would someone tell scott ian there was an al qaeda and hussein

the u.s. has military plans to invade dozens of countries. they do this in advance so they are prepared if the shit hits the fan. bill clinton had plans for attacking iraq and a bunch of other nations just like every president has. this way if iran hits the us with an attack we already have our attack strategy in place for qiuck response. and you do have to admit it's just a little odd that richard clarke waited until 3 years after the fact ( an election year) to tell the world of what a bad job bush did. if that bullshit he wrote were true he would have said something then, not 3 years down the road in an election year
 
@Ivankoloff-How long do you reckon it takes to write a book? My guess is this shit, especially a book the size of Clarke's, doesn't take three months to write, edit, find a deal, edit again, and publish. Actually being an aspiring writer/musician myself I know that the rough draft for a decently sized book took me three years, and I am still re-writing two years after. This doesn't include finding an agent (though, admittedly, Clarke probably did not have trouble in this department) and then having your agent find a publisher, they would then send it to another editor... Let's just say the process would take a long while, say three to five years and up.Also if Richard Clarke recanted any information in his book, I would like to know where you got this information as I would like to read it myself. Bernie Goldberg lied in his book Bias:A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distorts The News for the same reason, so I do not find this implausible.

Also, I know that the gov't has plans already drawn for different scenario's of war, in this day and age who wouldn't? I just find it odd that Bush W. had already decided to go after Iraq two weeks after his inauguration. It doesn't take a genius to see that instead of planning on fulfilling his campaign promises, he was off to war, at least in his mind.

About Crowbar, can't wait, I've been listening to Time Heals Nothing lately. That album kills.:headbang:
 
ok, fair enough, it may have taken some time to write it but the allegations he made were serious enough for him to go public when it happened if he were so concerned about bush's handeling of the situation. richard clarke, some time after the media was done treating him like a god, said that bush never even knew about the bin-laddens and the saudi royal family leaving on planes after the attacks because he never told the president about it and it was his fault because that information never got any higher than him. michael moore used that info from his book as one of the main points/arguments of his propaganda film, and the person he got that from has said it is not true, i don't hear the media bringing this up. but they sure as hell stroke themselves when they report it as the biggest selling documentary of all time. the media never reported richard clarke's statements or any evidence that was found disproving anything in his book because the media hates george bush, they love the left and anything that makes bush look bad. i will try to find the article again. i am listening to sonic excess... and oddfellows rest :headbang: badass shit!! the bi-partisan 9/11 commission absolved the bush administration of any wrong doing/lying about 9/11 or iraq. the blame is shared by clinton and bush, but clinton had 8 years to deal with it and bush maybe had 8 months. i just hate when the media focuses on bush and never calls the left for what they said or did before 9/11.
 
don't you remember when clarke had to testify before the 9/11 commission and what he told them was 180 degrees different than what was in his book? i typed in richard clarke recant into google, you can try google. he was either lying in his book or he was lying under sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission.
 
ivankoloff said:
don't you remember when clarke had to testify before the 9/11 commission and what he told them was 180 degrees different than what was in his book? i typed in richard clarke recant into google, you can try google. he was either lying in his book or he was lying under sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission.
Click to expand...
Actually, I watched Clarke's testimony, he admitted that he exagerrated on a few points, which he did not need to do and should not have done. But he really laid it into the administration otherwise. Now Condi Rice's testimony, that was hilarious. I really got the picture that she has no idea how to evade the truth, she is such a bad liar.

About how the media is leftist, you ever hear about the Fox news Channel? Try reading Lies: and the Lying Liars that Tell Them By Al Franken I know you won't read this book, but it was hilarious and researched by fourteen students from Harvard. FOx news network has Ann Coulter on regularly, well more than regularly. she has these things to say about liberals in her book Slander:
-"Liberals hate America."
-"Liberals hate all religions except fpr Islam."
-"Democrats actually hate working-class people."
-"Liberals hate society."
-"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do."
-"Democrats...will destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power."
-"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
-"Liberals seek to destroy sexual differentiartion in order to destroy morality"
-"That's the whole point of being a liberal: to feel superior to people with less money"
-"Liberals are crazy."

