Dick Cheney of the Island
thinbluemime
If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
"Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
Be quick with your answer, because in roughly 2 weeks this will be the new
net buzz phrase.
Tastefully replacing the old buzz phrase:
"Don't Tase Me, Bro!"
Again, If you could choose one character on Lost, who would be "Dick
Cheney of the Island" ?
-----------------------
It's Just Entertainment!
Now THAT'S Entertainment!
tdciago
> If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>
> "Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
Ana-Lucia.
thinbluemime
JM
"thinbluemime" <thinbl...@tbm.com> wrote in message
news:op.t14ixtsepzlo1x@experience...
> OK, I am cheating here, really tired and need to go to bed, but....
>
> If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>
> "Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
>
>
Ryan P.
> OK, I am cheating here, really tired and need to go to bed, but....
>
> If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>
> "Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
Sawyer... a lot of people don't like him, but if you get in trouble,
he's the one that has the ability to actually SAVE your ass.
Ryan Robbins
"Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4745af12$0$2332$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I know I sleep better at night knowing that the big, bad Iraqi army never
got a chance to invade my home. I can't tell you how worried I was for that
impending invasion.
Lambda
news:71k1j.4285$Jy1.2780@trndny02...
He got one thing right, they're both con artists.
him...@animail.net
> OK, I am cheating here, really tired and need to go to bed, but....
>
> If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>
> "Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
>
> Be quick with your answer, because in roughly 2 weeks this will be the new
> net buzz phrase.
> Tastefully replacing the old buzz phrase:
> "Don't Tase Me, Bro!"
>
> Again, If you could choose one character on Lost, who would be "Dick
> Cheney of the Island" ?
Jacob. You never see him, but whatever shit is happening, he's behind
it somewhere.
Cool question, BTW.
himiko
Galloping Clippers
Galloping Clippers
Hint: we're not fighting the Iraqi army; haven't been for awhile now.
They are now fighting on our side.
Darren Delgado
He was talking about the Iraqi arsenal that was supposed to be a
threat to the US, pre-invasion, y'know, the reason they supposedly
invaded Iraq in the first place.
Of course, that was 4 years and about a dozen contradictory excuses
for the war ago, so who can keep track, really.
Darren Delgado
wrote:
Right. It's not like Cheney was in office in 2001 and failed to
prevent during the worst terrorist attack in American history, or
anything.
Ryan P.
And for bonus points, the same character for the same reason would be
a great answer to the questions "Who is the Hillary Clinton of the
Island?" :)
Ryan P.
>
> He was talking about the Iraqi arsenal that was supposed to be a
> threat to the US, pre-invasion, y'know, the reason they supposedly
> invaded Iraq in the first place.
>
> Of course, that was 4 years and about a dozen contradictory excuses
> for the war ago, so who can keep track, really.
I hope you have the same level of contempt for ALL the politicians who
change their minds about the war every other week.
If you say things like that and then say you like Hillary Clinton,
I'll lose all respect for you. :)
Lambda
Kate
Darren Delgado
wrote:
I would vote for Hillary Clinton over any of the ghoulish freaks
currently running on the Republican ticket (except maybe Ron Paul),
but that's a consquence of the outdated two-party system, not out of
any particular love for her politics. I have plenty of problems with
her as a candidate, but she would be by far the lesser of two evils.
john smith
"Galloping Clippers" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4746d366$0$26069$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Hell yeah!
Ryan Robbins
Oh, so Saddam Hussein was going to come over here on his own and attack us?
I get it now...
rob...@bestweb.net
> If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
> "Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
Hugo, of course.
Ryan P.
>
> I would vote for Hillary Clinton over any of the ghoulish freaks
> currently running on the Republican ticket (except maybe Ron Paul),
> but that's a consquence of the outdated two-party system, not out of
> any particular love for her politics. I have plenty of problems with
> her as a candidate, but she would be by far the lesser of two evils.
I am the exact opposite (surprise! :) I don't think I would
financially be able to afford any Democratic president, much less one
that wants me to pay for the health care of everyone under the sun, and
wants to reinstate the death tax.
Galloping Clippers
sport (my team vs. your team), you need a history lesson.
Galloping Clippers
Um, how do you he wasn't? He had arsenals of nerve gas and other
biological weapons he used on his own people (of course these have now
been conveniently labeled NON-WMDs; WMD is only a nuclear device.
Right.). What makes you think he wouldn't have used them on us or one
of our ME or EU allies? And if you start telling me he had nothing to
do with supporting terrorist cells throughtout the ME, including Al
Quaeda, you are very naive.
That said, Bush and co. should have either fessed up about the faulty
intelligence or just communicate directly why the war was started. The
hemming and hawing and bad management of the war will force me to
reconsider my support for Giuliani, despite his excellent record in
NYC (where I am origianally from). Though Obama and Clinton give me
nightmares, each for different reasons.
Galloping Clippers
Ditto. Rudy is best of the pack, IMO. Once again, the country must
pick between the lesser of evils rather than the best of the crop :-(
thinbluemime
<gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh, so Saddam Hussein was going to come over here on his own and
>> attack us? I get it now...
> Um, how do you he wasn't? He had arsenals of nerve gas and other
> biological weapons he used on his own people (of course these have now
> been conveniently labeled NON-WMDs; WMD is only a nuclear device.
> Right.). What makes you think he wouldn't have used them on us or one of
> our ME or EU allies? And if you start telling me he had nothing to do
> with supporting terrorist cells throughtout the ME, including Al Quaeda,
> you are very naive.
>
> That said, Bush and co. should have either fessed up about the faulty
> intelligence or just communicate directly why the war was started. The
Money-Media-Military
This ain't OPP, this is OSP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
These boys are "Naughty by Nature" :)
"Security In Perpetuity"
Ryan P.
>>
>>
> Ditto. Rudy is best of the pack, IMO. Once again, the country must pick
> between the lesser of evils rather than the best of the crop :-(
Too bad "normal" people have no chance of ever winning a major
election. Democrat or Republican, only those with big money can play.
him...@animail.net
wrote:
Bwahahahahaha. I think I'll save my breath on this one. Anyone who
still believes the Bush regime is saving money is clearly not
operating on facts. I think I'm sticking with my own conspiracy
theory that TPTB are putting something in the water supply to make
Americans dumber than other people. Makes as much sense as anything
else that's happening in what used to be a rather remarkable country.
