Yeah, alright Rush.
Yeah, alright Rush.
No no no, you missed my point entirely! There is NO liberal media in the US and my point was that, if there truly was, they would be asking exactly the kind of questions most decent people want asked. Stupid muckraking articles like the one on McCain speak to that. If this alleged "liberal" media was on its toes, why the hell aren't they asking, for example, about McCain's stance on torture? A year ago he was almost alone in the Repub camp, speaking out against torture vigorously. Last week or so he did a complete 180 degree turn and now he's for it - and this is a guy who was a POW in Vietnam iirc and experienced mistreatment by his captors! You'd think any liberal media outlet worth the name "liberal" would be holding him up to the light and asking "you're for torture now, but you weren't last year? What happened for you to change your mind so dramatically? Who twisted your arm to make you sell out your values?" This muckraking infidelity accusation is a bullshit waste of time, regardless of its truth.
Saddam a "corrupt islamic"? Is that some kind of racial slur or or is the "islamic" part incidental? No doubt he was corrupt though, that's for sure, and we know who to thank for letting him get away with it. Regarding your point about preventing Iraq being taken over by extremists, the one thing that could have prevented the current sectarian fighting would have been to stay the hell out of another country's business! Yes, Saddam was a bastard and a Stalinist of the worst order, but you can't simply invade another country because you don't like how they operate. If that's the case, why leave Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabi & North Korea to continue their oppression and murder? Anyway, the original reason to invade Iraq was to find & destroy WMDs. After that was proved false it changed because Saddam apparently had links to al-Qaeda. After that, too, proved false, the rationale changed again to liberating Iraq and spreading democracy. All that's being spread right now is the blood of Iraqis, by each other and by Coalition troops. Now, after we see the sham of Iraqi democracy & freedom exposed, the US has to stay there for the good of the Iraqis because, lord knows, they can't look after themselves, the silly "islamics". Yet another rationale. How can you take seriously the word of a government which changes its tune on the war every year?
Obama would like to withdraw US troops in 18 months? Good! That's supporting the damn troops, not leaving them in harm's way when they shouldn't have been sent there in the first place. It may well leave a vaccuum in the country and sectarian strife may increase - but considering much of the sectarian fighting is based on which side is supporting the American troops, it may be more beneficial to leave than some would have you believe. In any event, every poll of the Iraqi people shows overwhelming support for a US exit.
I'm glad you mentioned Iran, there's a great example of this alleged "liberal" media doing its thing. Washington turned their attention to Iran, not the other way around. Iran started getting mentioned in Dubya's speeches as far back as 2004, it's no recent thing. What people don't (or choose not to) realise is that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear energy under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not weapons. That's not to say they aren't pursuing weapons, but noone's provided any proof that they have or even intend to. You can't invade someone because you think they might be thinking of attacking you somehow, but since when has the US needed an actual reason to waste a country? As for the NNPT, which allows nuclear power but not weapons research (it is significantly more difficult and expensive to weaponise uranium and Iran is years away, even if it is attempting it), the US and Israel are both signatories to it. Since they signed, they have increased their nuclear arsenals in violation of it. So have allies like India and Pakistan. If we should worried about anyone, we should be worried about nations who openly and demonstrably care nothing for international treaties restricting the most destructive technology known to man. It doesn't send a good message to say "Iran can't have nuclear weapons" when you're simultaneously saying "we ca, Israel can, Pakistan can and so can India. But not Iran because they're evil, because we said so."
Finally, if what you assume is true and George just allowed himself to be lied to (pretty easy when you're a fundie Xtian who doesn't read papers, watch the news and are accustomed to believing what you're told so that's quite plausible), that still doesn't let him off the hook. If he was just regurgitating what his rich buddies & handlers wanted him to say, that's his fault for not thinking about it. It's his fault for not giving a single thought to how the invasion would play out.
It's a sad indictment of the US and its electoral process that that halfwit was elected in the first place, especially considering he didn't win the popular vote and was appointed by the Supreme Court. Dubya might have been lied to by his advisors but, in the end, it was he who took their advice - and most of them are still employed, which says either he doesn't care how wrong every last one of them was, doesn't care how much they all lied to him or he doesn't care that he was wrong to listen to them in the first place. It's about time he took responsibility for his own actions, but I think we all can agree he's anything but responsible.
