about the mans religious convictions, except that it seems that someone as ruthless as Murdoch woun't be particularly religious.

The wholes in my support evidence are created by your own bias and ignorance, oh zealous one. I believe demographic evidence had allready been provided establishing christianity is a majority. And frankly, I was never attacked for being a christian. Even when I was giving serious thoought to being a priest, never. Since becoming an atheist, I get harasses for it pretty much whenever people know. And I've seen jews get a hell of alot more shit for their religion. Or hindu's. Christians have the comfort of the majority. You were persecuted in the fucking roman empire. Not anymore. Maybe one christian sect persecutes another, but it's not outsiders doing it anymore. The closest to harassmesnt on any kind of a large scale is when we try to break your bullshit forcing your religion on us.



"Go spew your hatred elsewhere. I won't entertain it anymore...I have an inkling that you have more deep-seeded issues than just your flawed political affiliations."

Oh, attacking my issues. I'm wounded to the quick. No, my iddue here is that talking to you is like argueing with a brick. You make a point, I make a counterpoint. You make the same point again, this time with alot of meaningless other text involved. I make another counterpoint, this time more in depth (maybe you didn't get the first one), you ignore my point and pretend the iddue is one something else entirely. I respond to your new point, you fall back to the orogonal, and claim it proves me wrong, when I have allready countered it. Twice. It's frustrating as all hell.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

All you have is a mistake. You don't know they printed it on purpose. You don't know they knew it was fake. You don't know that even if they did it, it was done because they are anti-Christian. Simply put, you have nothing.

A conspiracy theory. I might as well say you hate Dan Rather because he has brown hair. You brown-hair-hating scum! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



P.S. Remember that thread you haven't replied to? I do.

Yup, and I'm not going to, because it is always a vicious circle with you. We get nowhere, and it always ends with personal jabs at ME, so I'll digress, if you don't mind. (I could tell you we were the first one the moon, and you'd argue that is was the Russians, just for principle alone.)

My point was adequately conveyed. I don't need to beat a dead horse. Those that can form their own opinions objectively received both points of view, and I feel that was sufficient.

And I didn't say that they released the documents to the ENTIRE nation on PURPOSE out of spite, I said that they didn't do the research and verifying that they should have done, simply because they wanted to believe it.

That's bias, and that's the liberal media for ya.

Why is the "untrained" eye of the general public able to see falsifying evidence, and NOT a News Media Giant ? Don't they have a stringent process for weeding out the "fake" stuff ?

They either turned a blind eye, and hoped for the best, or didn't thoroughly verify the documents. Either way, it's negligence.

So, I "don't got nothin'." FOR ONCE, would you read the articles ?

*sheesh*

quote:Originaly posted by Digital_Savior:

Yup, and I'm not going to, because it is always a vicious circle with you. We get nowhere, and it always ends with personal jabs at ME, so I'll digress, if you don't mind. (I could tell you we were the first one the moon, and you'd argue that is was the Russians, just for principle alone.)

That quite simply is a lie. Could you please quote making a personal "jab at you" in the thread in question? No. You can't.

Apparently, that's your story every time you cannot argue your case; every time you're loosing. It's childish and it's pathetic.

Now THAT is a jab.

quote:And I didn't say that they released the documents to the ENTIRE nation on PURPOSE out of spite, I said that they didn't do the research and verifying that they should have done, simply because they wanted to believe it.

That's bias, and that's the liberal media for ya.

Why is the "untrained" eye of the general public able to see falsifying evidence, and NOT a News Media Giant ? Don't they have a stringent process for weeding out the "fake" stuff ?

They either turned a blind eye, and hoped for the best, or didn't thoroughly verify the documents. Either way, it's negligence.

So, I "don't got nothin'." FOR ONCE, would you read the articles ?

You DON'T have something, at least not in the context of which I referred to. You have no a single piece of evidence supporting your claim that this was an anti-Christian act. You. Don't. Have. Anything. That's what I meant, and that's the truth.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I'd very much prefer you stopped saying what a Christian can and cannot support politically. I believe in Jesus and i agree with just about every thing Kerry supports.

Are you going to say that i'm not a christian too?

And let me say political choices don't necissarily reflect personal opinion. A good example is the first amendment. There has been a lot of vulgar, horrible, garbage that is allowed to exist because we live in a country with "Freedom of Speech". And "Freedom of Speech" is more important than censoring a few things that rub us the wrong way.

