If the O'Riley thing wasn't bad enough,Follow

Taber. The problem you are having is that you seem to be unable to recognize what a sotry is about.



Simple. The *story* was about the fact that the Muslim community is sharply divided over which candidate to endorse. So much so that one of the 10 gropus that make up the AMT broke away from the group over the decision.

How is that *not* news?



Because that is the story! At what point in the world did our news have to be simlified to "which guy won?"? Ever think that the reasons for a decision are as important as the decision itself?

See. The problem is that you are so used to news media that simply spoonfeeds you the simple answer and fast forwards to the end, and just allows you to assume all the stuff in between (cuse it's convenient to ignore the details), that when you see news that actually explains the entire process and the conflict involved in a decision, you get all confused and start scratching your head.



The story didn't present *either* candidate in a positive light. The "story" was that neither one is preferred particularly by the Muslims in this country, but they had to pick one, and they had a huge fight, and lots of arguing, and finally by a narrow margin chose Kerry.

Your complaint essentially is that they didn't just say "Kerry is preferred by Muslims in the US", and ignore the fact that neither one really is.

Again. The story is about the disagreement within the community. Not about which one actually "won". Real life is a bit more complex then that...


[/quote]so you found some diction that you think is anti Bush? well, I'm convinced.[/quote]

Look. You may be totally naive about things like propaganda and its use, but language and *which words* are used is actually more important in forming peoples opinions about something then what you actually say in a story.

The differences between the folowing are *huge* in how they will be recieved by the public:

"Bush attacked Kerry about his new tax plan"
"Bush disagreed with Kerry's new tax plan"
"Bush questioned Kerry's new tax plan"
"Bush questioned Kerry on taxes"
"Kerry's tax plan questioned"
"Kerry's tax plan attacked"

All present different degrees of various qualities to each candidate, and will play differently depending on the situation. In general, saying someone "attacks" someone else, simply implies violence and antisocialness. Disagreement, or questinoning, implies logic or thought. There's a wide variety of words that can be used in any particular situation, and seeing which ones a reporter chooses to use is extremely telling about the reporters slant towards the subject matter.




Except you missed it again. The story wasn't about Cheney's daughter's sexuality. It was about Keyes extreme position on homosexuality. I find it extremely amusing that you read that story and thought it was about his daughter though. Thats exactly what the author wanted you to come away thinking. While the "news" was about Keyes, the message the author wants you to walk away with is that "Cheney's daughter is gay, and he's the VP to the president who's against gay marriage, and isn't that inconsistent?"


You are really a sucker for media manipulation, aren't you?

All I got to say is that Fox-News said that Bush won the 1st debate over and over and over! LOL! That had to be the proving point if nothing else. As much as Bush staggered around the questions and studdered/shrugged, and generally acted like a little kid talking to his daddy after being caught doing something very very embarassing, yeah HE COMPLETELY LOST THAT DEBATE, and if you can't see that, you are just as deluted in the kool-aid as the rest of the repugs.

And please, show me how CNN is biased, please, I've been looking for a left wing channel lately after seeing Bush defeated in 3 debates back to back.

Idk, I miss the days when a president made us feel good and smiled alot. This president makes me feel like I'm being scolded by not being for Iraq, even though the facts he said were facts are not truths according to the facts. I was never for this war. You want WMDs? There here in Anniston, Alabama. 3000 tons of saren gas. There all over the globe, and prolly more now that Bush hasn't done anything about North Korea or Iran. If he really cared about WMDs there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT PLACES TO GO TO FOR THAT PURPOSE. Drink your kool-aid kids, its soooo good for you! And ***** saddam, I could care less. I want to see Bin Laden dead, and this president HAS NOT cared about him. He even admitted he didnt care about him. I praise Kerry for calling him out on that in the last debate. Bush actually said "I'm not that worried about Bin Laden". What a f***ing jerk! Well I care ALOT about Bin Laden and what he did to NY. Its time for a change, and god willing, we will have one very soon. We need a person to make Americans feel at ease and willing to work, and go spend their money every Friday without just staying at the house with tons of fear about tommorrow. I have to say, I am not better off than I was 4 years ago money wise, spiritually, and emotionally. All this BS Bush has fed me has drove me crazy. He really does not have a clue about American needs. We need peace of mind that Bin Laden is a priority, and not something that is not "worried" about. ***** your saddam, I could care less about him. Show me Bin Laden in jail, and I MIGHT respect this president after all the BS he fed us, the flat out LIES he has told, and the position he has put this country in in the rest of the world. And let's not even talk about how the senate decided the last election and not the voters. Say what you will, I know my facts. Maybe you should go do the research yourself and lay off the Fox-News kool-aid.

I get really tired of all the **** with regard to WMD's.

No one want to remember that most sane people thought that Saddam still had WMD's through the 90's. That's why the UN inspectors we there.

Who would have thought that the dumb f*ck Saddam would be bluffing the world and be fighting inspections when he had dis-assembled his programs.

Most of the sane people were against the war for two reasons;

1) The US didn't have the "right" to invade a sovereign nation.
2) We would be going into a situation simular to Israel/Palestine and would be entrenched (as we are).

With regard to 1 - I struggled with this issue but ended up believing that we could not wait until Saddam developed WMD's and then used them (probably on Israel). While I did not believe this to be a direct threat to the US I did and do believe that Saddam could have pulled all of us into WWIII by launching a WMD into Israel. That to me constitutes a viable threat.