Sounds like a left leaning woman, Hannity is no better, neither is Brit Hume or Neil Cavuto, and he is an economist! What about O'Rielly, he says he is an independent, but is registered as a Republican. Cal Thomas, Pat Buchanan, The Beltway boys. It goes on and on. What about Rush Limbaugh, sure he left, but the damage is done. The only sort of liberal in prime time is Brokaw, and he is just about done.
 
i agree with ann coulter on all but one point. liberals hate all religions but islam, however she should have said liberals embrace all religions, except christianity! lol
seriously though, even if bush wanted to go after iraq 2 weeks after he was in office, he was only following bill clintons regime change policy on iraq. and the u.n.'s own laws stated that any member nation of the u.n. could use military action against iraq for ignoring the u.n. sanctions imposed on them for over 10 years that they just could not follow.
 
just because fox news exists does not prove the media is not leftist. fox is 1 channel not devoted to the left like cnn, cnbc, msnbc, abc, cbs, nbc etc....... the left has every media outlet slanted to it's side except for talk radio( which is why they are so hellbent on destroying it) air america was a huge flop. 1 cable news channel (not network news) and talk radio is all non-leftists have, as opposed to over a dozen network/cable television news, vast majority of newspapers the left has on its side.
 
ivankoloff said:
just because fox news exists does not prove the media is not leftist. fox is 1 channel not devoted to the left like cnn, cnbc, msnbc, abc, cbs, nbc etc....... the left has every media outlet slanted to it's side except for talk radio( which is why they are so hellbent on destroying it) air america was a huge flop. 1 cable news channel (not network news) and talk radio is all non-leftists have, as opposed to over a dozen network/cable television news, vast majority of newspapers the left has on its side.
Click to expand...
Fox is the worst, but not the only, please feel free to post some quotes of Liberal propaganda. Because I have tons of the other kind, and not just from Fox.
 
AJ, you can't base Fox News' bias on Ann Coulter. Clearly she's a political commentator just like having Donna Brazille on would be. You'd have to base it more on reporters and the news show hosts. Otherwise it would be fair to say CNN is liberal because they have James Carville and Paul Begala. I'd still agree Fox News is to the right.

Ivan, I wasn't aware CNBC slanted to the left, though I haven't watched it in a while.
 
Fox news is so far on the right. Go out and watch the movie (documentary) OUTFOXED. To see how unfair and bias Fox News is. Fair and Balenced what a crock of shit that is. Bill Orielly is so far on the right its sickening. Again jdelphi, go out and watch the documentary OUTFOXED.



jdelpi said:
AJ, you can't base Fox News' bias on Ann Coulter. Clearly she's a political commentator just like having Donna Brazille on would be. You'd have to base it more on reporters and the news show hosts. Otherwise it would be fair to say CNN is liberal because they have James Carville and Paul Begala. I'd still agree Fox News is to the right.

Ivan, I wasn't aware CNBC slanted to the left, though I haven't watched it in a while.
Click to expand...
 
jdelpi said:
AJ, you can't base Fox News' bias on Ann Coulter. Clearly she's a political commentator just like having Donna Brazille on would be. You'd have to base it more on reporters and the news show hosts. Otherwise it would be fair to say CNN is liberal because they have James Carville and Paul Begala. I'd still agree Fox News is to the right.

Ivan, I wasn't aware CNBC slanted to the left, though I haven't watched it in a while.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but I do not base my opinion, yes opinion, you can say that the media is Lefty Biased or righty biased, but you can not prove an opinion. But, I do not base my opinion on just Fox news alone. A recent example of ignore newscasting is the Haliburton fiasco. This company stole millions of dollars from our gov't when Cheney was CEO! Where the fuck is the outcry. Haliburton, whose home office is based in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes, does business with Iran, a country that supposedly harbors terrorsists, if any of you pay attention to the news, you would realize that our country would have to attack Haliburton for aiding and abbeting terrorism. As I stated in earlier posts, No Child Left Behind program funds have been locked, no story. Bush said, "The majority of my tax cuts will go to the lower 50%." 14.2 percent went to the lower 50 percent. No story. Any idiot can see that Bush is really raping our environment, between more arsenic in your water and more toxic fumes in the air, the Clear Skies Act was a fruad, no story. BUSH LIED TO GET US INTO A WAR THAT HE WANTED US IN SINCE HIS INAUGURATION, NO STORY. Compare this to Clinton, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitwater, BJ GATE, Murdergate, every fucking gate you can think of, all covered in the media like he was Satan himself. Was there bias and still bias, in my opinion, you're fucking right there is.