Another example is abortion, which is horrible. Kerry has said more than once how terrible abortion is, and how terrible it is that it's becoming so commonplace. Yet, at the same time he has voted to protect the right because it's something he feels should be left up to the masses to decide.

Too many christians want to live in a christian theocracy, and no matter what they do, the US will never be a christian theocracy. Not only that a Christian theocracy would never work led by man.

theBishop

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 09-21-2004).]

Wow, you are incredibly misinformed.

Why don't we take a look on how Kerry has voted on Abortion issues in the oast, shall we ?

- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm



Boy, I can tell that he is ANTI-ABORTION !

He did not just vote for "choice". He has voted in support of partial-birth abortions. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A 6 MONTH OLD BABY'S HEAD SEVERED FROM IT'S BODY, WHILE HALF WAY OUT OF THE WOMB ?

I don't think so. But please, educate yourself, and watch one.

Kerry is a creep.

"In 1996, John Kerry again parted with the church when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which created a federal defintion of marriage as the union between a man and a woman and prohibited the extending of federal marital benefits..."

You agree with that ? Then you go against God's word, which explicitly details the union of two people must be between man and woman, and no other.

Though, he voted "No" on banning gay marriage, he claims he is against it.

So, he is a people pleaser. He doesn't stand firm by his beliefs. Whatever is going to make the public happy, he'll say it.

Can the guy make up his mind, please ?

He voted NO on the Amendment to prohibit flag burning, yet claims he loves the flag.

Why doesn't he stand up for it, then ?

"The Old Glory. The stars and stripes. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you and all across our country. It flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good."

But he still maintains we all have the freedom to burn it.

This just shows his lack of conviction.

He boasts about his tour in Nam, yet he ran from it, like a little weazel, at the first opportunity.

And THEN he marched against his own government, and lied about war crimes. (then admitted he participated in them)

"We welcome people of faith. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

Let's not wear our faith on our sleeve, but PRAY that we are on God's side. So, now we must be CLOSET Christians ?

And who is he to presume "whose" side God is on ?

God is not political, and wouldn't not "take sides". That is a ridiculous statement.

And it was made in an attempt to satiate those that consider themselves Christians, yet support abortion, and gay marriage (both of which are an abomination in the eyes of the God whom he hopes we are on side with).

"We must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks."

Hmmm...he and Edwards started that trend. ("We have better hair, therefor better suited to run this country !")

I hate to break it to you, but this country was founded on Christian beliefs. It's laws and Constitution are based on the mindset of a group of men that were deeply religious (at least outwardly).

I don't claim to want America "Christianized" (heh, I think I just made up a word). I want it SANE.

If you believe in Jesus, you MUSt see the drastic contrast in Kerry's agenda, as opposed to Jesus'.

Kerry wants everyone to be "happy", no matter the avenue. That's ridiculous. And it won't work.

I agree that political choices SHOULDN'T represent personal beliefs, but the cfact is, THEY DO.

People are driven by their convictions, and there is really no way NOT to be.

That's why we have opposing political parties...we need a "side" to be on. A conviction to identify with.

I see that Kerry has a lot of promising ideas, but he has never directly outlined his plan, and his "flip-flopping" is scary, frankly.

But again, we're getting off topic, which is that the media is biased, and it's unfair, no atter who it is directed at.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time it is against Christians, and Conservatives.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Has he made blunders during speeches, and televised interviews ? SURE.



You can say that again. In his 3 1/2 years in office, he has given 15 press conferences, the fewest of any President in 50 years. I wonder why that is...

Sorry Bishop, for responding to this before you had a chance to.

1. You. Can. Not. Force. Your. Religion. On. Me. If you are a Christian, then you will not be gay, or have an abortion. If you think christianity is bullshit, then maybe you will. It should be an individuals choice, based on an individuals morals.

Maybe Kerry voted against banning gay marriage because he supports poeples right to live their lives. And maybe he is personally against it because he is a Christian. But, unlike Bush, he doesn't force his dogma down my throat.

Maybe you just don't get what the concept of America is. Have you never heard the phrase "Life libery and the pursuit of happiness"? It's not "...and the pursuit of happiness, unless it offends our God Jehova, and his teachings as told in the Bible".

