CBS Biased
#11
09-22-2004, 02:42 PM
At my age (41) I certainly understand differing perspectives and cultural differences.
But there are no cultural or perspective diffrerences about FREEDOM. Free means Free.
Ask the Russians or the East Germans about differences in their lives before Communism ended and today, and I would bet a solid 98% prefer FREEDOM to what they had before.
Ask the women and female children of Iraq who can now hold jobs and go to school freely.
Ask the families in Iraq (particularly Kurds) who lost multiple family members to torture and murder and assasination and Nerve Gas if they prefer Iraq today or Iraq before Saddam was ousted.
But there are no cultural or perspective diffrerences about FREEDOM. Free means Free.
Ask the Russians or the East Germans about differences in their lives before Communism ended and today, and I would bet a solid 98% prefer FREEDOM to what they had before.
Ask the women and female children of Iraq who can now hold jobs and go to school freely.
Ask the families in Iraq (particularly Kurds) who lost multiple family members to torture and murder and assasination and Nerve Gas if they prefer Iraq today or Iraq before Saddam was ousted.
#12
09-22-2004, 04:01 PM
Was there not a quote from Kerry that said that anyone not willing to go to Iraq would not be fit to be president? (Suporting descition to go to iraq). Wait...no. He flopped on that, said that going to Iraq was a bad idea, and he wouldnt have done it. So isnt Kerry kind of saying that he's unfit to be president?
#13
09-22-2004, 04:38 PM
Yes. This brings up a good point.
Kerry needs to think about his position. I don't know if he's figured it out yet. and if he hasn't figured out, I don't know how I could figure out I want to vote for him.
On the opposite end, there is waaay too much analysis of every single word candidates say. I know how often I say dumb things, contradict myself, etc. and when the media makes a whole fireworks show out of something like this, it really blows things out of proportion.
Kerry needs to think about his position. I don't know if he's figured it out yet. and if he hasn't figured out, I don't know how I could figure out I want to vote for him.
On the opposite end, there is waaay too much analysis of every single word candidates say. I know how often I say dumb things, contradict myself, etc. and when the media makes a whole fireworks show out of something like this, it really blows things out of proportion.
#14
09-22-2004, 06:48 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Media bias-
I've always thought that CBS and Dan Rather were especially tallented at this.
Figuring it out-
You’re right, we shouldn’t anylize every word but of course hear what is said.
But when a candidate says something to one group of people then stumps the exact opposite somewhere else (Owns SUV’s then doesn’t own any SUV’s… All for the war, then completely against the war, he tossed his medals-but not his own medals- then not medals at all etc) he has issues.
I began a list of 14 major discrepancies noted just in his Tuesday speech but this page began to be too long.
Kerry says he will work with the international community through the U.N..
I can only assume the main countries he is mentioning is France and Germany.
What if the next crisis happens and France won’t go along?
There are multiple possible crisis’s in our near future. Taiwan, N. Korea, Iran etc.
Should we be responsible for our own national security or is it more important to try and appease France? What if France still won't come to agreement?
Without France should we "Go it alone" as some would say?
In that case would Kerry's decision be a complete international relations failure?
Would that make the whole world hate us?
Since Kerry isn’t standing on a fixed foundation how would he handle a crisis?
Only to say “I will work with the international community” while standing behind a pulpit one has to admit is pretty vague.
A president has got to know where he stands on issues, stand firm and mean what he says.
I've always thought that CBS and Dan Rather were especially tallented at this.
Figuring it out-
You’re right, we shouldn’t anylize every word but of course hear what is said.
But when a candidate says something to one group of people then stumps the exact opposite somewhere else (Owns SUV’s then doesn’t own any SUV’s… All for the war, then completely against the war, he tossed his medals-but not his own medals- then not medals at all etc) he has issues.
I began a list of 14 major discrepancies noted just in his Tuesday speech but this page began to be too long.
Kerry says he will work with the international community through the U.N..
I can only assume the main countries he is mentioning is France and Germany.
What if the next crisis happens and France won’t go along?
There are multiple possible crisis’s in our near future. Taiwan, N. Korea, Iran etc.
Should we be responsible for our own national security or is it more important to try and appease France? What if France still won't come to agreement?
Without France should we "Go it alone" as some would say?
In that case would Kerry's decision be a complete international relations failure?
Would that make the whole world hate us?
Since Kerry isn’t standing on a fixed foundation how would he handle a crisis?
Only to say “I will work with the international community” while standing behind a pulpit one has to admit is pretty vague.
A president has got to know where he stands on issues, stand firm and mean what he says.
#15
09-23-2004, 05:09 PM
Kerry made a mistake in voting to give Bush the authority to declare war, i.e., he made the mistake of TRUSTING the guy to make the right decision. No argument from me on that issue.