Too bad no one much responded to TBM's original suggestion for some
analogies with the island characters. The writers do live in the same
world we do and the probability that there are political analogies on
the island is quite high. They may or may not agree with or validate
your political points of view. They can be discussed in connection
with specific (probably mostly US) political figures, or you can argue
that they may refer more generally to issues of governance,
leadership, strategy, economics, and/or social structures.
himiko
Ryan P.
>
> That said, Bush and co. should have either fessed up about the faulty
> intelligence or just communicate directly why the war was started. The
> hemming and hawing and bad management of the war will force me to
> reconsider my support for Giuliani, despite his excellent record in NYC
> (where I am origianally from). Though Obama and Clinton give me
> nightmares, each for different reasons.
I hate his politics, but at least Obama is starting to actually say
the same thing more than once. Clinton is almost become a parody of
herself with her inability to answer any direct question, and then
waffle several times in the course of her non-answer.
I know all the candidates watch the polls and word things accordingly,
but Hillary takes it to new heights.
Darren Delgado
> >news:4746d366$0$26069$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> >>JM wrote:
>
> >>>"thinbluemime" <thinbluem...@tbm.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:op.t14ixtsepzlo1x@experience...
>
> >>>>OK, I am cheating here, really tired and need to go to bed, but....
>
> >>>>If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>
> >>>>"Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
>
> >>>Ben of course. He wants power no matter how evil he has to be to get
> >>>it.
>
> >>I'm not a Bush/Cheney fan, but evil????
>
> > Hell yeah!
>
> Um, no. If you truly believe that and are not just playing political
> sport (my team vs. your team), you need a history lesson.
If you believe that no elected official can ever support or do evil
things, because they are all by-gosh earnest public servants trying to
preserve the interests of the American people, then you need a history
lesson, with a special emphasis on current events. Either that, or
maybe you have had a few too many "history lessons" in an underfunded
public school (thanks to conservatives) with propaganda textbooks from
the 1950s. Call a spade a spade, and let's stop hedging our
language. Genocide is evil. Bashing gays in between trips to the
bathhouse is evil. Shredding the Constitution is evil.
There are no "my team vs. your team" debates anymore, in any
meaningful sense of the term; Bush and his administration have
rendered that irrelevant. As we see in poll after poll, 75% of this
country, Democrats and Republicans alike, conservative and liberal,
middle-class and poor, of all races, are united in recognizing that
Bush's disastrous policies are ruining the country. His failure has
transcended normal party lines to the point where even Republicans
recognize he is an utter failure and his immoral war is hurting
America. Ironically, he truly is a uniter and not a divider. He is
the epitome of "conservative" policy, which had free rein to be
instituted for the middle four years of his term, and the conservative
ideology has been deemed a laughing stock by the people and summarily
rejected. The only people who still support his idiotic policies are
the very rich who benefit from them, and the very stupid who are
exploited by them and gleefully come back asking for seconds --
thankfully, a small minority and dwindling.
Does anyone else smell "Irag-Bush" Thread II?
Darren Delgado
wrote:
I agree. And it's also too bad that the candidate who proposed
election reform (Gore) was smeared by the right wing and had the
election stolen from him by the Supreme Court.
Darren Delgado
> On Nov 24, 1:51 am, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Darren Delgado wrote:
>
> > > I would vote for Hillary Clinton over any of the ghoulish freaks
> > > currently running on the Republican ticket (except maybe Ron Paul),
> > > but that's a consquence of the outdated two-party system, not out of
> > > any particular love for her politics. I have plenty of problems with
> > > her as a candidate, but she would be by far the lesser of two evils.
>
> > I am the exact opposite (surprise! :) I don't think I would
> > financially be able to afford any Democratic president, much less one
> > that wants me to pay for the health care of everyone under the sun, and
> > wants to reinstate the death tax.
>
> Bwahahahahaha. I think I'll save my breath on this one. Anyone who
> still believes the Bush regime is saving money is clearly not
> operating on facts. I think I'm sticking with my own conspiracy
> theory that TPTB are putting something in the water supply to make
> Americans dumber than other people. Makes as much sense as anything
> else that's happening in what used to be a rather remarkable country.
Well, let's be fair -- 75% of Americans have rejected this nonsense,
and they have done it while immersed in a media that is continually
dominated by right wing narratives, and does almost nothing to promote
the actual truth about how these people are fucking up the country.
So that means that an overwhelming majority of this country is seeking
out the facts and coming to the right conclusion on their own. And
then there is a good portion of that remaining 25% that isn't dumb,
they are just amoral and enjoy the financial benefits they get on the
backs of millions of dead foreigners and thousands of dead and wounded
soldiers.
Let's not paint with a broad brush and call all Americans dumb just
because there is a tiny minority that is stupider than a dirt clod and
actually still believes long-discredited 2002-era right wing talking
points about WMD and scaaaaaaaary health care reform.
> Too bad no one much responded to TBM's original suggestion for some
> analogies with the island characters. The writers do live in the same
> world we do and the probability that there are political analogies on
> the island is quite high. They may or may not agree with or validate
> your political points of view. They can be discussed in connection
> with specific (probably mostly US) political figures, or you can argue
> that they may refer more generally to issues of governance,
> leadership, strategy, economics, and/or social structures.
I disagree with you. With the milquetoast way Gulf War I was handled
in Sayid's flashbacks as an example, I really think the writers have
made an overt attempt to keep politics out of the themes on the show,
almost implying that the themes of the show are larger than petty
border disputes among us monkeybrains. Furthermore I think this is an
admirable stance and I prefer that interpretation than trying to read
into the show who is Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney.
Galloping Clippers
> On Nov 24, 10:54 am, Galloping Clippers <galc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>>"Galloping Clippers" <galc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4746d366$0$26069$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>>JM wrote:
>>
>>>>>"thinbluemime" <thinbluem...@tbm.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:op.t14ixtsepzlo1x@experience...
>>
>>>>>>OK, I am cheating here, really tired and need to go to bed, but....
>>
>>>>>>If you could choose one character on Lost.....who would be the:
>>
>>>>>>"Dick Cheney of the Island" ?
>>
>>>>>Ben of course. He wants power no matter how evil he has to be to get
>>>>>it.
>>
>>>>I'm not a Bush/Cheney fan, but evil????
>>
>>>Hell yeah!
>>
>>Um, no. If you truly believe that and are not just playing political
>>sport (my team vs. your team), you need a history lesson.
>
>
> If you believe that no elected official can ever support or do evil
> things, because they are all by-gosh earnest public servants trying to
> preserve the interests of the American people, then you need a history
> lesson,
Except, that's not what I said.