Kerry isn't presuming whose side God is on, you twit. You're either twisting words, or just an idiot. Bush says "God thinks I'm right". THAT is presuming whose side God is on. Kerry says "let us pray that we are on gods side". That means to do what you think is right, and hope that God agrees with you. It makes no assumptions about the opinions of God, unlike Bush. You hypocrit.

Where did Kerry and Edwards claim they should win because of hair? Or did you spout out that bullshit because you had no real answer? How is that even an attack on Bush?

The founders of this country were deist. They believed that God had created the world (at a time before evolutionary theory, intrestingly enough), but that GOD PLAYED NO PART IN THE MODERN WORLD. Maybe you should learn your history.

I agree that people should be driven by their convictions. But there s a difference between believing in something, and forcing that belief on other people, through force.



But again, we're getting off topic, which is that the media is biased, and it's unfair, no atter who it is directed at.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time it is against atheists, and Liberals.

HAHAHA! Two can play the "all bullshit, no substance" game. Liberals have no Bill O'Riley. They have no Rush. Claiming an anti-conservative media stance is just naieve. Claiming and anti-christian one is just bullshit.

quote:I hate to break it to you, but this country was founded on Christian beliefs. It's laws and Constitution are based on the mindset of a group of men that were deeply religious (at least outwardly).

This is something Christians *i should know, being one) like to say to excuse their attempts to undermine the constitution of this, a secular state. In reality, the founders of this country were NOT basing this country on the Old Testament (which, if we're counting, would make this more a Jewish state than a Chistian state, but there's no way we'll let the dirty jews run this country after what they did to the son of man), they WERE basing this state on Roman ideas especially Plato's republic.

theBishop

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Social Junker:

[B]The media is biased, not question about that, but "biased towards who?" is the more important question, and it all depends on human psychology to a degree.

Ask a right-winger who the media is biased towards, and they will say the left-wing.

Ask a left-winger, they'll say the right wing.

Both sides can provide equal evidence that their assumption is correct.

So where does all this get us? Nowhere. [QUOTE]



So that's that...I've been reading aljazeera a lot, and thinking about media bias (of which aljazeera has a lot). even just semantics. i mean, you read aljazeera (which you should: english.aljazeera.net) and they talk about the zionist entity (or rather they do the quote thing, someone else says zionist entity, they quote him and put the word Israel in parenthesis) and occupation. both very heavily weighted terms. an organization like, say, fox news would never say occupation. but think about it, in these days of media hegemony there's not even a word they use with an opposite connotation but equal weight to it. they simply don't talk of it. maybe you'll hear "strife in the middle east" or something every once in a while, but for the most part, that's how bias works these days.

don't put your spin on it. just don't talk about it.

you don't come up with another word for occupation, like, i don't know, rigorous border corrections. you just talk about laci peterson or some shit instead. (note: i no longer own a tv, which is a most wonderful state, so i don't know if they're still talking about that shit. but if they're not, then i'm sure some other affluent bitch has been killed that they can switch our, oops, i mean their attention to)

you read aljazeera, read a well written and clearly slanted piece about depleted uranium being used all over the mid east and the potential results, or about a new political party being formed in israeli which advocates the removal of all non-Jews from the holy land, or how rabbis are starting to advocate the idea that it's acceptable, according to the torah, to kill non-Jew civilians if it might make Jews safer, or how 10 palestinian "resistance fighters" were killed, or whatever. all very slanted stories, but all very important to know about. so aljazeera is a liberal, arab-world loving news network cast from the same mold as fox news. ok, so lets go see what fox news has to say about this. maybe if i get the two extreme viewpoints on a particular issue, i can successfully synthesize something rational. if i can see the two ends, i can see what lies between them. so i go to fox news, or some other conservative leaning/america crazed source and there it is....nothing.

nothing about depleted uranium, or israel's wacky antics, or about palestinian deaths. no, they don't cast their own slant on these stories, they simply don't report them. because that's an option. they can spend all their time discrediting some fucking 60 minutes report, and oh, this memo said this, this expert said this...vietnam...served his country...honorable bastard...something something...pay attention to me please...arghhh! please shut the fuck up about vietnam, especially if your name begins with john and ends with kerry. you fucking idiot, you have an election to win in like nine fucking weeks. maybe you forgot about it. we've got a current war on terror, a current war in iraq, a current (though oft forgottten) war in afghanistan, a war on drugs, maybe even still a war on poverty, and you're all fucking stuck on vietnam. guess what? i don't fucking care. that war was supposed to have ended like thirty years ago, what the fuck!? You remember the issue in vietnam!? fucking communism!!! you're talking about the fucking dead ass soviet union and the cold fucking war in this year's fucking election!