About Fox, Coulter is nothing compared to most of these scum bags.

Murdoch-The Owner: Murdoch uses his diverse holdings...to promotr his own financial interests at the expense of real news gathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. he wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.- Columbia Journalism Review. When Murdoch bought the company, Joe Peyronnin, president of Fox News at the time, said, "I had about forty people working for me and he asked some of them if they were liberal or not. There was a litmus test. He was going to figure out who was liberal or conservative when he came in, and try to get rid of the liberals. I resigned." Sounds "Fair and Balanced."

Roger Ailes, he runs the fucking machine, do some research and see for yourself what he has done for the GOP. (He is the Gop's preeminent political consultant for the last four decades, writing the the campaign scripts for Nixon, Reagan, and G. H. W. Bush.

Managing Editor Brit Humes- veteran jounalist who is a contributor to the Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. Both laughably conservtive.

Washington bureau chief Kim Hume(BRIT'S WIFE)- She complained in 97 that all the newstories were, "all mushy, like AIDS, or all silly like Head Start." She wants/ed to change the tone of mainstream news.

Tony Snowe- former speechwriter for the first Bush, editorial page for the Washington Times, stand-in for Rush Limbuagh's show.

O'Reilly, a registered Republican who lies about it and other things and has a nice habit of cutting guests mikes if they are getting the best of him.

Sean Hannity- The show Hannity and Colmes was originally entitled Hannity and Liberal To Be Determined. Colmes is a comedian who has described himself as a "moderate" Hannity happens to yell over Colmes at every opportunity. it's a funny show to watch.

This lsit covers the major positions at Fox News. They, of course, are unbiased and "Fair and Balanced.' They urge you that they will report and you will decide. This channel is utter bullshit.
 
TD said:
:rolleyes: Yada, yada, yada. Kindly tell me the last time your Bengals made the playoffs, and we'll switch from politics to sports.
"No child left behind is soon to replaced by one president left behind."
Click to expand...
well...um...okay...well...uhh....
nevermind... ;)
 
AJ, I don't doubt members of the media are biased. They are humans just like you and me. You point to your examples. Consider these:
Bush reversed the Clinton ruling on arsenic. The media DID cover this very closely with Tom Daschle saying Bush was trying to kill us all. Rarely, if at all, did the media mention Clinton made this executive order in the 11th hour of his administration's tenure.

I recall watching Senator Robert Byrd, former Democratic majority leader and at the time president pro tempore refer to "white my pals." Robert Byrd is also a former Ku Klux Klan member. I didn't see any uproar at all over his comment. When Trent Lott made his moronic comments about how Strom Thurmond should have been elected president, there was justifiably an uproar. No doubt, Lott's comments were deplorable, but I would expect the same thing for the third person in the presidential line of succession.

During the Chadra Levy story when Gary Condit was at the center of attention, the media constantly referred to him as a "conservative." However, he only had a 48% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. They rarely even mentioned the man was a Democrat.

Most of what I think about when talking about liberal bias is very subtle. Conservatives (mind you, I am not a conservative) are described with such terms as "hardline." Liberals are not called "hardline." Those who support gun control are "advocates," yet those who oppose gun control are "lobbyists." When Clinton reversed Ronald Reagan's executive order on abortion funding he was just "fulfilling a campaign promise" but when Bush II changed it back he was "being controversial." (Not stating an opinion on the matter. I am just saying both presidents did both but they were described much differently.) I also find the media absolutely clueless about the general consensus of economists on such issues as trade and minimum wage laws.

I already said Fox news goes to the right. It's no secret Republicans like to watch it.

For the record, I hate Bill O'Reilly and rarely watch news on TV anymore. Sometimes the local news, just because I want local news and don't want to read it.

Oh, and Greta Van Susteren was a Clinton supporter.