Galloping Clippers
:::rolling eyes:::
thinbluemime
<darren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree with you. With the milquetoast way Gulf War I was handled
> in Sayid's flashbacks as an example, I really think the writers have
> made an overt attempt to keep politics out of the themes on the show,
> almost implying that the themes of the show are larger than petty
> border disputes among us monkeybrains. Furthermore I think this is an
> admirable stance and I prefer that interpretation than trying to read
> into the show who is Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney.
Since the following must have been missed by the readers/posters of this
thread, I will post a link here, that reveals what prompted the title of
this thread. The mp3 download contains the "Official" Lozt Boyz answer to
the question, "Who is the Dick Cheney of the Island"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/2e8a353a8312e179
I believe the Lost staff have been VERY subtle in their dealings with
political issues. After all, the theme of Lost is "Live Together, Die
Alone".
Though it may appear tangential to the discussion, I will include one more
link, in loving memory of a past President and his ideals.
"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can
succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker
Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And
that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only
business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-
-not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and
the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to
inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities,
to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and
sometimes even anger public opinion."
"It's NEVER Just Entertainment" God Bless The Lozt Boyz!!!!!!
him...@animail.net
> Well, let's be fair -- 75% of Americans have rejected this nonsense,
> and they have done it while immersed in a media that is continually
> dominated by right wing narratives, and does almost nothing to promote
> the actual truth about how these people are fucking up the country.
> So that means that an overwhelming majority of this country is seeking
> out the facts and coming to the right conclusion on their own.
Took them long enough. After all, this is the age of the Internet.
There really is no excuse for being at the mercy of the U.S. media
this way. OTOH, the failure to at least check out the foreign press
might be charged up to poor education and ignorance rather than
stupidity. It's often hard to tell the difference. But the fact that
a thing like Bush could be almost elected twice is very disheartening.
> And
> then there is a good portion of that remaining 25% that isn't dumb,
> they are just amoral and enjoy the financial benefits they get on the
> backs of millions of dead foreigners and thousands of dead and wounded
> soldiers.
OK, I'll buy that although I don't think those reaping the benefits is
anywhere near as high as 25%. 5% would probably be too high. Of
course, there are many more who think they will benefit, but then I
think we're discussing stupidity again. (And in case you're
wondering: no, I don't really believe in my "something in the water"
theory; it's just the result of frustration.)
> > Too bad no one much responded to TBM's original suggestion for some
> > analogies with the island characters. The writers do live in the same
> > world we do and the probability that there are political analogies on
> > the island is quite high. They may or may not agree with or validate
> > your political points of view. They can be discussed in connection
> > with specific (probably mostly US) political figures, or you can argue
> > that they may refer more generally to issues of governance,
> > leadership, strategy, economics, and/or social structures.
>
> I disagree with you. With the milquetoast way Gulf War I was handled
> in Sayid's flashbacks as an example, I really think the writers have
> made an overt attempt to keep politics out of the themes on the show,
Yes, but that's one of the things that drew me to this show in the
first place. Sadly, I think the success of the show mitigated against
the writers dealing with real life issues with any depth at all. A
less popular show might have let them get away with more...less to
lose. But Sayid's story isn't an analogy. It's a fictional comment
on real events. The conflict among idealistic but ineffective Jack,
untrustworthy but often quite effective Sawyer, and the lunatic but
charismatic Locke OTOH, might well reference any number of candidates
on both sides of the American election battle. The whole reason v.
logic was also a good idea that related rather directly to
contemporary issues in the U.S. as well as more generally. It didn't
develop too well and eventually milquetoasted out too...possibly to
avoid offending anyone. We have, from time to time, discussed the
whole question of leadership too.
> almost implying that the themes of the show are larger than petty
> border disputes among us monkeybrains. Furthermore I think this is an
> admirable stance and I prefer that interpretation than trying to read
> into the show who is Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney.
I don't agree. I'd love to see some show actually address the issues
of out day in an allegorical or metaphorical way. I think Lost did
have that in mind when it started, but by now that approach has pretty
much been jettisoned (if it was really there) in favor of more generic
adventure/mystery. I also think that many larger themes inevitably
evoke real life analogies and that writers are more prone to deal with
those, consciously or not, depending on the world they are living in.
Puppet regimes and shadow governments operating through quasi-religous
pronouncements are, after all, pretty common down through history and
tell us some things that are pretty basic about ourselves. And maybe
the writers were thinking of some specific Ottoman Grand Vizier when
they wrote Jacob, but I doubt it.
(I doubt Hillary will make any appearance unless she appears as a
man...which could happen; analogies don't have to be that literal.
But this show unfortunately just doesn't do good female characters and
that's all there is to it.)
himiko
Moyra J. Bligh
not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
JM
The Iraqi army was never a threat so why would anyone lose sleep?
No One
It is quite amazing. Bill was so slicked and polished that his non
answers and waffling got an easy pass. Hillary looks as lost as Dan
Quayle spelling potato.
No One
Except the facts do not support you. I am sorry that reality gets the
best of you.
No One
Bush is no Conversative and he is barely a Republican. If he was, he
would not let Ted Kennedy write a disastrous education bill and he would
not been spending like a drunken sailor. His most outspoken critics
during his first term were Conversatives, especially the pundits.
No One
Nice strawman you have constructed.
tdciago
> Since the following must have been missed by the readers/posters of this �
> thread, I will post a link here, that reveals what prompted the title of �
> this thread. The mp3 download contains the "Official" Lozt Boyz answer to �
> the question, "Who is the Dick Cheney of the Island"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/2e8a353a8312e179
How dare you interrupt this political bickering to bring the thread
back on topic?!
:)
I just can't see the island's VP being called Dick, especially for
hundreds and hundreds of years. Richard sounds much more dignified.
thinbluemime
> How dare you interrupt this political bickering to bring the thread
> back on topic?!
> :)
>
> I just can't see the island's VP being called Dick, especially for
> hundreds and hundreds of years. Richard sounds much more dignified.
I was just so curious to see what the posters would say in reguards to the
question, I hated to interrupt with any "facts", LOL
Nixon and Cheney.....so little time, so many Dick jokes (sorry :)
Ryan Robbins
You're an idiot. The Iraqi military wasn't capable of attacking the United
States and had made no threats to attack the United States. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that Hussein had any connections with the terrorists
responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. I have to say, I am
flabbergasted that anyone would insist that there was a connection and that
anyone would insist that we did find "weapons of mass destruction," but they
were labeled something else.
Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? Wow.
> That said, Bush and co. should have either fessed up about the faulty
> intelligence or just communicate directly why the war was started.
Hm. Now you acknowledge faulty intelligence. But in the preceding paragraph
you claim that there were WMDs but they were labeled something else.
Galloping Clippers
When "discussion" descends (apparently from necessity) into ad hominem
remarks...
PLONK
Galloping Clippers
> Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? Wow.
No, I'm someone who read the bi-partisan 9/11 report. Give it a try.
Ryan Robbins
> Ryan Robbins wrote:
>
>
>> Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? Wow.
>
> No, I'm someone who read the bi-partisan 9/11 report. Give it a try.
I have, and I still have my copy. Apparently your reading comprehension
skills aren't that good, or you would know there is no evidence that Hussein
had any relations with bin Laden and his cronies.
TheNewsGuy(Mike)
> ...there is no evidence that Hussein
> had any relations with bin Laden and his cronies.
In fact if they read world news they would know that bin Laden saw
Hussein as an enemy of radical Islam because Iraq was more a progressive
secular state than a religious one, under his rule. Saddam did repress
the Shia population but that was to gain political power not to advance
any fundamental Sunni religious cause. bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein
to be overthrown by more radical Sunni forces.
Galloping Clippers
He was still a supporter or terrorism against the West.
s0183616
Even if one were to concede that (and that's quite a statement to
concede), why aren't we invading all the other countries that support
terrorism against the West? Well? Why?
Ryan Robbins
Hussein may have had ill will toward us, but I have seen nothing that says
he sponsored or otherwise had anything to do with terrorist attacks against
us.
Galloping Clippers
Because the terrorists are converging in Iraq - ants to a picnic. Not
such a dumb idea.
s0183616
Well, yeah, we made Iraq a terrorist factory. Glad we get to give all
the real terrorist companies a pass because of that.
Why did we pick Iraq initially, though? Oh, yeah, because our president
had a hard-on for killing Saddam. Rather than actually going after
countries that are concretely supporting terrorism because they aren't
our main "enemies".
No One
Please do not confuse those who would put their heads in the sand and
think all the bad people will just go away with anything factual. I do
wish the US would either put up or shut up in regard to pursuing these
terrorist assholes like the Mossad pursued the Nazi assholes at the end
of WW II.
No One
Lack of will.
Ryan P.
>>
>>
>> Even if one were to concede that (and that's quite a statement to
>> concede), why aren't we invading all the other countries that support
>> terrorism against the West? Well? Why?
>
> Lack of will.
I'll agree with that. Unfortunately, most Westerners don't have the
will to actually engage in a real war, even if it were completely
justified. Anything that lasts more than 5 minutes is too scary.
TheNewsGuy(Mike)
Other than paying rewards to Palestinian families of suicide bombers
killing Israelis, name what terrorism against the West he supported!
Galloping Clippers
> Galloping Clippers wrote:
>
>> s0183616 wrote:
>>
>>> Galloping Clippers wrote:
>>>
>>>> TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ryan Robbins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...there is no evidence that Hussein
>>>>>> had any relations with bin Laden and his cronies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact if they read world news they would know that bin Laden saw
>>>>> Hussein as an enemy of radical Islam because Iraq was more a
>>>>> progressive secular state than a religious one, under his rule.
>>>>> Saddam did repress the Shia population but that was to gain
>>>>> political power not to advance any fundamental Sunni religious
>>>>> cause. bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein to be overthrown by more
>>>>> radical Sunni forces.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was still a supporter or terrorism against the West.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if one were to concede that (and that's quite a statement to
>>> concede), why aren't we invading all the other countries that support
>>> terrorism against the West? Well? Why?
>>
>>
>> Because the terrorists are converging in Iraq - ants to a picnic. Not
>> such a dumb idea.
>
>
> Well, yeah, we made Iraq a terrorist factory. Glad we get to give all
> the real terrorist companies a pass because of that.
Not very logical, that statement.
>
> Why did we pick Iraq initially, though? Oh, yeah, because our president
> had a hard-on for killing Saddam.
When peolple start taling like this, the discussion is over.
JM
"TheNewsGuy(Mike)" <tnguym...@yaho.com> wrote in message
news:20760$474aba9a$cf704427$67...@PRIMUS.CA...
know why Bush/Cheney never went after the worst one, but instead said, "I
don't care where he is".
JM
Then go for the mound, not the picnic table.
Ryan P.
>
> Then go for the mound, not the picnic table.
>
>
And what about the ants that are already ruining lunch?
Ryan P.
>>
> There are many supporters of terrorism against the West. I still don't
> know why Bush/Cheney never went after the worst one, but instead said, "I
> don't care where he is".
>
>
And when operatives had the chance to take out Osama bin Laden and
Clinton said no, was that Bush/Cheney's fault as well?
him...@animail.net
wrote:
You say that as if it's a bad thing. It isn't if the war is
pointless, ineffective, and/or making things worse. Then 5 minutes is
too long. No minutes would be better. If you've been stupid enough
to get into such a war, then the best thing to do is admit you made a
boo-boo, apologise profusely, and get out as rapidly as possible
picking up as many pieces as possible as you go. That means at
minimum, tending to refugees you have created and providing for
reconstruction. As for Westerners, the Americans at least have proved
many times that they have major lasting power. Unfortunately, it's
seldom accompanied by common sense or humanity.
himiko
Ryan Robbins
Clinton's hesitations were from not wanting to kill innocent people in the
area, or what the Bush administration likes to call "collateral damage."
Ryan P.
>
>
> You say that as if it's a bad thing. It isn't if the war is
> pointless, ineffective, and/or making things worse. Then 5 minutes is
> too long. No minutes would be better. If you've been stupid enough
> to get into such a war, then the best thing to do is admit you made a
> boo-boo, apologise profusely, and get out as rapidly as possible
> picking up as many pieces as possible as you go. That means at
> minimum, tending to refugees you have created and providing for
> reconstruction. As for Westerners, the Americans at least have proved
> many times that they have major lasting power. Unfortunately, it's
> seldom accompanied by common sense or humanity.
I wasn't referring specifically to this war. Doing so is pointless,
because everybody already has a preconceived opinion, and I will not
change your mind, and you will not change mine. At least we can
disagree without resorting to name-calling, unlike others in the thread.
As for humanity, the American military, and western militaries in
general, are far more humane and accountable than just about any other
out there. How many soldiers from the Congo are brought up on charges
for raping women? How many Chinese soldiers are sent to prison for
human rights violations?
Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn
it over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
THAT is what the public doesn't have the stomach for.
And before somebody takes offense to the term "the right way," I'm
just using it in a general way, and not to say that "Soviet control over
the Ukraine was the right way to govern," or anything of the sort.
Ryan Robbins
> Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
> territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn it
> over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
And just who the hell are we to determine what the "right way" to govern is?
We have no right to cram our beliefs down others' throats by force.
s0183616
Bullshit. If we were, say, invaded, we would do whatever had to happen.
But it's really unlikely that there will be a justified war that
actually happens. We're scared of the countries that are actually
threats and we can destroy the other ones with embargoes and other shit.
s0183616
You don't think that is true?
Bill Taylor
If you MUST talk OT about the Iraq invasion, everyone's been missing
the chief point.
Iraq was under obligation (as a result of its previous aggression),
to the UN and the international community in general,
to ALLOW UN INSPECTORS FREE ACCESS to
investigate any site they deemed a possible threat.
Regardless of whatever lack of sovereignty
or humiliations that might entail.
Saddam specifically, unilaterally renounced this.
It is irrelevant what evidence or lack of it there was,
irrelevant whether oil or power or hate were the motivations.
There is one inconrovertible fact that no-one disputes.
He abrogated his requirement to allow free inspections.
From that day on, he was doomed.
----------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
----------------------------------------------
Every nation ridicules other nations, and they are all right.
----------------------------------------------
Ryan P.
As I said in the last sentence, the one you snipped from the quote, I
was using the term generically, and not referring to any specific war.
It was a description of how to win a war without being mired in endless
"police" actions.
But since you brought it up, let's look at a sample list of countries
and organizations that "cram their believes down others' throats by
force:" China, Cuba, most Muslim nations, Russia up until the USSR
fell, Germany until they lost WWII, French revolutionists, American
revolutionists, etc...
So lets try this again... Complete occupation and control is the only
way to WIN a war, whether you're the "good guy" or "bad guy."
Ryan P.
Actually, its terminology that everyone has used since the Ford
administration. Not EVERYTHING you don't like is Bush's fault.
Ryan P.
>
> Bullshit. If we were, say, invaded, we would do whatever had to happen.
>
> But it's really unlikely that there will be a justified war that
> actually happens. We're scared of the countries that are actually
> threats and we can destroy the other ones with embargoes and other shit.
Invasion is a completely different circumstance. If the populace
generally likes its way of life, they will do everything they can to
resist the invaders, be it an underground resistance (like the French)
or mass enlistings into the standing army.
And I agree... we are scared of countries that are actual threats.
But I don't think its because we can't "beat" them. I think the
politicians are more afraid of the polling results back home than the
military aspect.
I'm not saying it'd be easy (or even a good idea!) to destroy China
(for example), merely that we have the ability to "win" an all-out war.
At least at this point in time... 10 years from now, when we've given
up what's left of our manufacturing capabilities to other countries
because of the labor costs... it'd be a crap shoot.
James Squire
> Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
> territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn
> it over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
> THAT is what the public doesn't have the stomach for.
Actually, that is the perfect way to lose a war, as American history has
clearly shown.
--
Jim Squire
This Blog Has No Title, Just Words and Links
http://jamessquire.blogspot.com/
Lois Maxwell, who starred as Miss Moneypenny in 14 James Bond movies,
has died, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported Sunday. She was 80.
R.I.P., Miss Moneypenny, 1927-2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kerry made a joke about Bush being a moron, and now Bush wants morons
to think it was a joke about the troops."
-- Bill Maher
Darren Delgado
Why not?! That's DEMOCRACY!
Darren Delgado
wrote:
> Children, children!
>
> If you MUST talk OT about the Iraq invasion, everyone's been missing
> the chief point.
>
> Iraq was under obligation (as a result of its previous aggression),
> to the UN and the international community in general,
> to ALLOW UN INSPECTORS FREE ACCESS to
> investigate any site they deemed a possible threat.
> Regardless of whatever lack of sovereignty
> or humiliations that might entail.
>
> Saddam specifically, unilaterally renounced this.
Bullshit.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/
"Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:26 AM EDT (0726 GMT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations
on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons
inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still
possesses weapons of mass destruction." "
In December of 2002, these inspectors (who were in Iraq, despite not
being allowed in) discovered that Iraq was found to be in possession
of several al-Samoud missiles whose range exceeded the limit allowed
by the UN. These were reported to the UN (by the non-present
inspectors who were not allowed in) and the destruction of these
missiles was underway in February of 2003 (but interrupted by the
beginning of the US invasion, which occurred, I just learned, because
the inspectors who were in Iraq and found these missiles, were not
allowed into Iraq).
This is just a tip for future reference for Usenet political trolling:
evasive language manipulation is usually considered better etiquette
than outright lying.
> It is irrelevant what evidence or lack of it there was,
> irrelevant whether oil or power or hate were the motivations.
> There is one inconrovertible fact that no-one disputes.
>
> He abrogated his requirement to allow free inspections.
Bullshit. (See above.)
Darren Delgado
This is one thing that I think Bush and his ilk have succeeded at:
spinning the "politeness" angle. They have manipulated the political
discourse into such a position that it's OK to advocate heinous things
like torture, revoking of civil liberties, eroding the constitution,
racism, gaybashing, etc. But if someone points out that their
policies are heinous, they are being incredibly rude and childishly
partisan. In other words, people should be cowed into not actually
being honest about what these people are up to. You'll notice that
disgusting depraved things that come from the right are often laughed
off as jokes, but valid criticisms of the Bush administration from the
left get these tools worked up into a lather.
Bush's track record is heinous. Pointing out that it is heinous is
not being childish or illogical; it needs to be said. In fact, the
Democrats were swept into office because people desperately wanted
someone to stand in opposition to these fuckers politically, and now
they are polling poorly because they are basically caving on
everything the Republicans want. Call a spade a spade and stop
couching your language: evil is evil.
Ryan Robbins
> Ryan Robbins wrote:
>> "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:474b65b4$0$19657$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
>>> territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn
>>> it over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
>>
>> And just who the hell are we to determine what the "right way" to govern
>> is? We have no right to cram our beliefs down others' throats by force.
>
> As I said in the last sentence, the one you snipped from the quote, I was
> using the term generically, and not referring to any specific war. It was
> a description of how to win a war without being mired in endless "police"
> actions.
But what is the "right way" to govern?