With regard to 2 - Once you decide that 1 is viable you have to deal with 2 because you are going in.

I think all of the ******* now is all hindsight second guessing and we can all see that there was no "immediate" threat of WMD's.

Additionally, it is obvious that Saddam was buying his way out of the santions (Oil for Food program) and eventually would have been back on track and WOULD have re-started his WMD programs.

In the end (where we are) we just need to suck it up, quitourbitchin and let's get this situation under control.

ps The f*ckin UN was not, is not, and never will be the solution. To anything.

Yeah, I have a couple of bucks in my pocket...I just might buy Microsoft.

That's it pickle...after school, we're meeting on the soccer field and settling this once and for all!



Unless my mom is here to pick me up early.

For how long though? And what do you think was going to happen the moment UN inspectors left and sanctions were lifted?

It's abundantly obvious that Iraq was simply stringing the UN along until they lost interest. And his plan was working. The only reason he didn't get away with it is because the US took action. I find it amazing that so many people sit back and second guess this, or try to deny that that's exactly what was happening and exactly where this was all heading.


The really amusing part is that the ISG has confirmed exactly what I've been arguing for a couple years now on this issue on this forum:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_10_04_isg.pdf


Read the first couple pages. It pretty much confirms everything I've argued, and supports nearly verbatim every reason listed in the Resolution approving military force in Iraq asked for by Bush.

One huge quote:




Oil for food was a bribe to the UN nations to get them to back off of Iraq. And it was working. There is every indication that withing a year or so, sanctions would have been lifted on Iraq, and Iraq would have gone directly into WMD production.


Exactly how much proof is required before people will accept that the failure here wasn't in the US overstepping it's bounds, but in the UN failing to do what it should have done. Exactly how many resolutions saying "We really mean it this time" are required. It's ridiculous when you start reading not just the UN resolutions, but those in the US congress through the 90s. Resolution after resolution stating that Iraq is in violation of X and Y and Z, and gee they should really stop that. At some point, you have to take action instead of just talking about how someone shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

You can't charge in, guns blazing, based on what MIGHT happen in the future.

Well, correction. Obviously you can. But it makes you an idiot cowboy who presents a clear and present danger to his own people.

The sanctions were still in place. The inspectors were still there. There were no WMD.

Gbaji


Use
Fewer
Words

I think his point is that most people read/post for entertainment and don't care for long, dry posts nor will they usually read them. You can bemoan that all you want but this ain't exactly Crossfire here.

I dunno.. does getting a ******* in the White House compare to sticking vibrators up your *** or dragging your Hollywood wife to sex clubs and demanding that she "perform" in public?

Is that really too much for you to read?


Yes. Far too much. The thing you're missing here isn't that people don't want to read long posts. That's not true. People don't mind reading long posts.

People don't want to read long posts that accomplish nothing. You don't write long posts that explain complex logical conclusions. You don't write long posts that justify your arguments. You don't write long posts that offer anything new to the discussion.

You write 1000 word posts to say "Well, I disagree."

Your writing ability is horrendous. Not only can you seemingly not stay on topic for more than a dozen words without reaching some ludicrous fantasy conclusion, but you ussually have no idea what you're arguing against either so you just create arbitrary non existant arguments.

If I want to watch someone argue with their imaginary freinds, I'll take a stroll by a group of homeless people. At least that would be marginally interesting.



Exactly how can someone argue a point if they are unwilling to read the official legal document upon which the point they are arguing relies.


Everyone's allready read it. It's been posted 100 times. Further it's been explained to you, lo those 100 times, how it simply doesn't apply at all in the sense you attempt to use it as justification.

Your inability to either write engagingly or argue effectively leaves you with this last desperate attempt at justifying your argument. You're like a trial lawyer dropping a law book on the ground and saying "Look, it's right there in black and white! The Death Penalty applies to speeding!"

Quoting an objective source is meaningless when it does nothign to support your argument. I'm not sure who you're attempting to confuse into thinking there's some sort of factual foundation for your pablum splooging sillyness, I can only assume it's yourself.

Everyone else just laughs at you.


Do we just make up what we *think* the truth should be? Seems like that's the method most people use today.


No, most people start with the facts and dervie conclusions from it as opposed to starting with a conclusion, citing facts that don't support it all, declaring victory, repating the same argument in overly verbose form when people point how shockingly full of holes it is and then self righetously attempting to claim some sort of intelectual highground.

Let me share a secret with you, Sport. No one's buying it. It's not that I disagree with your conclusions, which I happen to here, it's this pathetic sad facade of an informed psuedo-intelectual you attempt to put forth that's the problem.

Get over it. You're a server monkey. No one cares if you understand the rationale for why one nation invades another (which you clearly don't) or the legal justifications for same. Your oppinion on the matter is meaningless. Not just to me, but to EVERYONE. Your posturing attempts as convincing people you've studied the situation any more dillegently than by listening to talk radio are failing, have failed and will continue to fail.

Taking 5000 words to prove you're a fool doesn't make you any less of one, contrary to what you apparently belive.

Seek help.


And that's kinda sad.


Indeed. More than sad. Pathetic really.

Heh. Folks.

The intresting thing is that you don't seem to realize it. Heh. Um. Heh.

Folks.

fantasy conlcusion? Myabe your the one living in a la-la land. Look in the mirror before you call names. Your the only jerk I see around here.

Thanks for taking the time out of your busy professional bowling groupie schedule to post.

I appreciate it.