There are like a dozen wars that bush is fucking up in the present, and you can't stop talking about a fucking police action he avoided like every other rich bastard while a bunch of poor people died. fuck vietnam. poor people are dying in afghanistan, iraq, palestine, and (oh! remember this country!?) fucking america! attack bush on this, right now you motherfucker! i don't want to hear about what a drunk, coked up, draft avoiding-on-a-technicality asshole he was thirty years ago. start telling people what a manipulative, egomaniacal, murderous, lying, religious zealot he is RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Fuck! And if they accuse you of running a negative campaign, or being pessimistic, or being a hateful antiamerican terrorist loving sodomite, just take a cue from rumsfeld, and deny it until you're blue in the face. the press will believe anything you tell them.

unless it's something like american schools need help, the largest stockpile of wmd's in the mid east is in israel, or north korea just might be a more immediate threat than whatever brown skinned nation you're planning on carpet bombing next

We run random guy #3 against fucking cobra commander, and it's a fucking struggle for the hearts and minds of the american people!? what the fuck! If Kerry can't win this, i will be completely convinced that this scene will follow:

Kerry (on his knees, giving Bush some ultra secret masonic handjob): Hey George, can you believe all those dumbasses out there actually believe we just had an election.

Bush (doing a line of some petroleum derived narcotic, because if it doesn't take oil to produce, it's just not worth the bother): I know. You'd think they'd realize that if you'd actually been running against me, then you probably would have mentioned some of my policies, or your policies, or, you know, my well known plans for world domination.

Kerry: Right. I went to Yale. I mean, you went to Yale too, but I actually went to class and such. I'm a smart guy. And all I can talk about is shit that happened 30 years ago and how I might not have supported all of your policies totally had i been a psychic gypsy woman capable of forseeing the future, and i don't actually have any policies myself, per se, but vote for me, i really want you to, honestly. Did it actually sound like i was trying to win? Did I miss something? Which reminds me, when's our illuminati meeting?

Bush: Since there will obviously never again be an election so long as I am alive, i was thinking about doning this duotone spandex suit and metal mask. Maybe all of those voting like it matters dumbasses will get the message then.

Kerry: Isn't that Cobra Commander's mask?

Bush: Yeah, isn't it cool? I think I like it even more than my flight jumper.

ok, i drifted off point. way off point, but it felt good, so i'll leave it. my point is, nobody just spins anymore. they report selectively, and spin on those few things they report. can't find a way to make an israeli tank intentionally running over an american aid worker or 10 people suddenly homeless because their house got bulldozed look good for your cause? who the fuck cares, just don't report about it. Can't find a way to rationalize a 16 year old kid blowing himself up and taking a bunch of people with him who offended his faux-religious sympathies by drinking coffee in tel aviv? Can't find the proper spin to put on the story of massive culture/religious brainwashing and increased radicalization in the world? Fuck it, just don't talk about it. As an information broker (read:media giant) you have that option. sorry about the majority of this, sometimes when i'm tired, sick, and angry, words just happen. maybe i'll try to refine some of this once i'm once again making sense.

oh, and by the way, aljazeera, the only large scale, largly distributed arab news network still isn't allowed in iraq, because they're biased. i suppose this is biased (from an interview, from someone much more capable of forming coherent thoughts than i am at the present moment):

US officials are very proud to say they have established some schools in Iraq. But were there no schools in Iraq before the occupation? Iraq was honoured by UNESCO in 1981 for being the first developing country to eliminate illiteracy.

If we are going to talk about this, let me make this point; in 1991 US-led forces bombed Iraq for 42 days.

The level of destruction suffered by the infrastructure was three times the destruction done in 2003.

Yet everything was back to normal in just months. Why are Iraqis still suffering from shortage of electricity and pure drinking water after 18 moths of occupation?

Sorry about that. Sometimes a good rant is the only thing to get me to fall asleep.

"I am Jack's broken heart."

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow, you are incredibly misinformed.