> But since you brought it up, let's look at a sample list of countries and
> organizations that "cram their believes down others' throats by force:"
> China, Cuba, most Muslim nations, Russia up until the USSR fell, Germany
> until they lost WWII, French revolutionists, American revolutionists,
> etc...
Successful change has to come from within. We have seen this with the
transformation of the Soviet Unon and West Germany. We will not see this
happen in Iraq as long as we are there.
No One
> Ryan P. wrote:
>
>> Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
>> territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn
>> it over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
>> THAT is what the public doesn't have the stomach for.
>
>
> Actually, that is the perfect way to lose a war, as American history has
> clearly shown.
Yeah. Look at WW II. America lost that one using those tactics.
No One
Incorrect, please try again.
thinbluemime
<darren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Iraq was under obligation (as a result of its previous aggression),
>> to the UN and the international community in general,
>> to ALLOW UN INSPECTORS FREE ACCESS to
>> investigate any site they deemed a possible threat.
>> Regardless of whatever lack of sovereignty
>> or humiliations that might entail.
>>
>> Saddam specifically, unilaterally renounced this.
> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/
> "Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
> September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:26 AM EDT (0726 GMT)
> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations
> on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons
> inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still
> possesses weapons of mass destruction." "
>
> In December of 2002, these inspectors (who were in Iraq, despite not
> being allowed in) discovered that Iraq was found to be in possession
> of several al-Samoud missiles whose range exceeded the limit allowed
> by the UN. These were reported to the UN (by the non-present
> inspectors who were not allowed in) and the destruction of these
> missiles was underway in February of 2003 (but interrupted by the
> beginning of the US invasion, which occurred, I just learned, because
> the inspectors who were in Iraq and found these missiles, were not
> allowed into Iraq).
"The Ruth Is Out There"
David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6213898.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
"Because if I told you the ruth you wouldn't come."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=officeOfSpecialPlans
Scary? Oh, "We" are just getting started.... Now "We" have plans for Iran,
headed by the same "intelligence" group.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6108983
Can 18 people (now only 5) influence events in such a way as to involve
the whole world in a global conflict?
Ryan P.
> Scary? Oh, "We" are just getting started.... Now "We" have plans for
> Iran, headed by the same "intelligence" group.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6108983
The funny thing is, many people in this very thread will love that NPR
report, but yet they've used the "we should be in Iran, not Iraq"
argument in this discussion.
Galloping Clippers
Of course not. That is just a media packaged glass of Kool Aid that
myopic sheeple swallow.
Ryan P.
>
> This is one thing that I think Bush and his ilk have succeeded at:
> spinning the "politeness" angle. They have manipulated the political
> discourse into such a position that it's OK to advocate heinous things
> like torture, revoking of civil liberties, eroding the constitution,
> racism, gaybashing, etc. But if someone points out that their
> policies are heinous, they are being incredibly rude and childishly
> partisan. In other words, people should be cowed into not actually
> being honest about what these people are up to. You'll notice that
> disgusting depraved things that come from the right are often laughed
> off as jokes, but valid criticisms of the Bush administration from the
> left get these tools worked up into a lather.
"Disgusting and depraved" is all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Last I heard, it was Democrat leaders in Congress that were calling
those who support Bush warmongering racist baby killers.
Democrat leaders are the ones saying our military is worse than the
Third Reich. Liberal whackos get airtime and are invited to college
universities to speak about how it was the Israeli special forces that
really blew up the twin towers, and everybody who was killed deserved it.
But yet anybody who disagrees with YOUR viewpoint (Bush is evil), is
shouted down as intolerant. Nice.
The Democrats at any time could submit a bill to withdraw all funding
for the war and in effect force the return of all our troops. Do you
know why they don't do it? Its not because they don't have enough
votes, its because they know the voters in their districts will kick
them out on their ass in the next election.
Believe me, if they thought 80% of the likely voters REALLY wanted an
immediately unconditional end to the war, Senate and House, both
parties, would follow through in a second.
thinbluemime
"truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Shulsky
Abram Shulsky is mentioned in the NPR broadcast.
All I will say at this point is "Watch the West Bank", and I am not
talking about the facility where you keep your life savings, LOL.
"Does Heaven really need a sonar fence to keep out the hostiles?"
Ryan P.
>
> But what is the "right way" to govern?
Good question. I wish there were some galactic text book answer. :)
The only real way to answer is to say the "right way" is whatever way
makes the majority of the citizens happy and productive.
Totalitarian theocracies are an effective way to govern, certainly. I
wouldn't call citizens who fear for their lives happy though.
>
>> But since you brought it up, let's look at a sample list of countries and
>> organizations that "cram their believes down others' throats by force:"
>> China, Cuba, most Muslim nations, Russia up until the USSR fell, Germany
>> until they lost WWII, French revolutionists, American revolutionists,
>> etc...
>
> Successful change has to come from within. We have seen this with the
> transformation of the Soviet Unon and West Germany. We will not see this
> happen in Iraq as long as we are there.
True... but its a catch 22, I think. Being as objective as I can, the
only time there is ever "peace" in a fundamentalist Muslim nation is
when its under the control of an authoritarian government. The real
question in my mind that effects my opinion of the whole idea of Iraq
and Afghanistan is: Are fundamentalist Muslims capable of peaceful self
government, or do they require a King, Warlord, or Warpriest to dictate
their life to them?
Ryan P.
> Ryan P. wrote:
>
>> Getting back to my point... the only way to WIN a war is to occupy
>> territory and take over administration of the land, and gradually turn
>> it over to the locals after they've learned to govern "the right way."
>> THAT is what the public doesn't have the stomach for.
>
> Actually, that is the perfect way to lose a war, as American history has
> clearly shown.
Explain WWI and WWII? The American Civil War? All were fought with a
clear objective of replacing the existing government.
The only actions we've lost are the ones in which we limited our
involvement to miltary battles. Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, for example.
If you don't take control of the government, you don't win.
Ryan Robbins
"No One" <aint...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:b5ct15-...@gandalf.greycorner.com...
Read the 9/11 Commission report.
Galloping Clippers
> Darren Delgado wrote:
>
>>
>> This is one thing that I think Bush and his ilk have succeeded at:
>> spinning the "politeness" angle. They have manipulated the political
>> discourse into such a position that it's OK to advocate heinous things
>> like torture, revoking of civil liberties, eroding the constitution,
>> racism, gaybashing, etc. But if someone points out that their
>> policies are heinous, they are being incredibly rude and childishly
>> partisan. In other words, people should be cowed into not actually
>> being honest about what these people are up to. You'll notice that
>> disgusting depraved things that come from the right are often laughed
>> off as jokes, but valid criticisms of the Bush administration from the
>> left get these tools worked up into a lather.