I forgot to put in "extremist" and I dont mean that "islamic" part as a slur. I apologize for that. And what part of "i believed the war was a mistake in the first place" did you not understand? Yes I agree with what you say and America is a bit too eager to "spread its democracy".
Dont be naive. America already knew that Saddam did not have WMD. There's was a report on it already stating that the department of defense already know that Saddam did not posses WMD and yet they went ahead with the plan anyway. But if Saddam really HAD WMD, America has nothing to worry about it anyway since Saddam is easily bribed. So why did we go to war? OIL.
Do you have any idea what that would do to Iraq? Once we leave al qaeda will take over and Iraq will be worse off than it was with Saddam. It doesn't matter if the majority of Iraq's people support the US. What mattered is that the people who hold or stands to hold the most power DOESN'T. Did you think Saddam was a popular figure in Iraq? People have always wanted to overthrow him but did that happen? No, in fact Saddam's hold on Iraq seemed to increase instead.
Plus economically, if Iraq falls to the wrong hands and dont fool yourself IT WILL if we leave, the oil trade will be more fragile than ever because of our dependence and these islamic extremist know this
I agreed that the "liberal" media HAS turned more attention to Iran. However, Ahmadinejad itself has started to blame America more once Iraq was under American control. He has also vowed to and I quote "wipe Israel off the map". Would America just sit back and do nothing?
This is incidental to the subject at hand, but if I may ask... lizard, how old are you and what level of education do you have?
Age and education doesn't matter. I know a high school 16 year old who can put anyone to shame in political debates because that's all he knows. He doesn't study anything except politics. How and what information you gather matters. Does it help? Of course. But it's not an absolute factor
Please don't call me naive. You really think I believe the official reasons for the war? It should be crystal that I take everything that comes out of DC with a massive grain of salt.
I know that George & Co. went ahead with the invasion despite knowing Saddam was disarmed. I'm saying the publicly-stated reasons for the war changed with the seasons and this alleged "liberal" media never picked the Whitehouse up on it once and said "hey, last week it was freedom. Week before that it was WMD. Now it's to stop the turrsts? Which is it, George? Come on already! What next? Saddam killed Kennedy?"
You misunderstood me. The majority of Iraqis polled support a US exit, ie they want the US to leave. What happens next will be up to Iraqis, as it should be and always shoud have been, which is the point. Al-Qaeda have their work cut out for them if they do want to take over Iraq, as Iraqi support for them is actually pretty low and they simply don't have the numbers. Bad as it was under Saddam, Iraqis had relative religious freedom and I can't see them allowing extremists to run their country - they know full well what happened to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Just because you've gone in and wrecked the place, it doesn't mean you should stay there. I'm not saying leave a lawless vaccuum, I'm saying remove US troops, who are the one thing everyone in Iraq can agree is making the situation worse. Troops from neutral countries or countries friendly to Iraq, UN peacekeepers, Iraqi soldiers etc. can deploy to help reconstruction (which the US should pay for, every last goddam dime). Remove the US troops and you eliminate the one thing that al-Qaeda and other opportunistic terrorists entered Iraq for in the first place, then Iraqis, with the help of the international community, can rebuild their country and hopefully end the Sunni/Shia madness.
Ah, the old chestnut about Ahmadinejad "wiping Israel off the map". Noone doubts he's something of an unknown quantity, but the realities about that supposed "quote" are twofold: first, he has virtually no power in that area as he does not make policy or command the armed forces. Iran's a theocracy and the mullahs have control over policy while Ahmadinejad is a figurehead who speaks for them (much like Dubya speaks for corporate America - Ahmadinejad also happens to have beady little eyes and a poor brain/mouth filter, just like Dubya). Secondly, that's a gross mistranslation which has been inflated and spread around the globe like wildfire. What he said amounts to a desire for removal of the regime that currently controls Israel, not a literal & physical destruction of that country. You can quote "wipe them off the map" all you want but it simply isn't the case. It's a small but very important difference. That's what happens when you take the mainstream media's word for it - you perpetuate false or misleading information. Again, if the media was as liberal as some people seem to think (across the world as well in the US), that misrepresentation of the facts would have been questioned and quashed. Unfortunately it's part of the discourse now. If the liberal media are out there, they sure how know to stay under the radar...