About Iraq, the problems are:
1) the war was started on a pretext - Iraq had no WMD (they been found yet?) and therefore was not a direct threat to US, plus it had no connection with Al Qaida (the so-called Prague meeting was disproven).
2) the architects of war disregarded all previous analyses done by the State Dept on how to rebuild the nation after the war, preferring to rely on ideologues with no Middle Eastern expertise whatsoever. One example is Michael Fleischer (brother of Ari, Bush's 1st press secretary) being hired to privatize Iraq' economy. He also told the Chicago Tribune - apparently without irony - that the Americans are going to teach the Iraqis a new way of doing business, because "The only paradigm they know is cronyism".
3) The hand-picked governing alliance was composed of formerly exiled Iraqis. Which isn't necessarily all bad, unless they've been away so long that they've lost touch with what Iraq was all about (Chalabi left Iraq when he was in his teens). Former golden boy Chalabi is wanted in Jordan for embezzlement.
Or, put another way: how'd you like it if the strongest country in the world came in and finally, finally, got rid of a horrible dictator; but could not even restore basic services to the pre-dictator days; insisted on using their workers (at a much higher cost) instead of using perfectly capable, and available, home-grown ones; picked up and imprisoned a lot of people on any excuse and tortured most of them; and had no firm plan to transfer power and end their occupation? I think you'd get a little mad too.
About being secure, well, 9/11 happened when this administration was already in power. What was the title of the Presidential Daily Briefing again? Oh yeah, "Bin Laden to Strike in the US". But brush clearing in Crawford took priority, I'm sure. Yep, he never made any mistakes.
About Iraq, the problems are:
1) the war was started on a pretext - Iraq had no WMD (they been found yet?) and therefore was not a direct threat to US, plus it had no connection with Al Qaida (the so-called Prague meeting was disproven).
2) the architects of war disregarded all previous analyses done by the State Dept on how to rebuild the nation after the war, preferring to rely on ideologues with no Middle Eastern expertise whatsoever. One example is Michael Fleischer (brother of Ari, Bush's 1st press secretary) being hired to privatize Iraq' economy. He also told the Chicago Tribune - apparently without irony - that the Americans are going to teach the Iraqis a new way of doing business, because "The only paradigm they know is cronyism".
3) The hand-picked governing alliance was composed of formerly exiled Iraqis. Which isn't necessarily all bad, unless they've been away so long that they've lost touch with what Iraq was all about (Chalabi left Iraq when he was in his teens). Former golden boy Chalabi is wanted in Jordan for embezzlement.
Or, put another way: how'd you like it if the strongest country in the world came in and finally, finally, got rid of a horrible dictator; but could not even restore basic services to the pre-dictator days; insisted on using their workers (at a much higher cost) instead of using perfectly capable, and available, home-grown ones; picked up and imprisoned a lot of people on any excuse and tortured most of them; and had no firm plan to transfer power and end their occupation? I think you'd get a little mad too.
About being secure, well, 9/11 happened when this administration was already in power. What was the title of the Presidential Daily Briefing again? Oh yeah, "Bin Laden to Strike in the US". But brush clearing in Crawford took priority, I'm sure. Yep, he never made any mistakes.
#16
09-24-2004, 07:45 AM
On the missing WMD:
*EVERY* single western intelligence agency was certain Saddam had WMD - not just ours. Russia, Great Britain, Israel, all knew it. They could NOT have all been wrong, could they have? And if they WERE wrong, HOW IN THE F**K was George W supposed to know that? And remember Colin Powell's speech to the U.N.? He didn't create all those satellite videos of all those trucks moving stuff around in the desert using Photoshop, baby......No one "starts a war on a pretext" - I would be the first to stand up and demand charges of treason if that had any inkling of truth to it - please get with reality a second on that ridiculous assertion......And carry this out to it's logical conclusion for me: Saddam and Al Quaida *BOTH* hate the U.S.A. Saddam manages to get a nuke built. Saddam loves money. A.Q. offers him money for a nuke. Ta-Da, a nuke for the bad guys who want to and will find a way to use it against the USA.......Duh......
On rebuilding Iraq:
There is no "textbook" on how to rebuild a certain or specific country after 30 years of a dicator running the whole show. Rome was not built in a day, and as long as those fools keep trying to fight us and their OWN police forces, rebuilding anything would be difficult REGARDLESS of "The Plan." The plan means nothing if unforeseen obstacle after unforseen obstacle gets in the way. No military or government planner in the history of the world can plan for every eventuality - no on can see the future. All we can do is the best we can do, and do you not think we are doing that?
On the exiles appointed government:
There is no "what Iraq was about" - Iraq is an old country, and what the people stood for and wanted BEFORE Saddam is what should be considered. So those guys are just a capable as people who suffered Saddam.