>
>
>
>
> "Disgusting and depraved" is all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
> Last I heard, it was Democrat leaders in Congress that were calling
> those who support Bush warmongering racist baby killers.
>
> Democrat leaders are the ones saying our military is worse than the
> Third Reich. Liberal whackos get airtime and are invited to college
> universities to speak about how it was the Israeli special forces that
> really blew up the twin towers, and everybody who was killed deserved it.
>
> But yet anybody who disagrees with YOUR viewpoint (Bush is evil), is
> shouted down as intolerant. Nice.
Bravo.
I am not really a fan of Bush's but this intolerant leftist fascism
has to stop.
him...@animail.net
wrote:
> Explain WWI and WWII? The American Civil War? All were fought with a
> clear objective of replacing the existing government.
How? The Civil War was about stopping the South from establishing its
own government; might qualify as replacement, I guess, but hardly
relevant to what's happening today. WWI? Doesn't seem to have been
about much of anything except squabbling monarchs and poorly written
treaties. WWII was simply about stopping a threat...a threat caused
by some nations deciding they should replace other people's
governments with their own.
Stopping something bad from happening is pretty much the best you can
do with military force. Sometimes that's enough. But military force
can't do anything active about shaping events...or rather, when they
try, that's when we get into trouble.
> The only actions we've lost are the ones in which we limited our
> involvement to miltary battles. Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, for example.
> If you don't take control of the government, you don't win.
Win what? That's the problem. It's not a military problem although
our (U.S.) moron-in-chief seems to have turned it over to them. The
military focuses on winning through dominating an area and/or beating
back an enemy. That's OK. It's their job to think that way. It's a
very narrow, short-sighted view, but then, they're only supposed to be
one part of a larger, civilian-led entity that has a larger and
hopefully well thought out plan. Our problem in all the situations
you describe and in our current wars in the Middle East isn't limiting
the military, it's the lack of a realistic plan for after a military
victory, a plan based on an accurate assessment of the situation. If
we don't have that, and sometimes there really is no possibility of
such a plan (I honestly don't think there was in Somalia; the
Ethiopians hung in there and are now part of the problem), then the
best thing is not to try a military solution. Try something else.
And if you goof up and send troops into an impossible situation, pull
them back out ASAP.
The military can't do everything and in most cases, can't do anything
useful. They do have their uses: defense mostly, and occasionally
stopping atrocities elsewhere. But that's not victory. That's just a
successful military action. Victories, real victories, are far more
complex than that, and are a matter for diplomats and civilian
groups. We need to cure ourselves of this belief that a military
action is the best possible way to approach serious problems...or any
sort of way at all in most cases.
himiko
s0183616
I thought it back when everyone was gung-ho for the war. You know, not
everyone is a sheep (and there are tons more sheep, IMO, with Bush than
against him).
No One
> On Nov 27, 8:01 am, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Explain WWI and WWII? The American Civil War? All were fought with a
>>clear objective of replacing the existing government.
>
>
> How? The Civil War was about stopping the South from establishing its
> own government; might qualify as replacement, I guess, but hardly
> relevant to what's happening today. WWI? Doesn't seem to have been
> about much of anything except squabbling monarchs and poorly written
> treaties. WWII was simply about stopping a threat...a threat caused
> by some nations deciding they should replace other people's
> governments with their own.
>
> Stopping something bad from happening is pretty much the best you can
> do with military force. Sometimes that's enough. But military force
> can't do anything active about shaping events...or rather, when they
> try, that's when we get into trouble.
Military action is about stopping what the diplomats have started.
him...@animail.net
> > Of course not. That is just a media packaged glass of Kool Aid that
> > myopic sheeple swallow.
>
> I thought it back when everyone was gung-ho for the war.
There was never a time when everyone was gung-ho for the war. It only
looked that way because the US media, terrified of being labeled
"unpatriotic," didn't cover the many, many protests that preceded it.
Many people, me included, pointed out in advance that Afghanistan was
no way to respond to 9/11 and Iraq was total nincompoopery. We turned
out in large demonstrations that were never even covered. One
reporter (OK, it was one of Fox's idiots) even stated outright that he
wasn't going to cover such things because "those people just want
attention."
The US media later sort of realized how badly they had failed, and a
few are even still trying to figure out what went wrong with an eye to
not having it happen again, but these are few and far between.
Personally, I think the media is just one more part of the American
political process that is completely broken. Very sad, but still no
excuse for not keeping track of what's going on. Other media are out
there and they have never been easier to access.
himiko
thinbluemime
> Personally, I think the media is just one more part of the American
> political process that is completely broken. Very sad, but still no
> himiko
Yes, the major news sources are terribly biased and "broken". Media
consolidation into the hands of a few corporations has exacerbated this
brokeness. In an earlier post, quoting JFK, "independent and free" people
are aided by the assistance of the media.
As the press/media consolidates, the freedom of the American people
diminish. Why? Because it stiffles debate and discussion.
Thank god for the internet. I have not bought a local paper in over ten
years due to it's biased opinions, and political recommendations. I won't
even say which way it leans, to the left or the right. But it is so bad,
that recently, in an attempt to bump up new subscribers, by giving away 3
months free, I refused the offer.
When asked why the refusal, I bluntly but politely replied, "Your
newspaper is to.... (you fill in the blank) biased-liberal-conservative"
Again, censorship of the media in a democracy is most effective when it is
done by the citizens.
Turn off, tune out, and drop in...to a lively debate to discuss the issues
that determine the future of the greatest republic ever formed.
Lambda
news:op.t2ib8iv1pzlo1x@experience...
This is not aimed at you directly, but to the entire thread. Just not sure
where to place it.
I agree wholeheartedly and to add that in my opinion the terrorists have
already taken over this country completely. After 9/11, this country should
have united to fight against a common threat, but instead there is nothing
but petty bickering from the left and the right to the point that we cant
even agree to disagree!!! This is exactly what the terrorists want and they
have got it.
I have recently changed political parties to NO PARTY. I don't mean
Independent, as that's a party, but that check box on the voter registration
that says "Decline to State". I am a party of one...me. All the parties have
lost their f*ck$ing mind in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
Ryan Robbins
> newspaper is to.... (you fill in the blank) biased-liberal-conservative"
And I bet if you had been challenged to give examples, you would have been
at a loss for words.