I know that George & Co. went ahead with the invasion despite knowing Saddam was disarmed. I'm saying the publicly-stated reasons for the war changed with the seasons and this alleged "liberal" media never picked the Whitehouse up on it once and said "hey, last week it was freedom. Week before that it was WMD. Now it's to stop the turrsts? Which is it, George? Come on already! What next? Saddam killed Kennedy?"
You misunderstood me. The majority of Iraqis polled support a US exit, ie they want the US to leave. What happens next will be up to Iraqis, as it should be and always shoud have been, which is the point. Al-Qaeda have their work cut out for them if they do want to take over Iraq, as Iraqi support for them is actually pretty low and they simply don't have the numbers. Bad as it was under Saddam, Iraqis had relative religious freedom and I can't see them allowing extremists to run their country - they know full well what happened to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Just because you've gone in and wrecked the place, it doesn't mean you should stay there. I'm not saying leave a lawless vaccuum, I'm saying remove US troops, who are the one thing everyone in Iraq can agree is making the situation worse. Troops from neutral countries or countries friendly to Iraq, UN peacekeepers, Iraqi soldiers etc. can deploy to help reconstruction (which the US should pay for, every last goddam dime). Remove the US troops and you eliminate the one thing that al-Qaeda and other opportunistic terrorists entered Iraq for in the first place, then Iraqis, with the help of the international community, can rebuild their country and hopefully end the Sunni/Shia madness.
Ah, the old chestnut about Ahmadinejad "wiping Israel off the map". Noone doubts he's something of an unknown quantity, but the realities about that supposed "quote" are twofold: first, he has virtually no power in that area as he does not make policy or command the armed forces. Iran's a theocracy and the mullahs have control over policy while Ahmadinejad is a figurehead who speaks for them (much like Dubya speaks for corporate America - Ahmadinejad also happens to have beady little eyes and a poor brain/mouth filter, just like Dubya). Secondly, that's a gross mistranslation which has been inflated and spread around the globe like wildfire. What he said amounts to a desire for removal of the regime that currently controls Israel, not a literal & physical destruction of that country. You can quote "wipe them off the map" all you want but it simply isn't the case. It's a small but very important difference. That's what happens when you take the mainstream media's word for it - you perpetuate false or misleading information. Again, if the media was as liberal as some people seem to think (across the world as well in the US), that misrepresentation of the facts would have been questioned and quashed. Unfortunately it's part of the discourse now. If the liberal media are out there, they sure how know to stay under the radar...
The latest poll does in fact say that most Iraqis want us out of their country. What is ridiculous is how they've managed to turn that around. Our government went ahead and said something along the lines of, "This is good news, because it shows that for the first time, the Iraqi people finally have a unified opinion - so we should stay."
WTF?!
WTF?!
Age and education absolutely do matter.
I certainly wouldn't deny anyone an opportunity to state an opinion, but where that opinion is coming from makes a big difference in how it's weighed. There's a reason that documentaries about the Vietnam war, for example, are more convincing when they go to the source and interview the architects of the conflict (cf. The Fog of War). Education influences how you process and interpret the information you gather, and also what sources of information you trust. Age usually (though not always) implies experience and maturity.
I'm not asking you because I want to run you down... I'm just genuinely curious.
And to get this thread back on topic...
It's interesting that there's been so little discussion of the OP in this thread, and such a push toward discussing the "liberal media."
But perhaps that's because the article posted doesn't say anything new or particularly interesting. Intellectuals (actual or self-assigned) have always despaired to some degree at populist trends. Religion has (nearly) always stood as antithetical to rationalism and science. I myself also despair at things like the push to teach creationism on an equal footing with evolution, and at the lobotomized entertainment that smothers a lot of American minds (Epic Movie, two weeks at the top of the box office, y'all). Like many, I'm disappointed at the state of the American school system and at the control that money has over what gets funding and what does not (disillusioned English major, y'all). But this isn't really anything new, and that article doesn't say anything the rest of us didn't already know.
Nevertheless, I find it funny that lizard dismisses the article's content due to the supposed "extreme liberal" nature of the paper it appears in, without even addressing the content.
It's interesting that there's been so little discussion of the OP in this thread, and such a push toward discussing the "liberal media."