On the torture thing:
First of freakin all, they did not "torture MOST of them" as you assert - your arguments up to this point have been mostly salient ones, but this is out of the reach of reasonable to say. What happened is "A FEW BAD APPLES" misinterpreted commands which said limited threat tactics would be allowed in questioning prisoners who, FOR SURE, knew things that would be putting Iraqi and U.S. soliders at risk if we did not have that info. OOOH, they put a black hood over his eyes !! OOOH, they made a dog bark at him !! OOOH, they made them stand naked. OOOH, they made them play twister naked. OOOH, OOH, OOH, so awful! *Puh-freakin-leeze* They were the enemy, withholding information from us. I condone NO TORTURE, but getting tough with these guys to try to get info that might save EVEN MAYBE IRAQI CHILDREN'S lives (for example, if we could get help from them to pinpoint a hideout instead of assuming a large apartment complex was full of bad guys and bombing that) was and is important.
On 9/11 happening when this administration was in power:
Dont even go there. Did you not see all the data that came out about HOW MANY TIMES under Clinton's watch that we had a chance to capture or kill Bin Laden? Once, Jordan offered to turn him over to us. Clinton refused. Once, we had a SOLID LOCK on his location, and the CIA wanted to take him out. Clinton refused. You see, the problem with the Dems is that they are "so sensistive" and want to use THEIR GOODNESS to make BAD PEOPLE be GOOD like they are !! Don't you see how silly that is? Evil people are evil people - there is no changing the spots. Neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for the terror attack on 9/11 - Bin Laden is the one responsible. Nothing we could have done but take Bin Laden out beforehand would have stopped that creative, unusual, completely unexpected attack.
( Oh, this debate is fun !! )
*EVERY* single western intelligence agency was certain Saddam had WMD - not just ours. Russia, Great Britain, Israel, all knew it. They could NOT have all been wrong, could they have? And if they WERE wrong, HOW IN THE F**K was George W supposed to know that? And remember Colin Powell's speech to the U.N.? He didn't create all those satellite videos of all those trucks moving stuff around in the desert using Photoshop, baby......No one "starts a war on a pretext" - I would be the first to stand up and demand charges of treason if that had any inkling of truth to it - please get with reality a second on that ridiculous assertion......And carry this out to it's logical conclusion for me: Saddam and Al Quaida *BOTH* hate the U.S.A. Saddam manages to get a nuke built. Saddam loves money. A.Q. offers him money for a nuke. Ta-Da, a nuke for the bad guys who want to and will find a way to use it against the USA.......Duh......
On rebuilding Iraq:
There is no "textbook" on how to rebuild a certain or specific country after 30 years of a dicator running the whole show. Rome was not built in a day, and as long as those fools keep trying to fight us and their OWN police forces, rebuilding anything would be difficult REGARDLESS of "The Plan." The plan means nothing if unforeseen obstacle after unforseen obstacle gets in the way. No military or government planner in the history of the world can plan for every eventuality - no on can see the future. All we can do is the best we can do, and do you not think we are doing that?
On the exiles appointed government:
There is no "what Iraq was about" - Iraq is an old country, and what the people stood for and wanted BEFORE Saddam is what should be considered. So those guys are just a capable as people who suffered Saddam.
On the torture thing:
First of freakin all, they did not "torture MOST of them" as you assert - your arguments up to this point have been mostly salient ones, but this is out of the reach of reasonable to say. What happened is "A FEW BAD APPLES" misinterpreted commands which said limited threat tactics would be allowed in questioning prisoners who, FOR SURE, knew things that would be putting Iraqi and U.S. soliders at risk if we did not have that info. OOOH, they put a black hood over his eyes !! OOOH, they made a dog bark at him !! OOOH, they made them stand naked. OOOH, they made them play twister naked. OOOH, OOH, OOH, so awful! *Puh-freakin-leeze* They were the enemy, withholding information from us. I condone NO TORTURE, but getting tough with these guys to try to get info that might save EVEN MAYBE IRAQI CHILDREN'S lives (for example, if we could get help from them to pinpoint a hideout instead of assuming a large apartment complex was full of bad guys and bombing that) was and is important.
On 9/11 happening when this administration was in power:
Dont even go there. Did you not see all the data that came out about HOW MANY TIMES under Clinton's watch that we had a chance to capture or kill Bin Laden? Once, Jordan offered to turn him over to us. Clinton refused. Once, we had a SOLID LOCK on his location, and the CIA wanted to take him out. Clinton refused. You see, the problem with the Dems is that they are "so sensistive" and want to use THEIR GOODNESS to make BAD PEOPLE be GOOD like they are !! Don't you see how silly that is? Evil people are evil people - there is no changing the spots. Neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for the terror attack on 9/11 - Bin Laden is the one responsible. Nothing we could have done but take Bin Laden out beforehand would have stopped that creative, unusual, completely unexpected attack.
( Oh, this debate is fun !! )
#17
09-24-2004, 06:33 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Media bias:
Yesterday the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq addressed the U.S. Congress.
In his speech P.M. Allawi thanked the U.S. (again) for liberating his country.
Do you think this would have been broadcast...or even mentioned by the media?
I'm sure that if Allawi said something like Kerry did in his press briefing today:
"The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq."
"Iraq a "magnet for terrorism." "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."
Don't you think it would be front-page every network lead story if Allawi said that?
Allawi had good things, a message of hope and encouragement. Not worth reporting.
Can you imagine in 1944 if the Presidential candidate claimed the Pacific war was not winable, only a magnet for trouble and to help a free & open Japanese society was useless and he was going to bring home the troops?
Would that encourage or discourage the Jap Emperor and his miltary?
What would that say to our own Allies who are fighting along side us?
What if our last battle in Iraq had 25,851 U.S. casualties and almost 7,000 U.S. dead....in a period of 36 days?
Would that make headline news as a major setback? A Bush-Rumsfeld defeat?
Anyone guess the famous battle which I refer to?
I've never heard Rather, Jennings or other big media reporting on any good things happening in Iraq.
Yesterday PM Allawi had a few things to say about the Iraq quagmire myth.
He correctly pointed out that 14 or 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe, and that there are only three provinces that contain pockets of terrorists. In other words, what is being reported constantly is designed to paint the picture that Iraq is an out-of-control place, and it is not.
Two of my neighbors have returned from Iraq duty and want to return because they were doing a good work in helping the people of that country. I work with the wife of someone in Iraq and she is supportive.
Apparently things are much better than what is being reported.
Immediately afterward Kerry held his own news conference to say the words of hope Allawi said were lies. What is Kerry's message to the people of Iraq & Afganistan?
What is Kerry's message to the terrorists (AKA insurgents)? To our troops & allies?
Yesterday the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq addressed the U.S. Congress.
In his speech P.M. Allawi thanked the U.S. (again) for liberating his country.
Do you think this would have been broadcast...or even mentioned by the media?
I'm sure that if Allawi said something like Kerry did in his press briefing today:
"The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq."
"Iraq a "magnet for terrorism." "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."
Don't you think it would be front-page every network lead story if Allawi said that?
Allawi had good things, a message of hope and encouragement. Not worth reporting.
Can you imagine in 1944 if the Presidential candidate claimed the Pacific war was not winable, only a magnet for trouble and to help a free & open Japanese society was useless and he was going to bring home the troops?
Would that encourage or discourage the Jap Emperor and his miltary?
What would that say to our own Allies who are fighting along side us?
What if our last battle in Iraq had 25,851 U.S. casualties and almost 7,000 U.S. dead....in a period of 36 days?
Would that make headline news as a major setback? A Bush-Rumsfeld defeat?
Anyone guess the famous battle which I refer to?
I've never heard Rather, Jennings or other big media reporting on any good things happening in Iraq.
Yesterday PM Allawi had a few things to say about the Iraq quagmire myth.
He correctly pointed out that 14 or 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe, and that there are only three provinces that contain pockets of terrorists. In other words, what is being reported constantly is designed to paint the picture that Iraq is an out-of-control place, and it is not.
Two of my neighbors have returned from Iraq duty and want to return because they were doing a good work in helping the people of that country. I work with the wife of someone in Iraq and she is supportive.
Apparently things are much better than what is being reported.
Immediately afterward Kerry held his own news conference to say the words of hope Allawi said were lies. What is Kerry's message to the people of Iraq & Afganistan?
What is Kerry's message to the terrorists (AKA insurgents)? To our troops & allies?
#18
09-25-2004, 05:35 PM
Hey, if you guys like having political arguments, theres a message board that might interest you. PoliticalBattlefield.com was made by a member on CamaroZ28.com, we got tired of all the political bickering that went on there, so he just made his own message board to dedicated to it. Its getting kind of big and theres a lot of good arguments thrown around on there...just something to look into... My name on there is the same as on here, although I don't post on there much anymore, a lot of the stuff is a bit out of my league 
Jason, you could probably bring in a lot of strong opinions and clarify some misbeliefs on there considering what field your interning in B)
Jason, you could probably bring in a lot of strong opinions and clarify some misbeliefs on there considering what field your interning in B)
#19
09-25-2004, 09:07 PM
Hmm wonder if he'd be interested in the site I was planning on starting but decided not to... http://www.worldcontroversy.com/
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