It cracks me up when people treat the news media as a single entity, as
though journalists attend secret meetings and vote on how each outlet --
newspaper, radio, television, and the Web -- is going to cover a particular
issue. Sorry, but there are no secret meetings on how reporters are going to
screw over the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Nor is there any
litmus test for becoming a journalist.
It also cracks me up when people claim that the news media aren't reporting
the truth. In reality, you just don't like the truth, or you don't like that
the news media won't promote what you believe to be true at the expense of
someone else's viewpoint of what the truth is.
thinbluemime
wrote:
Ryan, I am never at a loss for words. And if the newspaper wanted
examples, I could have given them a hundred.
You and I seem to be of a similar mind when it comes to the war in Iraq.
On that we seem to agree. And I don't mind discussing politics, as long as
we can limit it to one or two threads that doesn't disturb the main topic
of this forum (LOST)
Where I have a problem in any discussion though, is when the discussion
gets petty, with demeaning name calling. Your past history in this forum
has demonstrated to me that discussion is not the issue, but how big are
your kahunas.
Any readers that doubt what I am saying, just do a google group search.
With that said, I choose not to discuss with you any issue. I plonked you
long ago to avoid the frustration. As a courtesy, I have temporarily
suspended that plonk to let you and other readers know why my response is
abbreviated.
And see, I didn't have a shortage of words.
Finally, you may have the LAST word here, with wishes of godspeed, where
ever you are headed. :)
him...@animail.net
> "thinbluemime" <thinbluem...@tbm.com> wrote in message
> > Yes, the major news sources are terribly biased and "broken". Media
> > consolidation into the hands of a few corporations has exacerbated this
> > brokeness. In an earlier post, quoting JFK, "independent and free" people
> > are aided by the assistance of the media.
>
> > As the press/media consolidates, the freedom of the American people
> > diminish. Why? Because it stiffles debate and discussion.
>
> > Thank god for the internet. I have not bought a local paper in over ten
> > years due to it's biased opinions, and political recommendations. I won't
> > even say which way it leans, to the left or the right. But it is so bad,
> > that recently, in an attempt to bump up new subscribers, by giving away 3
> > months free, I refused the offer.
At least you are still reading your news. I think this is important.
Visual media, I.E. TV, goes for what makes a spectacular shot
regardless of whether or not it is important or revealing. Talking
heads representing different views do not make good visual news unless
they are screaming at each other or otherwise doing the verbal
equivalent of a car chase or fight scene. And that's when TV news
isn't deliberately setting an agenda. These days they make little
difference between commentary and news broadcasting, and even use
background music to spin the emotional impact of what they're
showing...and it nearly always panders to the lowest common
denominator. Written news at least provides some distance so you can
think about what you're reading. It also allows for more
information...doesn't mean you'll get it, but they do add the details
at the end.
>
> > When asked why the refusal, I bluntly but politely replied, "Your
> > newspaper is to.... (you fill in the blank) biased-liberal-conservative"
>
> > Again, censorship of the media in a democracy is most effective when it is
> > done by the citizens.
Yes, but assuring that is difficult especially when so much money and
salesmanship is involved. It seems like we have a choice between news
that is controlled by money and news that is controlled by political
force. But, as you say, we now have more choices.
> I agree wholeheartedly and to add that in my opinion the terrorists have
> already taken over this country completely. After 9/11, this country should
> have united to fight against a common threat, but instead there is nothing
> but petty bickering from the left and the right to the point that we cant
> even agree to disagree!!! This is exactly what the terrorists want and they
> have got it.
The country did pull together, or at least a lot of people and almost
all the media did. There was pathetically little "bickering" or
questioning or even thinking. And virtually no reporting that wasn't
"Rah, rah, rally behind the president." That's how and why the
terrorists won. Without discussion and without asking, our imperial
president took away the civil rights that made us a democracy,
declared at least one war (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the
attack, declared another (Afghanistan) that was at best tangential,
and insulted and alienated any and everyone who tried to suggest
better solutions to this latest round of international terrorism.
What we needed wasn't the country pulling together, but the world
pulling together, and we could have had. The US got a lot of sympathy
out of the 9/11 attack. A half-way competant president could have
parlayed that into a powerful union to combat religious extremists of
all stripes who resort to violence of this sort. But that kind of
union didn't involve large numbers of things that go bang or
opportunities for Georgie-boy to prance about in his tailored
uniformette, playing tin soldiers with real people.
himiko
him...@animail.net
> It also cracks me up when people claim that the news media aren't reporting
> the truth. In reality, you just don't like the truth, or you don't like that
> the news media won't promote what you believe to be true at the expense of
> someone else's viewpoint of what the truth is.
When the local media in a small city (pop. about 1 million) fails to
even mention that about 30,000 people turned out in person to express
their concerns about an important matter like an impending invasion of
another country, that's failing to tell the truth. Period.
himiko
Lambda
news:56552377-90e5-4076...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yes I completely agree, but I am trying to not point fingers at the
person(s) who screwed up when this country did have it together *cough*
BUSH, but rather state that its time to make an attempt to work together as
a country and a planet. Yes you are very correct that the world was on our
side until we went into Iraq. I had no problem with us going into
Afghanistan as that was where bin Laden and a large number of those
responsible for 9/11 were located and the world was still behind us at that
time, but then we end up in Iraq and that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Even if its true that he had WMD and was a terrorist and had links to
terrorist activities, wouldn't it make more sense to go after bin Laden and
those directly, key word directly, responsible for 9/11 and THEN maybe after
we get justice for 9/11 consider other things?
No matter how you cut it dice it or slice it, the one responsible for 9/11
is still a free man and I do not see any efforts from this administration to
bring TRUE justice to those responsible for 9/11 by going after bin Laden
once again.
I don't think I have heard the name bib Laden on the news in over a year,
only recently when bin Laden sent a new message, then after about a week,
that name vanishes from the media once again and we go back to Iraq.
If Bush decided to actually go after bin Laden again, I might be more
sympathetic to this administration, but since they decided to let bin Laden
go free and give up the search for him, I have nothing but disappointment
for this current administration.
Richard DeLuca
<b8196f40-b7dc-4776...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
One million people a small city? And the media didn't cover a
30,000-person rally? My guess is that you must have missed it somehow.
I wonder what percentage of Americans live in cities of a million or
more?
Ryan Robbins
Short answer: You can't come up with any examples, at least none that would
stand up to scrutiny.