But perhaps that's because the article posted doesn't say anything new or particularly interesting. Intellectuals (actual or self-assigned) have always despaired to some degree at populist trends. Religion has (nearly) always stood as antithetical to rationalism and science. I myself also despair at things like the push to teach creationism on an equal footing with evolution, and at the lobotomized entertainment that smothers a lot of American minds (Epic Movie, two weeks at the top of the box office, y'all). Like many, I'm disappointed at the state of the American school system and at the control that money has over what gets funding and what does not (disillusioned English major, y'all). But this isn't really anything new, and that article doesn't say anything the rest of us didn't already know.
Nevertheless, I find it funny that lizard dismisses the article's content due to the supposed "extreme liberal" nature of the paper it appears in, without even addressing the content.
Quality first post.
Let's cast a stone & see what happens !!! 
Extreme liberal in this neck of the woods means either an anarchist or extreme libertarian.
If you accept the concept that politics is circular rather than linear then this makes sense.
After all, extreme right wing and extreme left wing are but the same pages from the same book.
As regards the US, then both political parties are hard right, there is no such thing as left wing in US politics, certainly not in US journalism.
How can there be when both are singing the same lyrics ?
Sorry to come back on task but what are peoples views on the general dumbing down of intellect, that opinions, rather than substantial knowledge are what are driving society today ?
If you watch CNN or suchlike they have a large number of 'talking heads' but the real substantial backbone is missing. The fact that the history, what created the situation is irrelevent, what really matters is what 'x' thinks about it ?
This to me is the issue.
How do you feel about it ?
Edit - This can't be the LFS forum, not only an intelligent post but a first post - shakes head in disbelief.
Thanks mate. Someone to restore my faith in the future of humanity.
Extreme liberal in this neck of the woods means either an anarchist or extreme libertarian.
If you accept the concept that politics is circular rather than linear then this makes sense.
After all, extreme right wing and extreme left wing are but the same pages from the same book.
As regards the US, then both political parties are hard right, there is no such thing as left wing in US politics, certainly not in US journalism.
How can there be when both are singing the same lyrics ?
Sorry to come back on task but what are peoples views on the general dumbing down of intellect, that opinions, rather than substantial knowledge are what are driving society today ?
If you watch CNN or suchlike they have a large number of 'talking heads' but the real substantial backbone is missing. The fact that the history, what created the situation is irrelevent, what really matters is what 'x' thinks about it ?
This to me is the issue.
How do you feel about it ?
Edit - This can't be the LFS forum, not only an intelligent post but a first post - shakes head in disbelief.
Thanks mate. Someone to restore my faith in the future of humanity.
I thought, "Who the hell is this? He's using his brain!"
Says the community who discredited my "people's recognition" article based on a similar notion
It was a tongue in cheek comment a few took it as a serious attack
It was a tongue in cheek comment a few took it as a serious attack
I often have a similar problem - LOL :something
But what do you think of my question ?
You have to keep in mind that both parties honestly wants to do create a "better America". However, they have opposing views on how to reach that goal.
IDK, with ticket splitting at an all time high, I find that retrospective voting is very prominent among picking candidates and that's a major reason why Obama's leading right now. I do agree that this is bad because then people start supporting people that are not necessarily going to do good to the US.
Normally in order to be objective you need to just listen to each of the candidate's speech and assess the situation yourself. Make a list of what the candidates promises and see if that's a viable option.
Lizard why are you against universal health care/socialist economy?
This is a very complicated issue and I'm person of mere 18 (there I answered your question DeadWolfBones). But here I go as far as I see it and please keep in mind this is only regarding AMERICA:
Both conservatives and liberals never disagree on the good intent behind universal health care as Hilary champions it in her campaign. The real issue is the economic side of the program and whether it is the most efficient way to manage it by government. Unfortunately, most government-managed health care programs create inefficiency. Yes, it may work in some countries having a well rounded socialist infrastructure. But it is extremely doubtful to be successful in America. Hilary pushed out the program the first time when Bill was in office and it failed miserably. Even Democrats had doubt about its viability at that time.