I think the general lesson is to seek out news in a variety of places.
 
ajdeath, go to kerryoniraq.com and watch the movie. everyone who is considering voting for him needs to watch his flip-flops and the 180 degree turn his opinions made after he decided to run for president. when fox news plays one of those clips they are part of the right wing attack machine. if kerry were a republican those clips/quotes would be all over tv/newspapers all the way through november. but he is a liberal and gets a free pass.
 
ivankoloff said:
ajdeath, go to kerryoniraq.com and watch the movie. everyone who is considering voting for him needs to watch his flip-flops and the 180 degree turn his opinions made after he decided to run for president. when fox news plays one of those clips they are part of the right wing attack machine. if kerry were a republican those clips/quotes would be all over tv/newspapers all the way through november. but he is a liberal and gets a free pass.
Click to expand...
Let me tell you some of my history. When I was seventeen, I hated Clinton, I thought he was ruining this country, I was big on Pat Buchanan and Alan keyes. I was very, very conservative. I thought that conservatism meant supporting the constitution, preserving states rights, retaining my privacy. I was a Born Again Christian and thought I knew what was what. I read the books and had arguments with liberals. I was vocal about it. I have learned a lot about myself since, and I know that me being a consevative is not apart of who I am. Neither is being a Liberal in the way that most people see it. But, I do know where conservtives are coming from, I was one, no joking. I have come to see the neo conservative movement as one of the most selfish political point of views ever encountered in this country. This is my opinion, as I stated before, opinions are how poeple see things, and how somebody might "see" something might not always be the case. I always leave the possibility open that I may be wrong about what I think and my views. That is being truly liberal. To tell the truth, after 9-11 I was ready to become a neo con, then I saw the way Bush and co. were truly handling things, a war against a tactic of war(terrorism), going after Afghanistan for a pipe line, and presumably women's rights and Osama. And just how incredibly smug these people were. From my earlier posts you can see what I think I know about conservatism and Bush. but the statistic that got me recently was the Kill total in Iraq. You would think that with under 1000 casualties of war this country has incurred that Iraq has a similar number of dead. In fact Iraq has lost more than 10,000 lives of soldiers and civilians during our quest to "liberate" their country. Enough said, I am against the war. Bush has done enough to secure my vote for his Democratic counterpart. I do not care what Kerry flip flops on, I believe he does not believe in killing human beings under false pretenses. I believe this because he has killed another human being in the name of his country. No matter what the Bush campaign says, Kerry's milatry record is legit. They say that men from his unit dispute this fact. Well, then why did all of these men stand with him on stage at the DNC?

The fact of the matter is that we see the world in a completely different angle, who is right is irrelevant.

I will. however keep posting interesting information on why I feel this way. Iv'e got plenty of reasons still to go.:heh:
 
BTW, watched the movie, and seems to me that most of it is out of context (but not all) and the movie makers opinion. The information covered by the movie is nothing new to me. I know Kerry's record on Iraq, for Christ's sake the way the newschannel's have been blasting it in our faces how could I not? But it has always seemed to me that when Kerry said these things over a period of years, he really believed in what he was saying, the fact that he was lied to and misled this time may have led to the current flip flop. But I may be wrong.:D
 
lied to and misled...... like bush with every motherfucking country telling him iraq had wmd's????? most of that was not taken out of context, so when he said he was worried about saddam passing along his wmd's to terrorists that was out of context? he believed in what he was saying just like bush did, only the media calls bush a liar for saying the same things. that is my whole problem. kerry even said regime change was inevitable, even without the support of our allies. 10,000 lives aren't worth liberating a country of 20,000,000???? we only lost 1000 soldiers and we liberated 20 million!!! how is that not worth it?? over 60,000 were lost in vietnam and hundreds of thousands were lost in WWII and the civil war, technology has allowed our casualties go down by huge numbers. don't give me that bleeding heart anti-war bullshit. and kerry's vietnam record is not legit, 2 out of 3 purple hearts he was awarded didn't even come under enemy fire, which is a requirement of a purple heart. 4 months in vietnam---3 purple hearts=0 days in the hospital???????? 3 purple hearts in 4 months is an incredible feat...... spending 0 days in the hospital for them is unimaginable. legit war record my ass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jurched
NO Insane McCain! NO Barack Hussein!
Replies
281
Views
14K
Billy Milano
Jerry Jabber
J
Xalon Niles
This is Insane. I wish I lived in Canada.
Replies
61
Views
1K
Chat
Fuþorc
F
SueNC
Hiroshima in the UK?
Replies
2
Views
463
Billy Milano
SueNC
S
nsavan
Against The Grain
Replies
24
Views
825
Billy Milano
Arg_Hamster
A
NAD
Bush v. Al-jazeera
Replies
5
Views
253
RC
lizard
L
Top Bottom
Back