Why don't we take a look on how Kerry has voted on Abortion issues in the oast, shall we ?

- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm



So your attempt at keeping this from turning into a political discussion is to further a political argument? That's either stupid, or hypocritical on your part. Which is it?

Since you further the political discussion even more, I'll do so as well.

(Excuse me theBishop, I'm using a reply aimed that you)

quote:

Boy, I can tell that he is ANTI-ABORTION !

Strawman. He never said Kerry was anti-abortion, at least that his voting record was.

quote:

He did not just vote for "choice". He has voted in support of partial-birth abortions. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A 6 MONTH OLD BABY'S HEAD SEVERED FROM IT'S BODY, WHILE HALF WAY OUT OF THE WOMB ?

I don't think so. But please, educate yourself, and watch one.

That's still choice. Try again.

quote:

You agree with that ? Then you go against God's word, which explicitly details the union of two people must be between man and woman, and no other.

Once again, the operative word is: CHOICE.

Moreover, are you telling me that you do not wear cloths of mixed fibers? That's also the word of god. Are you "throwing the stone" without examining yourself first?

quote:

Though, he voted "No" on banning gay marriage, he claims he is against it.

So, he is a people pleaser. He doesn't stand firm by his beliefs. Whatever is going to make the public happy, he'll say it.

It's either that... or he's leaving it up to CHOICE.

quote:

Can the guy make up his mind, please ?

The very original [ http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)] "flip-flop" argument... which ignores Bush is as bad as he is.

quote:

He voted NO on the Amendment to prohibit flag burning, yet claims he loves the flag.

Why doesn't he stand up for it, then ?

What the hell do you think the U.S. flag supposedly represents? Freedom/choice.

Ask the vast majority of veterans and they are for not criminalizing flag burning.

quote:

This just shows his lack of conviction.

How the fuck does that show lack of conviction? His conviction is that people should have the freedom to burn the flag if they so please.

quote:

He boasts about his tour in Nam, yet he ran from it, like a little weazel, at the first opportunity.



The only difference with Bush is that Bush didn't "boast" of it, because his record is pathetic compared to Kerry's.

quote:

Let's not wear our faith on our sleeve, but PRAY that we are on God's side. So, now we must be CLOSET Christians ?

Read it again. He's saying that one must not claim that God is on "our" side, but pray that "we are" on his.

Which is the opposite of what you claim below .

quote:

And who is he to presume "whose" side God is on ? God is not political, and wouldn't not "take sides". That is a ridiculous statement.



He ISN'T! That's the point. He is praying that "we are", he hopes that "we are", he is not saying that he knows what side is God on.

But even then, that pales in comparison to what Bush has said before... but we all know you don't criticize that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

If you believe in Jesus, you MUSt see the drastic contrast in Kerry's agenda, as opposed to Jesus'.

And the drastic contrast with Bush as well. As theBishop clearly pointed out to you.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

You can say that again. In his 3 1/2 years in office, he has given 15 press conferences, the fewest of any President in 50 years. I wonder why that is...

Because he knows it's a circus side-show act, for ANY President, and he has better things to do.

If I were President, I'd have people do that kind of crap FOR me.

Not because I am not affluent, or incapable, but if I was tasked with running the greatest country in the world, press conferences would be the lowest item on my Priority List.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



And now you are making this personal, because you have no other recourse.

Very mature, Eil !

I thought you were better than that.



what do you mean i have no other recourse!!!!??? you believe dinosaurs lived alongside humans!!! you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old!!!! i have NO recourse, whatsoever!! from my perspective, you've decided to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary because of your belief in the literal truth of the bible. can you not see my dilemma? there's nothing i can say, no matter how contradictory to your beliefs, that will even effect your stance in the slightest. you are uncompromising, as if you alone have a lease on the truth.

i'm really sorry digital, i didn't mean it personally, but i really just can't understand a belief system that doesn't accept new input. you trust words printed thousands of years ago by people of very different worldviews before your own mental process of

observing

hypothesizing

testing

theorizing.

quote:"I am Jack's broken heart."[/B]



WOOHOO ! Fight Club...

Nice rant.

Don't agree with some of it, but it was LOGICAL (even within a tired, angry stupor), and held an honest opinion, based on well-known facts.

THANK YOU.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll tell you...one key stroke at a time. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I have never sounded desperate, and am not even close to it now..

Again, petty rhetoric, aimed at discreditting ME, when it is the MEDIA we are talking about.

Go get some sleep !

it wasn't petty rhetoric at all. i was making a point, that you once again conveniently neglected to address. namely, i was pointing out that it was you who initially compared dan rather's mistake to the president's.

About John Kerry's voting record, perhaps the reason he voted against his beliefs is not because he is a people pleaser, but because he realizes that he can only fairly impose those beliefs on one person - himself.

thank you dearestnight.

That's fair, and I'd agree with that, except this country is not RAN with principles like that.

If it were, we'd be running around in a perpetual state of chaos.

We need laws...rules that govern us, and set moral boundaries.

So, if you aren't going to stand up for what you morally believe is right, then you don't belong in an office that allows you to run America.

If he only stands for not stepping on people's toes, then he has no conviction, and that is SCARY.

John Q. Voter: "Hey, asshole ! That offends me !"

John F. Kerry: "Hmm...ok, lemme change it."

Susie Z. Voter: "But now that offends ME !"

John F. Kerry: "Well, then I will change it again."

See the problem with that ?

There's no stability in him. No trust in him. No faith in him.

Hey, Bishop..

You didn't say whether or not you agreed with gay marriage, or Kerry's other morally questionable votes.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That's fair, and I'd agree with that, except this country is not RAN with principles like that.

If it were, we'd be running around in a perpetual state of chaos.

We need laws...rules that govern us, and set moral boundaries.

So, if you aren't going to stand up for what you morally believe is right, then you don't belong in an office that allows you to run America.

If he only stands for not stepping on people's toes, then he has no conviction, and that is SCARY.

John Q. Voter: "Hey, asshole ! That offends me !"

John F. Kerry: "Hmm...ok, lemme change it."

Susie Z. Voter: "But now that offends ME !"

John F. Kerry: "Well, then I will change it again."

See the problem with that ?

There's no stability in him. No trust in him. No faith in him.

It really seems, once again, that you just fail to grasp the concept of what makes America great. It's not "moral righteousness". America is the nation it is, because people are guaranteed the basic right to live their lives as they wish, provided that does nothing to infringe on someone else's right to do so. You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, and even your right to try to convince me that your beliefs are correct, however annoying I might consider evangelism. But the point at which you forcibly remove my choice to live my life, is the point at which you violate the spirit of America. Kerry is a doucebag. I'm not denying that. But Kerry's not the one supporting the FCC going insane with "decency". Kerry isn't the one trying to ban gay marriage because it offends certain people. By placing his personal interests before the intent of our constitution, and the declaration of independence, which, though not offial, clearly states the purposes for which the nation was founded, Bush violates the trust placed in him as the protector of liberty.

Name one instance of Kerry doing nothing but trying to "not step on peoples toes". The left does have things it considers offensive. Like violence towards women, and rascism. You do realize that Bush won the 2000 Republican primary in part by launching an ad campaign in the deep south that attacked McCain for having a black adopted child? I call that scary. Either Bush is a rascist, or willing to make any absurd claim necessary to win. I call Bush pushing for a religious theocracy scary. Support him all you want, but at least admit that you care more that your personal beliefs are furthered than freedom.

I think homosexual sex is a sin, i think it goes against god's plan for his creation. You know what else i think goes against god's plan? Drunkenness. But i wouldn't support a candidate that was pushing for a ban on alcohol.

Regarding the gay marriage debate, i've been talking to a lot people about this and have come to the conclusion that marriage is a religious event. Government shouldn't marry straight or gay couples. Churches should. If the government wants to get involved, it needs to act in accordance with the constitution. To give rights to one group of people and to deny them from another group is against what i interpret the US constitution to be saying. You can disagree if you like, it's definitely a growing, changing discussion.

But that's why i wouldn't support a candidate who wanted to ban gay marriage ESPECIALLY through amending the constitution, DOUBLE ESPECIALLY by the direction of an administration who has such a weak record on upholding the constitution. I think this is a debate that needs a lot more time to develop, and it's far to early to make such a final, unreasoned decision.

theBishop

"Regarding the gay marriage debate, i've been talking to a lot people about this and have come to the conclusion that marriage is a religious event. Government shouldn't marry straight or gay couples."



Oh but they do, my parents, as well as my niece and nephew's parents, were married in a court of law. Face it : marriage is a legal and religious event. I'm not saying Siegfried and Roy should be married in your church. I'm saying they should be given equal protection under the law, and that is completely constitutional.

if you are married in the u.s., it must be legal first. you then have the option of making it a religious event as well.

plain and simple, if your religion frowns on homosexual marriage, then your church is free to not practice it. but why should other churches who condone it be prohibited by law?

this country is not a christian theocracy, it is a secular democratic republic.

Add to that the increasing possibilty of sexual preference being inherent, quite possibly at the genetic level. This would mean that to ban gay marriage (as has happened here in Australia), would be similar to banning left-handed marrige.

It's a form of legalised discrimination: like racism and sexism where and it shouldn't be encouraged.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

this country is not a christian theocracy, it is a secular democratic republic.

And yet, our money bears the phrase, "In God We Trust", ironic, yes?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That's fair, and I'd agree with that, except this country is not RAN with principles like that.

If it were, we'd be running around in a perpetual state of chaos.

We need laws...rules that govern us, and set moral boundaries.

So, if you aren't going to stand up for what you morally believe is right, then you don't belong in an office that allows you to run America.

If he only stands for not stepping on people's toes, then he has no conviction, and that is SCARY.

John Q. Voter: "Hey, asshole ! That offends me !"

John F. Kerry: "Hmm...ok, lemme change it."

Susie Z. Voter: "But now that offends ME !"

John F. Kerry: "Well, then I will change it again."

See the problem with that ?

There's no stability in him. No trust in him. No faith in him.

I do understand what you mean, and I sorta agree...

I mean, its reasonable to force people to obey laws that keep society functioning.

Of course we would have chaos then.

Perhaps he morally believes it is right to allow people certain freedoms? and that <B>that</B> belief is of higher priority then other beliefs.

It is, of course, plainly obvious that Kerry is no where near as devoted to biblical doctrine as Bush is, so if that's what you want in a president - steps toward enforcing biblical law, I suppose that makes sense.

In fact, from a fundementalist christian point of view... it makes perfect sense, it should cure many of the percived ills of society.

Personally, I find homosexuallity rather disgusting, and I don't want to have anything to do with it, and I don't want to have to know about it.

(I hate to seem hypocritical, but I don't find lesbians nearly as nausiating as gay males)

But the problem I have is, there are other people who think otherwise, and who probably have certain oppinions on things that, if enforced as law, would put me behind bars. - its the matter of:

first they came for the gays, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't gay.

next the jews, but I didnt say anything cause I wasnt jewish.

then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out.



I've gone way, way, off track...

and completely lost what I was going to say. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Honestly, maybe that state leaving the union to form a christian nation WAS a good idea.

:S

Anyway, I don't think its steping on peoples toes thats his problem, its just that part of his morals may be not forcing more questionable parts of his morals on others.

thats just my 0.02c (worth a fair bit now... thanks to the Australian dollar) http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Add to that the increasing possibilty of sexual preference being inherent, quite possibly at the genetic level. This would mean that to ban gay marriage (as has happened here in Australia), would be similar to banning left-handed marrige.

It's a form of legalised discrimination: like racism and sexism where and it shouldn't be encouraged.

a preference can be inherant???

http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

And yet, our money bears the phrase, "In God We Trust", ironic, yes?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

this country is not a christian theocracy, it is a secular democratic republic.

Right. Democracy does not mean freedom.

The Republic protects your rights from democracy. It is supposed to keep christians, nazis, and other fascists from turning this country into a nationalist prison state.

The Bush administration is agressively working to undermine the republic, and centralize power. They are raping America, and destroying everything it is supposed to stand for.

As with nazi regimes of other times, anyone who criticizes them is branded unpatriotic, leftist, amoral, etc. They turn the masses in on themselves, and outward against an elusive inhuman enemy. If there isn't a convenient enemy, they will create one.

Communists yesterday. Terrorists today. And if you question the ruling party, you are siding with the invaders. You're either with us or against us. It justifies anything they want to do.

There will be more terrorist attacks. Your rights will be taken away one by one. Americans will be monitored, implanted, tortured and detained, for your protection.

The military will police your streets. Your friends will spy on you. When they arrest you, noone will know. Your trial will be secret, no jury, no judge. Your mind has been outlawed. The state will be god.

But at least it won't be liberal.