The second argument is what constitutes essential needs that government needs to take care at the expense of taxpayers’ money should not be health care. If it should be, then food should be ahead of it. But government does not cover the food you put on your table. Yes, US government does have food stamp program to subsidy poor people and those programs also include free health care such as SSI and the state sponsored medical program such as Medicaid in Hawaii. The whole thing defeats the whole concept of Universal Health Care.
Obama's "patriotic corporations policy" is a joke. Why? I'll explain here. He wants to bring back the jobs into US and while that's a good thing, it's as simple as labeling corporations as "patriotic". Except socialist country like North Korea, Vietnam or old USSR, ideology needs to be supported by its economic viability. Outsourcing is a complicated issue since it became a trend in the late 80’s. Since ALL profit seeking companies in any part of world need that part of financial engineering to maximize shareholders’ value. The outsourcing is simply inevitable. Taiwan is facing a huge outsourcing problem, same as US. As most of manufacturing jobs go to China. But it is the natural progression for any industrial country. U.S, Taiwan and most other industrial countries simply evolve from the manufacturing economy to a service-oriented one. What the US does not have is its adequate level of skill sets that most of work can be converted to meet the challenge of being a service-oriented value chain. If you are a GM worker putting a screw into a wheel for 30 years without knowing anything else, then why should an evolving economy needs to take care of your deficiency when your skill level does not worth the value you put in for the economy. It is a natural progression that old skills get phased out and left behind. Job training and planning ahead might be the direction the public and private sectors need to work together. Blaming on corporations that follows economic model of making sound decisions is only self deceiving, It wouldn’t work in the US or any part of world.
The concept of so called patriotic company in Obama’s mind is only fantasy of his own and can never exist on his term. Such thought reflects his lack of basic knowledge and experience as to how private factor functions. In this sense, this shortcoming is fatal to the formation of his programs. You cannot expect the companies to just say "ok screw the giant benefits of outsourcing because we need to open jobs in the US for the good of the US citizens regardless that it cost millions more"
But let me humor you. Lets say that companies actually DO become "patriotic" and do not outsource for the "good of the citizens". Foreign companies would outsource regardless of US policies (obviously) and since that domestic companies would stay only in the US, the foreign market would just overtake ALL domestic companies that do NOT outsource and as a result this would plummet our economy further from Europe and elsewhere. As a result, nothing we ever produce will ever be valuable and we cannot compete against foreign companies. Remember, this is a GLOBAL MARKET. Economy is not as simple as Obama thinks it is. Obama calls for 228 billion dollars additional to our current spendings (the most of all the candidates)...as if our deficit is not enough :rolleyes:
BTW Hankstar, I'll admit defeat to your argument cause I dont know any more about the situation in the middle east to argue some more
Yeah, it does seem a bit worrying how opposed to technology this country is getting. One recent example I can think of is that with two HDTV channels shutting down, Germany now has less HDTV channels than Albania and I think we are the only country in Europe that won't be showing the football Euro in HD.
In fact I find quite strange that those who label the NYT simply as liberal fail to mention Judith Miller's run up to war. All her articles about WMD have been subjected to review since then and we know Judith had some other problems with the law...
I am utterly dissatisfied with the way the NYT dealt with Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and - to a lesser extent - Virginia Heffernan. They fail to apologise completely for major journalistic blunders. But if you have to counter an opinion, commentary or facts you always have to oppose different opinions, commentaries or facts, not tongue in cheek comments. That specific comment sounds ignorant to anyone who knows a bit of the recent history of the NYT, and a very bad way to conduct a debate.
Just to clarify, lizard...
Was that entire post tongue-in-cheek, or just the part about the NYT?
Was that entire post tongue-in-cheek, or just the part about the NYT?
weren't you the guy with an above normal interest in and affection for fluffy animals, aswell as identifying yourself with them...?
Scaly animals, yes. But let's not confuse two disturbing issues here.
Sorry, I haven't anything constructive to add to this topic. I just wanted to gather all these quotes together to highlight a) the hilarity and b) the inconsistency.
Lizardfolk, if only the world was as black and white as you seem to enjoy labelling it.
I included the last quote just to demonstrate your naivety.
That was hardly tongue in cheek, but I'm sure you'll be able to tell
I will welcome any criticism you can offer to that statement, for that is a serious issue
Dont take my posts out of context
There's no context necessary for those quotes.
New York Times
(78 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG